|
I'm still working on a more thorough analysis of the combat options available to the various warrior classes under the Alpha 3 system, but something I wanted to go ahead and address is the relative weakness of the one-handed weapon or "sword-and-board" style.
Under the 3.5 system, there are really only two ways for a melee warrior-type to lay down significant damage: Either by wielding a two-handed weapon and focusing on strength (which provides a multiplied benefit, especially with Power Attack), or by using two weapons (and maximizing "per-hit" damage bonuses such as sneak attack).
Theoretically, each of those combat styles trades their increased damage potential for a lower AC than the sword-and-shield warrior. At low levels, that's generally true. But by mid-levels, there are numerous options (animated shields, or feats such as Improved Buckler Defense) that allow the two-handed or two-weapon fighter to grab essentially the same AC bonus as the sword-and-boarder. And by that time, the sword-and-board warrior has fallen so far behind in the damage department he's doing only about half the damage the others are.
Several of the shield-focused feats in the Alpha document address this somewhat by effectively turning the sword-and-boarder into a two-weapon fighter. That's fine, for some characters, but one thing I'd like to see preserved in Pathfinder is the ability to build a fighter as an entry-level" character, built primarily with feats that offer static bonuses rather those that offer more complicated combat options.
As I said, I'm still working through the Alpha combat feats to assess their relative worth to each of the fighting styles (feats like Deadly Stroke or Devastating Blow, for example, are most beneficial to the two-handed fighter, who has the greatest damage potential per single blow and thus suffers less for giving up additional attacks). But none of the new feats appear to give the needed boost to warriors who wield a single one-handed weapon. After wrestling with it a while, I came up with this, which is both simple and (I think, anyway) elegant.
Practiced Assault
By focusing on a single weapon, you are able to level a precise series of blows against an opponent.
Requirement: Base attack bonus +6
Benefit:As a full attack action with a one-handed melee weapon, all of your iterative attacks are made at your highest attack bonus. This feat does not apply if you attack with a shield or weapon in your off-hand, wield a one-handed weapon in two hands, or use the monk's flurry of blows ability.
Normal: Iterative attacks are made at successively lower attack bonuses (ie. +11/+6/+1).
By doing away with the penalty for iterative attacks, this actually simplifies the system for players who prefer an uncomplicated character, and reinforces the single weapon fighter's schtick -- accuracy -- compared to 2-handers (raw damage per strike) or 2-weapon fighter's (number of strikes). With the pre-requisite of BAB +6, a fighter (who has a bonus feat at even levels) can take it immediately upon gaining a second attack.
I've run some numbers for mid- to high-level fighters: in most situations the sword-and-boarder with the above feat was doing 75-80 percent average damage per round compared to a similar fighter built for two-handed fighting (compared to 1/2 to 2/3 the damage without the feat) which I think is about right.
I'll try to follow up with some additional ideas. In general, I really like the changes Jason has made to the various warrior classes. I think the feats available, however, will ultimately have a big effect on how effective/balanced classes like the fighter, paladin and monk are in combat.
Any thoughts?
|
Check out Vital Strike (Alpha 3, p. 73) You sacrifice attacks to get more damage dice.
I'm not sure about the balance of simply having all iterative attacks at the highest BAB. You would have to sacrifice something, such as not applying the STR modifier, reducing the weapon's base damage die, disallowing crits, etc.
It could use a weapon specific feat (Greater Weapon Focus) or second level Weapon Training as a prerequisite.
|
|
Check out Vital Strike (Alpha 3, p. 73) You sacrifice attacks to get more damage dice.
I'm not sure about the balance of simply having all iterative attacks at the highest BAB. You would have to sacrifice something, such as not applying the STR modifier, reducing the weapon's base damage die, disallowing crits, etc.
It could use a weapon specific feat (Greater Weapon Focus) or second level Weapon Training as a prerequisite.
If you run the math, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike are pretty much always a bad idea for a 1-handed fighter. They're better for two-weapon fighter (who has extra attacks at low bonuses to sacrifice) or an enlarged two-handed fighter (who gets bigger bonus dice). VS is BEST for a monk, who gets the best of both worlds.
And as far as the balance of the suggested feat -- the sword-and-board fighter has already made a sacrifice -- he's not wielding a two-handed weapon or attacking with his off-hand. If you look at the average damage for a sword-and-boarder from mid-level on up, he's WAY behind TWF and 2-hander fighters. Forcing a trade-off (less damage for a greater chance of hitting) isn't going to help average damage. He needs a straight-up boost.
I would prefer not to see someone wielding two weapons or a two-handed weapon getting a shield bonus, whether that be from an animated shield or say the Shield spell. I don't think the one weapon fighter necessarily needs extra damage to balance them, but the mechanics definitely need to maintain their edge in AC.
|
|
And as far as the balance of the suggested feat -- the sword-and-board fighter has already made a sacrifice -- he's not wielding a two-handed weapon or attacking with his off-hand.
No, he swapped additional attacks or a higher bonus from STR for a higher AC. That's not a sacrifice.
If you look at the average damage for a sword-and-boarder from mid-level on up, he's WAY behind TWF and 2-hander fighters. Forcing a trade-off (less damage for a greater chance of hitting) isn't going to help average damage. He needs a straight-up boost.
He should be behind. He makes fewer attacks and doesn't multiply his STR bonus. He gets better AC instead and the shield-based feats.
I'm not sure why similar average damage is desirable when the character is not taking advantage of the rules which improve damage dealing.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I agree that you trade damage for AC. Your role as a sword and boarder is quite literally meatshield. Focus on Con, be a dwarf and go for Dwarven Defender. Your job is to hold the line, not dish damage.
In 3.5 a tank forced big monsters to choose not to power attack in order to hit the tank at all. If you're standing between the monster and the squishies your doing your job.
Now with the changes to Power Attack in the Alpha rules this is gonna change, so we gotta see how the playtests work out...
I'd like to see sword-and-boarders get more love too. I also think there should be an option to fight with just a one handed weapon, like the 3 musketeers or Inyigo Montoya. I always thought something like +1 dodge AC per 4 BAB would be a reasonable trade-off.
Actually, all the Duelist PrC gives for one-weapon only fighters is an extra +1d6 precision based damage at 11th and 16th level (at the earliest). According to the wording, you can get the rest of the benefits as long as you aren't wearing armor or shield (you can still use weapons in your other hand).
What I think would be neat is a feat that grants you a bonus to CMB if you keep your offhand free. This makes a lot of sense, and has precedence with the Grapple feat have a penalty for no hands free, etc.
Unless your talking about a tower shield, the differnce in AC between a 1hweap & shield vs 2hweapon or 2WF is only 1. That 1 point of AC does not make up for the loss in dmg output from the other two styles.
Again, the difference between a buckler and a heavy shield is only 1. The bukler can get all the same defensive enchantments as a heavy shield.
Only charcter classes that can't concentrate all thier points on one melee stat should go 1hweap and shield after the first few levels.
There's always the "cheese" weapon/shield fighter that can significantly boost AC:
Take Deft Shield, Shield Mastery, Shield Slam, and Two-Weapon Fighting. Get a large magic shield with defending shield spikes and always attack with both your weapon and shield in a full-attack while applying the maximum defending bonus.
Unless your talking about a tower shield, the differnce in AC between a 1hweap & shield vs 2hweapon or 2WF is only 1. That 1 point of AC does not make up for the loss in dmg output from the other two styles.A heavy shield gives +2 to AC.
yes a heavy shield is +2.. a buckler is +1... a difference of +1... 2WF an 2hweapon fighters use bucklers and so are only down 1 AC...
There's always the "cheese" weapon/shield fighter that can significantly boost AC:
Take Deft Shield, Shield Mastery, Shield Slam, and Two-Weapon Fighting. Get a large magic shield with defending shield spikes and always attack with both your weapon and shield in a full-attack while applying the maximum defending bonus.
Yes, but i think the OP is stating that a 1h weapon and shield fighter should be as viable as 2handed or 2weapon fighters without having to resort to shield bashing. And under the current rules it is way underpowered unless you go the shield bashing root and still suboptimal to the 2handed fighter with a buckler if using the shield bashing.
|
yes a heavy shield is +2.. a buckler is +1... a difference of +1... 2WF an 2hweapon fighters use bucklers and so are only down 1 AC...Unless your talking about a tower shield, the differnce in AC between a 1hweap & shield vs 2hweapon or 2WF is only 1. That 1 point of AC does not make up for the loss in dmg output from the other two styles.A heavy shield gives +2 to AC.
You are referring to this rule:
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.
Maybe you should re-read the rule, I've added emphasis to help.
Sword and board typically gets +2 to +4 for magic shields at higher levels. Even +2 is a good bump.
-- Dennis
I did not see this posted but a sword and boarder also has the ability to add more AC from Magic Bonuses to the Shield. I admit an animated shield has the equivalent bonus but it should go into the equation somewhere. Perhaps a bonus similar to the armor training bonus. A professional fighter who uses a shield should get better with it?
You are referring to this rule:
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.Maybe you should re-read the rule, I've added emphasis to help.
Sword and board typically gets +2 to +4 for magic shields at higher levels. Even +2 is a good bump.
-- Dennis
No bro... don't assUme about what i am referencing... i'm refering to feats like shielded axe and improved buckler defense... so there are ways of getting AC just 1 short of the sword and board.... Hope this helps.
*Edit* Someone already posted it. My browser wasn't updated in a bit.
However, giving up the AC from a +5 Buckler should still count for something. A THF can't even attack at all if he wants to have the AC bonus, and the TWF gives up half his attacks. That *is* a significant difference.
Also, don't forget the -1 to attack rolls just for having it there. So THF has a -1 Attack and TWF has a -3 Attack vs the Sword and Board.
|
|
*Edit* Someone already posted it. My browser wasn't updated in a bit.
However, giving up the AC from a +5 Buckler should still count for something. A THF can't even attack at all if he wants to have the AC bonus, and the TWF gives up half his attacks. That *is* a significant difference.
Also, don't forget the -1 to attack rolls just for having it there. So THF has a -1 Attack and TWF has a -3 Attack vs the Sword and Board.
You're not giving up the AC bonus or losing any attacks -- with (3.5) Improved Buckler Defense and other feats, you keep it even when attacking. And the -1 to hit doesn't come close to evening things out in the damage department.
|
|
I too feel thre is no love for the sword'n'board or single weapon-empty hand fighting styles. Way back in 2nd ed, they had optional rules for 4 fighting styles, and 2 of those made the jump to 3rd ed well, Two-weapon (extra attacks) and Two-handed (extra damage). There needs to be some attention paid to the other two.
I believe that the shield user by definition is focused on defense, so there should be a feat chain/tree that emphasizes this. Either bigger shield bonuses, diverting attacks aimed at adjacent allies to the shield wearer, or some sort of active block defense (a CMB check with shield and feat bonuses to sub for AC for an attack). Making the shield just another off-handed weapon has been a terrible idea IMO.
For the 1 handed crowd (empty off-hand), they was the "Einhander" feat in PHBII, I believe, that captured a lot of the feel for this style. I think this would be a good place to start in order to build a good 1-hander feat chain.
|
|
Guys I don't think the OP is talking about sword and boarders so having this big discussion on the merits of shields is off topic, I think he is talking about a character who wields a one handed weapon and NOTHING in the off-hand, no shield, no two handed weapon, no extra weapon
Think inigo montoya from the princess bride and go from there.
|
|
Guys I don't think the OP is talking about sword and boarders so having this big discussion on the merits of shields is off topic, I think he is talking about a character who wields a one handed weapon and NOTHING in the off-hand, no shield, no two handed weapon, no extra weapon
Think inigo montoya from the princess bride and go from there.
I was talking about both/either. So sword-and-board (that doesn't require TWF with shield bashes) or einhander. I think both need love, which could be accomplished with a single mechanic. I'm partial to my own suggestion, of course, but I'm open to others.
|
|
No bro... don't assUme about what i am referencing... i'm refering to feats like shielded axe and improved buckler defense... so there are ways of getting AC just 1 short of the sword and board.... Hope this helps.
Umm... I have no idea WTF you speak of. If you are referencing some non-core feats then you are on your own. I don't own the books which contain the feats you reference.
You can assUme whatever you would like but anything beyond PfRPG + Core is outside the scope of what Paizo can affect and as such outside the scope of any discussion here.
-- Dennis
|
|
Think inigo montoya from the princess bride and go from there.
My Name is Inigo Montoya you ...
Oh. I can see this. Unfortunately you are correct that there is little or no benefit to this fighting style in Core or PfRPG. I would be onboard for a feat tree dedicated to something like this as long as it required an empty off hand. Maybe something with Weapon Finesse at the root. I would think requiring a full BAB class so that rogues couldn't use it, Rogues have their own way of boosting damage output.
-- Dennis
No bro... don't assUme about what i am referencing... i'm refering to feats like shielded axe and improved buckler defense... so there are ways of getting AC just 1 short of the sword and board.... Hope this helps.Umm... I have no idea WTF you speak of. If you are referencing some non-core feats then you are on your own. I don't own the books which contain the feats you reference.
You can assUme whatever you would like but anything beyond PfRPG + Core is outside the scope of what Paizo can affect and as such outside the scope of any discussion here.
-- Dennis
BTW, the feats i refered to are all from WOTC products and allowed in RPGA events so it isn't like I was grabbing something outlandish from third party publisher that no one has ever heard of. If PfRPG negates the money I spent on these products, it doesn't really have any more appeal to me than 4e. I don't believe I am alone in feeling this way. If you choose not to use any non-core products, you are free to do so but every single DND player I know owns at least one splat book.
But...
Core + PfRPG only... okay: Defense property on my magic off hand weapon gives me the AC... Weapon Swap allows me to use the primary hand weapon for all my attacks... Or how about animated shield...
|
|
BTW, the feats i refered to are all from WOTC products and allowed in RPGA events so it isn't like I was grabbing something outlandish from third party publisher that no one has ever heard of. If PfRPG negates the money I spent on these products, it doesn't really have any more appeal to me than 4e. I don't believe I am alone in feeling this way. If you choose not to use any non-core products, you are free to do so but every single DND player I know owns at least one splat book.
You criticized me for ignorance of rules which I do not own.
PfRPG invalidates EVERYTHING in 3.5. That's not to say it's now instantly worthless but that a DM should probably evaluate stuff before including it because rewriting the core rules will have a massive effect on downstream content. I do not think the core game should be balanced based on the assumption that people possess supplemental material.
Personally I don't own a lot of splatbooks and the idea that the game should be built around the assumption that everyone owns a bunch of non-core material is offensive to me. One of the things I really dislike about 4e is the fact that the very foundations of the game are based on the idea of continual upgrading.
Core + PfRPG only... okay: Defense property on my magic off hand weapon gives me the AC... Weapon Swap allows me to use the primary hand weapon for all my attacks... Or how about animated shield...
I don't like weapon swap much, and hope it gets dropped from PfRPG for exactly reasons like this.
How about we just get rid of Animated Shields, I hate those things anyway.
You criticized me for ignorance of rules which I do not own.
No bro... i am not critizing you for ignorance of rules which you do not own... i am not critizing you for quoting the SRD... i was critizing you for writing: "Maybe you should re-read the rule, I've added emphasis to help." I found this condenscending and it rather annoyed me. Had i waited a while before replying I would have replied in a more appropiate manner. So as to the tone of my post and some of it's content I apologize.
However, as my other post points out there are methods within PfRPG that widen the gap between 1h fighters and 2h fighters.
I personally do not like Weapon Swap because I feel it is too powerful.
I personally don't care for feats that allow bucklers AC to be used while using the offhand to attack or assist in attacking in some way.
I was just pointing out that these things exist in some form and if used means that 1handed weapon fighters are suboptimal.
Maybe what I am saying is that, yes, we need some love for the one-handed fighter.
I hope this post is more clear then the ones I posted before.
How about we just get rid of Animated Shields, I hate those things anyway.
As a DM, I have never had a single animated shield in any treasure that any party ever found. Cause I hate them too.
|
|
I found this condenscending and it rather annoyed me.
Apologies right back. Sometimes I am crass in the way I post, it's something I try to work on but clearly fail miserably.
However, as my other post points out there are methods within PfRPG that widen the gap between 1h fighters and 2h fighters.
Maybe what I am saying is that, yes, we need some love for the one-handed fighter. (edited for brevity)
I think we're on the same thought here but I'm not entirely sure I agree. The feats you referred to don't exist in my game and weapon swap... will not exist in my game whether it gets put into the Beta or not.
Would you agree that Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting are Ok as long as Sword and Board retain a significant AC bonus?
I'm not sure it's possible to plug all the holes though.
I found this condenscending and it rather annoyed me.Apologies right back. Sometimes I am crass in the way I post, it's something I try to work on but clearly fail miserably.
However, as my other post points out there are methods within PfRPG that widen the gap between 1h fighters and 2h fighters.
Maybe what I am saying is that, yes, we need some love for the one-handed fighter. (edited for brevity)
I think we're on the same thought here but I'm not entirely sure I agree. The feats you referred to don't exist in my game and weapon swap... will not exist in my game whether it gets put into the Beta or not.
Would you agree that Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting are Ok as long as Sword and Board retain a significant AC bonus?
I'm not sure it's possible to plug all the holes though.
Weapon Swap is definitely not a good thing. And as long as the Sword and Board retains the AC bonus over the other two styles (meaning no cheesy feats that allow the buckler to be used while attacking 2-handed or 2-weapon) I have no problems with the balance between the three fighting styles in general. (Of course sneak attack and 2weapon style is another thing altogether).
|
I think that the role played by the fighters is the primary problem.
There are two routes a Fighter can take, defensive and offensive.
The defensive fighter is the sword & board. His goal is not to deal massive amounts of damage but to create a high AC, and be able to take as much damage as posisble. His role in the party is to be in the front and keep the bad guys from getting back to the more vulnerable casters. The problem is that there is no real mechanics for making this kind of fighter. I will come back to this in a moment.
The offensive fighter, specialing in two-handed weapons, or even two weapons is designed to deal a massive amount of damage quickly. He sacrifices AC for damage. His role in the party is to be up front and kill quickly before anything gets back to teh more vulnerable casters. Unfortunately the Fighter is not the best choice for this role.
In the PfRPG the best offensive melee class is the Rogue. The fighter cannot build a version that can do comparable amounst of damage as a rogue.
The defensive fighter lacks enough feats or mechanics to make this concept work. The fix would be something akin to rogue talents (or whatever they called it).
Fighter styles could replace some of the feats and provide special abilities designed to aid a fighter's emphasis. For example, Massive Blow could be used to deal extra damage dice, or defensive fighters can take Iron Skin to make a Fort save with DC equal to damage dealt to ignore the damage (this is derived from The Mountain Does Not Move from Ultimate Feats). Adding abilities like this allows the fighter to excel at the job he is conceptually designed to do.
As it stands, the fighter has a role, but has no mechanics to perform that role.
|
|
I would also love for sword and board fighters and one handed fencers to get some more attention. I think the sword and board fighter could take some inspiration from the concept of the Crusader in Tome of Battle.
I know a lot of people don't like the mechanics or flavor of Tome of Battle, and other resent the way it outshone the fighter so much - I think PRPG is the chance to give fighters some of the options that I loved (no, really, loved) in the Crusader.
I have wanted, for quite some time, to play a martial character that is inspired by the Knight in Shining Armor concept...but the first class that did it in a fun and enjoyable way was the Crusader, for me.
I liked the ability to restrict 5 foot steps, so I could plant myself in front of vulnerable allies and have a good chance of preventing enemies from attacking them. I liked the ability to encourage enemies to focus on me rather than on those behind my, either through placing penalties on their attacks against any but me or making them suffer badly if they ignored me to face allies. I liked the ability to forego my own shield's protection on myself to shield a vulnerable ally.
I have played a couple multiclass crusaders, and the thing I like most is that, while I don't do as much damage as many other characters, I can be a solid rock between them and the enemy - I like to refer to my Crusader characters as Energizer Bunnies - they just keep going!
If we could come up with a feat line that gives fighters this feel, that would be a huge plus for me. I would also be happy if Paladins got this instead - it's just as appropirate for them. Maybe tactical feats, offering a few maneuvers to fighters who've already invested in shield fighting, or shield feats that focus on tactical advantages (impose statuses on enemies, interrupt or slow movement on the battlefield, block line of effect on spells to adjacent allies or yourself under the correct circumstances...etc.) rather than damage. Also, effective shield use should absolutely not require significant dexterity advancement.
On a slightly different note, I think giving single handed weapon fighters without shields bonuses to their combat maneuver defense seems like an excellent idea to me...maybe in the form of a feat to make it a little more of an investment for dagger wielding wizards, etc.?
|
|
The difference is the goal of the character and the party.
Every class serves a particular role in the party. 4E finally came out and overtly stated this is this class's role. Before that WOW declared what the role was overtly. Before WOW there were roles but never overtly stated.
The problem I see is that the mechanics do not support the role of the fighter. For DPS (or striker) you use the rogue, for tank (or defender) you use the Paladin. These two classes are better optimized for the fighter's role, than the fighter is.
A tank needs mobility and damage resitance in some way shape or form. The paladin gets DR with healing, and even the Barbarian gets DR. The fighter gets some AC and at level 20 DR 5/-. At level 20 5 points of DR might stop a sneeze if he is lucky. A fraction of abilities that will target the tank will actually be attacking AC. The paladin is the ideal tank.
For a dps or striker the rogue out performs the fighter in every way. Both sacrifice AC for damage output. The rogue just does it better.
Once upon a time, the "core" classes of a party were fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric. Now the core is paladin, rogue, wizard, cleric.
Not THAT big a deal I suppose.
One "small" thing I've done to help the sword & boarder is to count shield AC towards touch AC and to Reflex saves. Seems logical to me in that the shield is mobile cover, blocking attempts to "touch" the PC and being held up to block effects like breath weapons, blasts and the like.
|
|
TWF Rogues only do more damage than fighters when all of the following is true: The target has an AC 10 pts lower than what a fighter should expect to be hitting, the target is somehow being flanked or the rogue is invisible, and the monster on its turn didn't move away from the rogue negating his chance for a full round attack.
Maybe the rogues in my game aren't as creative as these guys are but sneak attack is nowhere near every round in our games. Getting sneak attacks in that involve a full attack is even less common. Rogues in my group are lucky to get a single sneak attack in every other round. Obviously different players and DMs have different experiences.
-- Dennis
|
|
I believe this thread is quite valid and I wanted to say that I agree wtih the O.P. on this, and have already made suggestions to making these kinds of additions to the fighter class. I think these sorts of ideas and brainstormings may be best served by contributing them to the THINK TANK FIGHTERS thread that is found here.
Robert
I liked the feats and fighting tactics in the "Art of the Duel" article in nick logue's indulgences. Added a lot of options for a 1 handed fighter. Could be tweaked and added as pathfinder easy enough to solve a good number of the problems 1 handed fighters face in comparison.
|
|
Maybe the rogues in my game aren't as creative as these guys are but sneak attack is nowhere near every round in our games. Getting sneak attacks in that involve a full attack is even less common. Rogues in my group are lucky to get a single sneak attack in every other round. Obviously different players and DMs have different experiences.-- Dennis
When I play a lvl 20 fighter fighter, the first thing I do is set myself up to flank the target with my lvl 20 rogue partner. Now every attack this poor sucker is hit with he gets a sneak attack. (I took 2 levels of rogue for sneak attack and evasion)
I hit the guy 4 times for a total possible of 4d8+80 + 4d6 for average of 108 (thanks to Power Attack, though in PfRPG that max would be 4d8+ 20 +4d6 for an average of 48)
The rogue hits 3 times for a possible 3d6+6 + 30d6 for an average of 105 (or in PfRPG you get 3d6+6 + 30d6 + Strength Damage + Save or Die)
In PfRPG my maximum damage output is reduced by 55.6% all thanks to Power Attack.
And yes these numbers are real... if anything they might be a tad low. We are now lvl 22. And yes I do still hit most times even with 15 points in Power Attack.
I'm sorry I missed this thread. I definitely want to give the one-handed warrior more love. In several threads I have advocated increasing the potential defense provided by shields. And I think that this is really the role of the sword & board fighter. You hide behind your shield, don't take any damage and wait for your opponent to wear himself out or make a mistake, then you leg him, or knee-cap him, or carve a substantial chunk out of his arm. When he is disabled you go to town on him by raining blows on him from behind the relative safety of your shield.
Of course, D&D mechanics don't really support this very well.
Maybe some sort of feat-tree (or chain, or whatever you want to call it) is necessary where not only does the sword & board'er increase the defensive capability of his shield, but also increases the likelihood of doing a disabling (critical) blow after so many rounds of combat -- or something.
CJ
|
|
As I said, I'm still working through the Alpha combat feats to assess their relative worth to each of the fighting styles (feats like Deadly Stroke or Devastating Blow, for example, are most beneficial to the two-handed fighter, who has the greatest damage potential per single blow and thus suffers less for giving up additional attacks). But none of the new feats appear to give the needed boost to warriors who wield a single one-handed weapon. After wrestling with it a while, I...
Tribeof1 - check out the Defender and Swashbuckler Talents I just added. Does this sound like something that fits your idea?
Robert
Tribeof1 - check out the Defender and Swashbuckler Talents I just added. Does this sound like something that fits your idea?
I checked these out. They seem very interesting. I'm not sure I would go the whole "talent" route. Fighters are sort of built on feats. Though of course A3 proposes weapon and armor training -- which sort of seem like talents.
I didn't actually understand all I read of the Defender talents. Does Defender only apply to touch attacks? And I didn't see Shield Specialization in the list. Is that different from Shield Specialist?
I would also like to see a viable Sword & Board option that can actually inflict some damage. You reserve all the one-handed fighting deadliness for the Swashbuckler talent which precludes using a shield.
|
|
I checked these out. They seem very interesting. I'm not sure I would go the whole "talent" route. Fighters are sort of built on feats. Though of course A3 proposes weapon and armor training -- which sort of seem like talents.
Well these talents are essentially 'feats' to replace the option of normal feats. The difference is by denoting them as talents for fighters, they are more exclusive to the fighter and thus they are talents and tricks or maneuvers and such that expand upon the normal attack abilities that others can do - thus they make fighters do what no one else can do.
I didn't actually understand all I read of the Defender talents. Does Defender only apply to touch attacks? And I didn't see Shield Specialization in the list. Is that different from Shield Specialist?
The defender talent - which is the initial talent in the chain - begins to allow your shield bonus to apply to touch attacks.
The other talents that you can take dont apply to touch attacks - but you need the Talent Defender before you can take the others.
I would also like to see a viable Sword & Board option that can actually inflict some damage. You reserve all the one-handed fighting deadliness for the Swashbuckler talent which precludes using a shield.
The regular feats for shield bashing allow for doing damage.
The last build I'm making is Tempest - which is a two-weapon guy; which could/would include a person who wants to be a damage dealer with his shield as opposed to defending with it
Robert
The regular feats for shield bashing allow for doing damage.
The last build I'm making is Tempest - which is a two-weapon guy; which could/would include a person who wants to be a damage dealer with his shield as opposed to defending with it
Robert
Not quite the route I was suggesting.
I don't mind offensive shields -- but ostensibly I'm interested in them for defense. Shield bashing takes things to the two-weapon fighter realm.
I was thinking that the sword (or whatever) you have in your OTHER HAND would be the best device for dealing out damage. So maybe some sort of Precise Blow that adds to your chances to hit with a one-handed weapon at a cost of doing less damage.
CJ
I'm sort of confused about the whole idea that a sword and board character should do as much damage as a twohander or a dual wielder. Why should they? A bigger weapon, or more weapons gives you better offensive capability, period.
We may like the idea of the valient protector dishing out the pain with the best of them, but it doesn't really work that way. Sword and board is there to take damage (Well, to NOT take damage if you stack AC correctly). I'd go so far to say that worrying too much about damage is detrimental to the character. What's the best weapon to carry as a tank? A bastard sword, so you can maximize damage while still carrying a shield? A short sword in case you get swallowed whole? Either is a valid consideration, but neither lets you do the damage of the guy with the greatsword behind you.
I'd suggest going with shield bashes if you want to improved your damage as a tank character. A spiked light shield does 1d4 damage, and counts as a light weapon for off hand penalties. Considering the number of feats a fighter gets now, this would be one hell of a build:
Human Fighter
Longsword and Light Spiked Shield
Lvl 1 - Two Weapon Fighting, Deft Shield, Weapon Focus (Longsword)
Lvl 2 - Double Weapon Slice
Lvl 3 - Dodge
Lvl 4 - Weapon Specialization (Longsword)
With this set up, the Double Slice would go to the Light Shield, so that you have a better chance of hitting AND retaining your shield bonus to AC. The Longsword gets the weapon focus to make up for the penalty it takes for two weapon fighting.
This makes for not only an effective tank, but also a cinematic character. Smash, slice, advance, hoo hah!
|
|
I'm sort of confused about the whole idea that a sword and board character should do as much damage as a twohander or a dual wielder. Why should they? A bigger weapon, or more weapons gives you better offensive capability, period.
trust me - I completely agree with you - and have no intentions of designing mechanics to give a shield basher on par on the damage output of a two-handed juggernaut.
As far as damage goes - they are the cat's meow and the talents certainly support that.
The defender route I designed is on the other hand all about defense for the most part - and the talents certainly build on that.
Robert