|
Clarification question on Deadly Backswing: what is full str damage in this case, 1x or 1.5x for the two handed?
I missed this question of yours.
The feat "backswing" (alpha rules) applies only half the characters str dmg upon making the second attack.
this talent allows that to be full str dmg. (which would be whatever they normally apply for dmg for that weapon.) Since Backswing feat only applied to a two-handed weapon, it would be 1.5 Str.
In this case, it's very similar to Cleave.
Robert
|
|
I have looked at them. I think there can be other ideas though :)
For your shield ally, I would be inclined to just do a flat upto your dex bonus worth of allies (minimum 1). Odds are there won't be many people in contact with you anyway, so why bother upgrading it when you could pick something completely different instead?
Dex mod could work. Usually those with high dex don't use shields - so I doubt that it would unbalance things.
The whole parry thing, with the "readied action" just seems too involved. It takes a lot of explaining, so I think it would slow things down too much.
Hmmm.. Really? Your experiences may be different, but Ready an Action is a tactic that my group uses quite frequently (following the general rules of Ready An Action in the combat section of the PHB); so it's pretty commonplace and we're used to that tactic - it really doesn't slow us down much. YMMV.
Did anyone catch the fact that defender requires shield specialization, and shield specialization requires defender?Eric
You're confusing the Shield Specialization "feat" that is required to begin taking those talents, with the talent called "Shield Specialist" which adds one more to the AC. However, I can certainly see how it could be confusing. I think what i'll do is re-name the talent to Shield Mastery instead of specialist to avoid further confusion.
Robert
|
|
I suspect with the armour tree for fighters, we will see a few more points in dex, but not all that much. +2 would be about as much as I would expect in a non-godlike character, with the majority coming under that. I'm glad you like the idea.
I hadn't thought of that. Dex mods are indeed be more lucrative for armored fighters now....and probably more apt to be higher now....
Robert
I suspect with the armour tree for fighters, we will see a few more points in dex, but not all that much. +2 would be about as much as I would expect in a non-godlike character, with the majority coming under that. I'm glad you like the idea.
I hadn't thought of that. Dex mods are indeed be more lucrative for armored fighters now....and probably more apt to be higher now....
Robert
Yeah, I think even light armored fighters with high Dexterity scores will benefit from that. They might not even need a light armor chain to maintain a AC close to the high armor character.
Having just looked at fighter in the rules it seems a little underpowered especially at low levels. Why be a fighter when you can be a barbarian instead and get all those cool rage abilities. I think that there are a few nice changes e.g the bonus armour skill and weapon class but nothing else too funky.
The other thing I was confused about was what is the difference between cleave and backhand swing, apart from the fact that backhand swing doesn't let you use your full strength bonus?
|
|
Having just looked at fighter in the rules it seems a little underpowered especially at low levels. Why be a fighter when you can be a barbarian instead and get all those cool rage abilities. I think that there are a few nice changes e.g the bonus armour skill and weapon class but nothing else too funky.
As written, I agree with you.
Do the talents help you consider the fighter a good option vs the barbarian?
I designed them for that purpose.
The other thing I was confused about was what is the difference between cleave and backhand swing, apart from the fact that backhand swing doesn't let you use your full strength bonus?
As written as of Alpha 3, Cleave only hits a 2nd target who was adjacent to the first target. Backhand swing can allow you to hit two foes that are essentially flanking you. My guess - since backhand swing is for two-handed weapons only, the flavor/thought of it is that the weapon is larger and thus can make such a maneuver more possible than say a light mace - in which case Cleave would be your option.
That all being said - I've mentioned this a lot of times - the 2handed-weapon wielder has gotten a lot of love from the PF alpha rules - as well as the two-weapon wielder. Others have not. The Talents I designed were to help smooth all that over.
Regardless, this may be changing etc with Beta - since the mechanic of "combat feats" are changing, your guess is as good as mine for how these will be changed.
Robert
|
Okay, this is for the Alpha 3 discussion on fighters.
I have been playtesting the rules on fighters for the last two sessions. I have two offerings that increased the likelihood my players (randomly pulled in one session from the local game store--munchkin tendencies; from the other a strong group of role-players who are helping me playtest Pathfinder but are veterans of AD&D 1st through 3.5)
1. Restoring the general feat progression to what it was under the SRD increases the likelihood of selecting a fighter as a PC. In economics terms, it makes the fighter's comparative advantage better in the area of having the best opportunity to gather an impressive number of feats. It makes the fighter more distinctive.
2. Adding a CMB bonus of +1/2 the fighter's class level adds enough flavor, along with the added features of Pathfinder, to make a fighter 20 an appealing build when compared with other combat-oriented base classes.
Neither adjustment harms backward compatibility nor interferes with the niches carved out for other classes.
Levels Tested: 6, 12, 18
Hours of Play: 5 hours each session, or 30 hours total
PCs involved in groups: 4 (role players) 8 (munchkins)
|
The above quote is interesting, I'll have to try those alterations.
Anyhow, I quite like the talent system that has been proposed, but I think there should be a ranged combat talent tree. Yes, rangers can cover that "niche", but they are so focused as "hunters" that the ranged-combat specialist sniper is left out of core. I always liked using fighters as ranged specialists, and I wouldn't like them ignored as such.
I like the Alpha 3 fighter exactly as it is. Fighters already have supreme flexability, they get a bonus feat every other level. They just needed some more muscle, and now they have it.
Yea, don't you just hate posts like this? "I disagree with your thread." Nothing constructive what-so-ever, you might as well have just scrolled past it.
Just say'in.
If it helps, I guess one change I could get behind is a little more first-level flexability: i.e, one or two options for the fighter to take in place of armor proficiencies.
One of the most common things I've heard as a dm (and, once or twice, said as a player) is "I'm playing a swashbuckler, I don't want heavy armor; can I trade it for something?"
Doubly true now that Armor Training encourages the use of bulkier armors (by making them less bulky).
|
|
well i just spent hours reading the whole thread and your comment is said maybe many all through here, if you had taken the time to see what Robert respond was you wouldnt have wasted the time posted. I will tell you what he will say to your post.
YES fighters get LOTS of feats ANYONE can take, what they are missing is something they can call their own, EVERY other class has stuff that no other can do, so why not fighter? that is the WHOLE point of this LONG LONG thread. i like what is being worked on here. Me i am just going use Tomb of battle and remove "fighter", using those classes from that book, but thats me, and if in the beta they got some cool new fighter class i look at it and decide if i will use it, but has is i wont be using it.
Thanks, Steve.
I know it's not for everyone. But it seems to fit and some seem to like it. Different strokes for different folks. We're playtesting this stuff and my players like it.
It does give the fighter an identity in combat for sure.
That was my goal.
Robert
|
|
The above quote is interesting, I'll have to try those alterations.
Anyhow, I quite like the talent system that has been proposed, but I think there should be a ranged combat talent tree. Yes, rangers can cover that "niche", but they are so focused as "hunters" that the ranged-combat specialist sniper is left out of core. I always liked using fighters as ranged specialists, and I wouldn't like them ignored as such.
I wasn't sure if I really wanted to encroach on the Ranger's toes that way of archers....with figthers ability to wear any armor along with their feats - they could wind up being far superior, and I am trying to be cognizant to that.
If you have some specific ideas of tricks/talents that would be cool and iconic for a fighter/archer, I'd be interested in reading them....
Robert
I know it's not for everyone. But it seems to fit and some seem to like it. Different strokes for different folks. We're playtesting this stuff and my players like it.
Yep, spot on.
I actually don't think the fighter should have anything unique. It's an idea that I actively oppose and feel goes against the spirit of the class; and I like fighters. I think the fighter needs to be generic; and if you try to mantain that goal by producing myriad branching "paths" for him then you are just doing what feats do already, only much less elegantly, and with less flexability. Your time would be better spentwriting new feats for him. Getting a feat at every character level is, I think, what makes the fighter unique and special.
That's not what I posted the first time because I didn't mean to get back into the arguement; it didn't strike me as a fruitful debate. If you're here, you clearly disagree with me, and that's totally cool. This one is strictly a matter of taste.
re: archery, I don't think you have to worry about stepping on the ranger's toes. As far as weapon styles go he's the fighter's little brother and he knows it; his power comes from all the things he can do that a fighter can't (and hopefully there'll be more of them in Beta).
One thing I noticed about Armor Mastery is that it rewards any sort of dex-fiend fighter. Getting a +6 dex bonus in fullplate (or +8 in breastplate, or +10 in chain shirt) is a pretty sweet deal.
At fighter level 1st, you make a choice of a Power, Agility, or Endurance-based fighter. At 1st, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th levels you gain a class feature based on your choice.
I just stopped in to voice my absolute, and I mean absolute disdain for this idea. I enjoy the pathfinder alpha 3 fighter very much. I feel that at 20th he's truly the master of fighting, and that's exactly the way it should be. (And he'll get even better as more combat feats are released/balanced out). If the powers that be take a bite of the sh*t twinkie and decide to go with this "builds" or "talent tree" fighter idea, I'll be saddened to have to tell my group that a @#$%ing sh*tty idea is the reason we're switching back to pure 3.5 after we've already switched to pathfinder and are excited to see the beta.
At fighter level 1st, you make a choice of a Power, Agility, or Endurance-based fighter. At 1st, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th levels you gain a class feature based on your choice.I just stopped in to voice my absolute, and I mean absolute disdain for this idea. I enjoy the pathfinder alpha 3 fighter very much. I feel that at 20th he's truly the master of fighting, and that's exactly the way it should be. (And he'll get even better as more combat feats are released/balanced out). If the powers that be take a bite of the sh*t twinkie and decide to go with this "builds" or "talent tree" fighter idea, I'll be saddened to have to tell my group that a @#$%ing sh*tty idea is the reason we're switching back to pure 3.5 after we've already switched to pathfinder and are excited to see the beta.
Well. That was... dramatic.
You do realize that when Beta comes out, they aren't going to take away your Alpha 3 pdf, right..?
|
|
Hydro lies. They will undownload it. Fear for your game!
Pardon the cruel joke. Anyhow, I like either more fighter-specific combat feats or the tier system. Each has their merits; the feats allows for a more generic fighter, while the tier system lets him be more specific in focus. What if there was a group of feats that were specific to fighters that scaled like the talent system that has been brainstormed on this thread? That way, the fighter would be the ultimate tabula rasa. Build it however you want. I like that idea...
As for my idea for a ranged fighter talent, here it goes. This is just the first "talent" that a fighter could take and would be the prime prerequisite for the rest of the tree.
As a full round action, you may make a sniper attack with a ranged weapon you are proficient with. You make one ranged attack at a -2 penalty. If the attack hits, you may add your Dexterity modifier to the damage you deal. This ability provokes attacks of opportunity and the focus required gives you a -2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn. A fighter cannot use this ability if he is wearing medium or heavier armor or is carrying more than a light load.
Well, what do you think? I think it is pretty balanced, but I haven't really tested it.
... undownload ...
I giggled.
Fish's proposal sounds like a terrible idea to me. I like the openness of the feat system, love the way the fighter is wedded to it without it being exclusively his, and hate the idea of there existing a martial technique which a sufficiently trained member of another class can't (eventually) get.
Which is how I know I've overstayed my welcome in this thread.
Have fun boys, was just chimming in.
|
|
I actually don't think the fighter should have anything unique. It's an idea that I actively oppose and feel goes against the spirit of the class; and I like fighters. I think the fighter needs to be generic; and if you try to mantain that goal by producing myriad branching "paths" for him then you are just doing what feats do already, only much less elegantly, and with less flexability. Your time would be better spentwriting new feats for him. Getting a feat at every character level is, I think, what makes the fighter unique and special.
yes we obviously and definitely disagree.
basically the talents are feats. Just taken a different way. A fighter can choose to take a talent feat or a standard feat - (the latter be no different from the Alpha whatsoever).
So there' no forcing any fighter to take one or the other.
An opinion that a fighter should never have anything unique is definitely somethine we'll always disagree on, and this then is certainly not for you. Nothing wrong with that. Just different.
Happy Gaming,
Robert
|
|
At fighter level 1st, you make a choice of a Power, Agility, or Endurance-based fighter. At 1st, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th levels you gain a class feature based on your choice.I just stopped in to voice my absolute, and I mean absolute disdain for this idea.
Well for the record, this is not what I have been suggesting. My line of thinking is options, and the fighter can choose feats of a certain tree, or not of a certain tree, or multiple various trees if thats what he wants. The only difference if that the fighter talent feats are for fighters only and build upon what they are doing. Just as there are bard-song related bard only feats, and wildshape druid only feats (sure there could be other classes that somehow work in these abilities that could then make them appropriate for these feats - but as it stands the bard and the druid are the only two core classes with these abilities and thus those feats are for them only).
Robert
Above all, I think the Fighter needs to get things that are clearly something unique to the class alone. Every single other class gets something unique, whether it's a spell list, a method of spellcasting, or a series of abilities... they have SOMETHING no one else can do.
The Fighter needs this BADLY. And if it's a new mechanic, the better.
|
Here is an evaluation of some of what's been suggested here.
1. Better feat choices
2. Progressively increasing combat maneuver bonus
3. Talent trees
4. more fighter-only feat choices
5. better class skill menu
6. 4 + Int mod. skill ranks per level
1. Definitely. Too often, at least from my cursory looking around, it seems that Fighter feats have gotten *weaker.* If there was a class that desperately needed to be adjusted downwards, it sure wasn't the Fighter...
2. Yeah.
3. Not sure about this. The Ranger's Combat Styles are only one way of doing things, and I think I prefer the Fighter being more open.
4. Nah. I don't like restrictions on Feats. If a Paladin or Ranger or Barbarian can meet the prerequisites, they should be able to use just about any Feat that a Fighter can use. They just shouldn't be able to do *everything* that a Fighter of equal level can do!
4. Yup.
5. Definitely. 4+ Int Mod should be as low as it goes, IMO.
What the Fighter needs, IMO, is class abilities, not *just* more and better feats (and the ability to make use of more than one combat feat in a round).
Sample class abilities;
1) A straight bonus to damage (+1/odd level) with all ranged or melee weapon attacks and all unarmed attacks would be one such power. +1 at 1st level, +2 at 3rd level, all the way to +10 at 19th level.
2) The option to make single mighty blows, rather than iterative attacks. For every 5 pts by which you beat the targets AC, you add one weapon die to the attack. If I hit by 10 with a longsword, I do 3d8+whatever.
3) Armor optimization options. When a Fighter wears Light Armor, he adds another +1 to AC. When he wears Medium Armor, he adds +2 over and above the armor bonus. When he wears Heavy Armor, he adds +3, so that a Paladin in Masterwork Full-plate gets a +8 armor bonus, while a Fighter in that same armor gets a +11 armor bonus. The Fighter takes extra time putting on his armor (twice as long, if he wants the bonus, although he can don it quickly and not get the bonus, in an emergency), but gets more out of it than a member of another class.
A Shield optimization proficiency or Feat would also follow logically from this.
4) The option to turn in unwanted Armor / Shield proficiencies for Dodge bonuses to AC. If the Fighter is a swashbuckler who sails the high seas, or a desert-dwelling dervish, that Heavy Armor proficiency is about as useful as breasts on a Dragonborn. Turning in Heavy Armor prof grants a +1 Dodge bonus to AC. Turning in Medium Armor prof grants another +1 Dodge bonus to AC. Turning in Light Armor prof grants a third +1 Dodge bonus to AC. Turning in proficiency in all Shields grants yet another Dodge bonus to AC. So that swashbuckler might choose to stick to a mithral chain shirt and a buckler, turning in only his Heavy and Medium Armor proficiencies for a +2 Dodge bonus to AC. If he ever chooses to strap on a suit of full-plate, not only does he suffer the usual non-proficiency penalties, but he also loses his +2 Dodge bonus to AC.
As for 'more and better feats,' I'd prefer that any Fighter be able to learn combat options more sophisticated than attack, trip, disarm, sunder.
A Fighter should be able to apply various Conditions through precise attacks, such as an attack that Lames a target by striking the leg (similar to the effect of Caltrops), or restricts their vision by opening a bleeding wound over the eye(s), or renders them incapable of speech with a strike to the throat, or sickens/nauseates them with a shot to a sensitive area. Almost every Condition in the DMG could be inflicted, depending on weapon used and / or body area struck, from Dazed to Dazzled to Deafened.
Each such effect could be a two-stage effect. If the Fighter strikes to blind a foe, the foe might get a Fortitude save to resist the effect, and if failed, be blinded for one round (and get to roll again to lessen the effect each round after). If/when the save is made, the target is only Dazzled, with additional saves to fully clear their vision.
If he strikes to mute a spellcaster, a save might result in a Hoarse condition, which only gives a 20% chance of spell failure (similar to Deafened), instead of the full Mute Condition. Each round, the spellcaster would get a roll to regain his voice (or lessen the Condition to Hoarse, if fully Muted).
IMO, adding these sorts of Condition-afflicting strikes to the Fighter's repertoire will give the Fighter many more options in a combat round than the current attack/trip/disarm/sunder options. Depending on how they are implemented, Trip and Disarm can be added to these options, with 'lesser' Conditions (Unbalanced (lose Dex bonus to AC), Unreadied weapon (spend an action re-Readying)) being added to these older options.
|
|
Above all, I think the Fighter needs to get things that are clearly something unique to the class alone. Every single other class gets something unique, whether it's a spell list, a method of spellcasting, or a series of abilities... they have SOMETHING no one else can do.
The Fighter needs this BADLY. And if it's a new mechanic, the better.
@Kaisoku,
Much of what you're advocating are things I've addressed and begun to design and already playtesting with my players. I've posted and discussed them on this thread.@ Set,
your suggestions of Armor optimizations, Shield optimizations, dodge bonuses for swashbuckler types. AND i've added more class features as you suggest,. and "leanrn combat options more sophisticated than...."
@ James Lewis,
you mention a "nimble, an offensive, and a defensive stance that fighters can be trained in. Coincidentally - those are the three basic talen trees that I designed and posted back on page 2 of this thread: The Swashbuckler, Juggernaut, and Defender respectively is what they're called.
I may be biased - but I truly feel the talents are doing the very things you're all advocating. Just wondering if you've seen them?
Robert
|
|
#3 would probably be the toughest one to implement given limited page space and the emphasis on backwards compatibility. Player with a desire for more options can still check out tactical feats and read up on combat maneuvers. Certain items, both mundane and magical, can give a fighter player more options in both combat-related and non-combat related gameplay.
Nice summary, QM.
What I was thinking for #3 - I realize it's a lot of write-up; but like the wizards specialist school info which is not found with the wizard write-up, but later in the book under spells, the same mentality can be brought to this - not in the write up of the fighter - but back in the combat section or in the feats sections that details teh various talents.
Robert
|
|
Well, this is a solution that I'm implementing in my campaign. Whenever a fighter gains a bonus feat, he can instead choose a maneuver from ToB that he has all the prerequisites for. He treats his fighter level as his initiator level in all respects. He doesn't have access to Desert Wind, or Shadow Hand, but other than that, he can pick any maneuver or stance he has the prereqs for.
I know this isn't OGL-friendly, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It means I don't have to change the base of the current 3.P fighter and it lets it do some very cool stuff, within limits.
Also, does the armor specialization ability function with shields? If it doesn't, it should. Sword and Board was used almost universally for 2000 years for a reason, and DnD should show its effectiveness.
|
|
So a point that could be mentioned in this think tank is the Monk Weapon Group. Must the fighter take weapon prof. and improved unarmed strike before the Monk weapon group is a viable option? Or, does focusing in that group automatically make one proficient in the use of those weapons? That seems to need some clarification in my opinion, because as is, there is little reason to chose the group.
TwinSteel
Robert,
Like a couple other people have mentioned in this thread, I'd like to see these talents made into feats anyone could take. Your fighter is vastly improved from the Alpha 3 fighter and I would gladly play it in a game, but I'd like to see the options opened up for the other classes and make the fighter special by the fact that they have a lot of feats.
In fact, I'd like to see the feat progression go back to 1 every 3 character levels for all characters and make feats in general better instead of giving out more 'little bonuses'. Make feats scale somewhat with BAB or perhaps a skill that makes sense for the feat and have some of the cool class abilities from splat books be feats (such as you've done with your talents and the swashbuckler). If there were enough good feats out there to take, the fighter could still excel in it's own way.
Do you have a working document of your latest fighter? I wouldn't mind getting a copy so I could play around with them and think it over some more.
The option to turn in unwanted Armor / Shield proficiencies for Dodge bonuses to AC.
I use this variant class feature in my homebrew campaign:
GRACEFUL WARRIOR
Level: 1st level Fighter or Paladin.
Replaces: Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency. You may not regain these proficiencies, even if you multiclass into another class allowing medium and heavy armor proficiency.
Benefit: You gain the Grace and Dodge class features, as if you were a Swashbuckler of the same level as your fighter or paladin level.
Obviously this won't work for Pathfinder due to copyright issues on the Swashbuckler, but a similar scaling bonus could be easily worked out.
|
|
Do you have a working document of your latest fighter? I wouldn't mind getting a copy so I could play around with them and think it over some more.
Sorry, Eric, I didn't see this post before now.
Yes I have a working document of the fighter w/ his talents. I've come up with some archery and two-weapon fighting ones, as well; but not nearly as many as the other three iconic builds that I have posted here. The movie "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie gave me my favorite brainstorm - an archery feat that allows an archer to fire an arrow to intercept an incoming arrow and knock it out of the air to prevent it from hitting you or a companion....
The fighter write-up is now a part of a much larger document as I am in the process of writing my variant of the 3.5 OGL combat system - based on the conversations you and I have been involved with about the movement and attacks, from other threads, as well as re-writing some of the classes, skills, feats, a Vitality and Stamina system of hit points, and rewriting spells (specifically save or dies) to fit a style of play for my players and I - catered to our preferences.
I'm about 25% complete now - up to about 35 pages; but I'm making good progress.
I've spoken to a lawyer already about copyright laws, as it relates to OGL, and he's helping me with that; I'm seriously considering marketing the variant as Pathfinder compatible supplement game-system some day.
In response to your thoughts about the talents, however; personally, I do not intend to have the talents available to all classes. This brain-child of mine was inspired by so many people lamenting the fact that fighters do not have a "special" niche to call their own - the don't have a special class feature (other than weapon specialization) that really sets them apart from the other classes and that makes the fighter more than just a splash class. The talents no longer makes the class a "splash class" It incentivizes players to play fighters as fighters - not for 2 levels and go on to rogue.
Unanimously, all my players - as we playtest my new game system I'm developing - state that they've never enjoyed playing just fighters - and now they love it and can't wait to try one for real in a campaign (not just a playtest session).
Robert
|
|
The option to turn in unwanted Armor / Shield proficiencies for Dodge bonuses to AC.I use this variant class feature in my homebrew campaign:
GRACEFUL WARRIOR
Level: 1st level Fighter or Paladin.
Replaces: Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency. You may not regain these proficiencies, even if you multiclass into another class allowing medium and heavy armor proficiency.
Benefit: You gain the Grace and Dodge class features, as if you were a Swashbuckler of the same level as your fighter or paladin level.Obviously this won't work for Pathfinder due to copyright issues on the Swashbuckler, but a similar scaling bonus could be easily worked out.
Thats pretty cool Kirth. I like this.
Robert