|
This is the way I've been using Weapon Training, and it works great for keeping fighters a step ahead of the curve when you compare him to enlarged druids and clerics with buffs running. The normal-sized fighter is doing more damage with his greatsword than the enlarged cleric is with his spell running.
It makes the fighter the Weapon master he always should have been, doesn't use up feats, and Sure, the cleric can still cast Enlarge person and buffs on himself, but if he casts it on the fighter it's several times more effective, becasue his base damage with his weapon training is a lot higher anyway.
I definitely agree that the weapon focus should apply to all weapons in the weapon group.
I do not necessarily agree with the higher dice damage being a part of Weapon Training.
But perhaps your concern earlier with the feebleness of Weapon Specialization feat - perhaps that can be the benefit of that feat - higher dice damage instead of +2. A discussion for feats.
Finally, I'm not sure if I'm too worried about the buffing cleric etc. Of course I don't want there to be a grave discrepancy between a super-buffed cleric vs a fighter - but its important to remember that a) the cleric has to spend that time buffing, and b) they are only finite and will eventual wane or be dispelled while a fighters training is omnipresent. Furthermore similar buffs can also be placed on the fighter - if the fighter is already as good or better than other classes can possibly get with all their buffs, then he becomes even exponentially more superior if/when the party casters provide buffs, or he quaffs buffing potions, etc.
Robert
|
I saw another post about increasing weapon abilities. If those weapon abilities scale with the level of proficiency, then a fighter with greater Weapon Specialization gains a much larger advantage than a Ranger with only Weapon Focus.
Example.
Give a shortsword an intiative bonus of +1 for weapon Focus, which scales up to +5 with Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization
Give the whip the ability to do lethal damage with Weapon Focus, Ranged grapple with Weapon specialization and other abilities based upon the higher abilities, perhaps choke, disarm and an increase to the trip modifier? or other abilitiers.
Give polearms abilities which help manage the battle field.
Allow swords to be used as piercing and blunt weapons. Thus negating the need to have 1 of each type of weapon for a fighter...
By tying these abilities to the level of proficiency, it greater increases the tactical advantages of regular weapons over the already greater advantages of exotics. And I think it would be a lot of fun, and I plan on doing it to my own campaign if it doesn't end up in Pathfinder. And how many bad guys are going to have all the focus and spec feats compared to fighters...This would give a great tactical advantage
Robert, when I rewrote the fighter for my game, I also rewrote the other martial classes as well. I want them all to be distinctly powerful, and distinctly different from each other in significant, flavorful ways.
Regarding Weapon Training: The scaling damage dice are necessary to make the fighter a good direct threat in melee at higher levels. A flat bonus is nice, but that alone won't make a difference at high levels where every hit counts.
The relative power of feats will require a rewrite of the feats; as of the current 3.p rules, they aren't powerful enough to warrant basing a class around them. Certainly not like other "class basis" features like spellcasting and shapeshifting.
The 3.x barbarian needs almost as much of a boost as the fighter. His DR isn't good enough at high levels, and his low ac will make him an even squishier target than the fighter or ranger. Some rage powers should be combined, others should be "always active" while raging and could be "rage feats."
The paladin is just plain bad. The pally needs a complete rewrite of auras, class abilities like smite, and he needs to heal better and use offensive spell-like abilities. What devil or wizard-lich is going to fear a 3.x paladin of equal level? I bet they'd fear the cleric though.
During the creative process of rewriting the martial classes, I came to the conclusion that they need to be compared against the overall combat effectiveness of their enemies at a given CR level - NOT, as many people are doing, comparing their features to each other alone. "3.x Fighter vs barb, vs pally" discussions, without adressing the OVERALL power level of Martial classes, is just going to result in minor tweaks that leave them all at tier 5.
This is the way I've been using Weapon Training, and it works great for keeping fighters a step ahead of the curve when you compare him to enlarged druids and clerics with buffs running. The normal-sized fighter is doing more damage with his greatsword than the enlarged cleric is with his spell running.
It makes the fighter the Weapon master he always should have been, doesn't use up feats, and Sure, the cleric can still cast Enlarge person and buffs on himself, but if he casts it on the fighter it's several times more effective, becasue his base damage with his weapon training is a lot higher anyway.
I definitely agree that the weapon focus should apply to all weapons in the weapon group.
I do not necessarily agree with the higher dice damage being a part of Weapon Training.
But perhaps your concern earlier with the feebleness of Weapon Specialization feat - perhaps that can be the benefit of that feat - higher dice damage instead of +2. A discussion for feats.
Finally, I'm not sure if I'm too worried about the buffing cleric etc. Of course I don't want there to be a grave discrepancy between a super-buffed cleric vs a fighter - but its important to remember that a) the cleric has to spend that time buffing, and b) they are only finite and will eventual wane or be dispelled while a fighters training is omnipresent. Furthermore similar buffs can also be placed on the fighter - if the fighter is already as good or better than other classes can possibly get with all their buffs, then he becomes even exponentially more superior if/when the party casters provide buffs, or he quaffs buffing potions, etc.
Robert
Actually, my point is not that the pc fighter is better buffed than the pc cleric (although some buffs are self-targeted) but that it isn't by much. An npc warrior cohort would do just about the same as the fighter in that case.
With scaling damage dice via Weapon Training, the fighter is hands-down the better choice, and is a much different person than any npc. Caster evocation damage scales with level. Rogue sneak attack damage scales with level. Caster DC damage scales with level. Fighter damage dice SHOULD scale with level, too.
Why should his waraxe still be doing, in a good scenario, 1d10 + 15? (+11 for 32 str, +4 from 3.5 wep spec/g wep spec)? Even with a +5 weapon it's only 1d10 + 20 - that's only 21-30 per attack, if it hits, and no SoD? Compare that to what any equivalent - level caster can do even with evocation. I bet it's more than 5d6 (5-30). Yes, I know his min damage is a lot higher but he has to get close and hit for it to matter; casters can cast from range.
Now compare that to the typical evil outsider of equivalent CR, and you will begin to see that Fighters are no longer so much of an asset - they are a liability. A summoned monster or animal companion can fill his role without there being so great a cost to keeping the summoned beast alive.
Martial classes need a huge buff to go from tier 5 to tier 3. Just readjusting a few +1's or +4's isn't going to do it; they must be compared to existing tier 3's, not to each other.
I do appreciate your responses though. ;)
|
|
Well, regarding the whole CR thing, a CR of your level is supposed to be a challenge. If we balance the classes against equal CR, then everything gets overpowered and we start the cycle all over again.
The classes need to be balanced against a CR lower than their party level.
A lich shouldn't fear a Paladin of their level, because they have no idea what a level is.
I propose the following changes to Weapon Training:
Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th 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 four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), 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 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level. (*this is exactly what you wrote in 3.P beta).
Increase damage dice of all weapons in a Weapon Training group by 1 step for each level of Weapon Training in that group. So the weapon group with +1 Weapon Training bonus gets one damage step increase, and by level 17 the weapon group with the +4 bonus from Weapon Training gets 4 damage step increases. (*this is the part I added. A damage step increase is not the same as a size category increase, it was in the 3.5...
+1
This is good stuff. It does make certain weapons (like the lance) monstrous circumstantially. I am not sure this is a bad thing, with the change to massive damage rules as currently presented in the beta.
|
|
I think the increased damage dice to weapons, as proposed by S W, would work to making the ability more unique. A simple way to do it would just be multiply the original damage dice by the weapon training modifier + 1.
With Weapon Training (Axes) +1 a Greataxe would deal 2d12+1 damage. At WT +4 it deals 4d12+4.
With Weapon Training (Heavy Blades) +3 a Scythe would deal 6d4+3 damage.
The reason I suggest the multiple is that it is much simpler to use and does not require referencing a chart to see where a wepaon goes - in the heat of battle that could get annoying if new weapons enter play. Now the question is: do these extra die multiply on a critical hit?
I am not convinced that fighters need higher base damage dealing options, but through feats, they should be able to do some really neat things. This is something we are going to be looking at strongly when we get to the feats chapter.
BTW, I strongly agree with the breakdown of who should "shine" at specific moments of the game. This really helps define the different roles of the various melee oriented characters.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That's the ticket. With Pathfinder feat progresion a fighter ends up with 22 or 23 feats. If 1/2 as much space spent on spells is devoted to fighter feats, the fighter will be a devastating and ultimately customizable class. The fighter's greatest strength is that through skill, training and practice he learns to do things most people thought impossible with a weapon.
In his own way, witnessing a 20th level fighter in combat should be as memorable as seeing a wizard cast Meteor Swarm.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think the increased damage dice to weapons, as proposed by S W, would work to making the ability more unique. A simple way to do it would just be multiply the original damage dice by the weapon training modifier + 1.
With Weapon Training (Axes) +1 a Greataxe would deal 2d12+1 damage. At WT +4 it deals 4d12+4.
With Weapon Training (Heavy Blades) +3 a Scythe would deal 6d4+3 damage.
The reason I suggest the multiple is that it is much simpler to use and does not require referencing a chart to see where a wepaon goes - in the heat of battle that could get annoying if new weapons enter play. Now the question is: do these extra die multiply on a critical hit?
So each "one size" of dice increase is an effective doubling of base damage?
I assumed "die size" increase followed the usual progression, just like Improved Natural Attack or increasing creature size.
d4 > d6 > d8 > 2d6 > etc.
d10 > 2d8
d12 > 3d6
so with that at WT (axe) +1 your greataxe would do 3d6+1 (rather than 2d12+1)
and WT (heavy blades) +3 your scythe would do 4d6+3 (2d4 > 2d6 > 2d8 > 4d6) (rather than 6d4+3)
WT (HB) +4 with greatsword would be 8d6+4 (2d6 > 2d8 > 4d6 > 4d8 > 8d6) (rather than 8d6+4!!!)
bow or light crossbow would become 4d8+4. Now we're getting somewhere.
Funny, at least for these weapons the numbers don't come out much differently with going through the die-size-increase progression than just using a straight-up multiplier, at least by the time you get to +4. There's a good bit of difference at +1. I think I prefer the steepening curve of the die size progression, but I can certainly see the joys of simplicity instead, esp. if you get to more or less the same place in the end.
In any case, I would say, yes, absolutely these increased damage numbers would be multiplied on a crit. Essentially, for a high-level fighter, these ARE your "base weapon damage" numbers. Just, in your hands, they are a lot more than in the hands of another.
The numbers sound really big, until you think about the hit point mountains PCs are usually fighting at these levels. If you go this route, though, you may want to push DR back up towards 3.0 levels or it will become almost entirely meaningless.
The sticky wicket, of course, is this:
Okay, now the fighter is doing level-appropriate monstrous damage. What are the paladin and ranger and barbarian going to do to keep up?
|
|
d10 > 2d8
d12 > 3d6
so with that at WT (axe) +1 your greataxe would do 3d6+1 (rather than 2d12+1)
and WT (heavy blades) +3 your scythe would do 4d6+3 (2d4 > 2d6 > 2d8 > 4d6) (rather than 6d4+3)
WT (HB) +4 with greatsword would be 8d6+4 (2d6 > 2d8 > 4d6 > 4d8 > 8d6) (rather than 8d6+4!!!)
bow or light crossbow would become 4d8+4. Now we're getting somewhere.
Funny, at least for these weapons the numbers don't come out much differently with going through the die-size-increase progression than just using a straight-up multiplier, at least by the time you get to +4. There's a good bit of difference at +1. I think I prefer the steepening curve of the die size progression, but I can certainly see the joys of simplicity instead, esp. if you get to more or less the same place in the end.
In any case, I would say, yes, absolutely these increased damage numbers would be multiplied on a crit. Essentially, for a high-level fighter, these ARE your "base weapon damage" numbers. Just, in your hands, they are a lot more than in the hands of another.
The numbers sound really...
The more I consider the idea - the more I'm liking the idea of doing more damage.
Im about 80% sold on it; specifically the more dice. The D6s are okay too (saw an option for that a la sneak attack). Last choice would just be a die size increase.
I can see the need for the damage increases at higher levels, and I can see the call for it in comparison to a wizards spells, and a rogues sneak attacks.
Just so that I'm sure I understand the intent: a 5th level fighter with a longsword would be doing 2d8 point of damage - plus all modifiers (but don't double the modifiers). A 9th level fighter would do 3D8 correct?
The only reason why I'm not 100% sold is that I just cant help but feel that this a) get exponentially powerful when you start applying several of the bunches of feats fighters get, and b) it even more grossly seperates the fighters lethality over the other martial classes. How can a ranger or paladin ever hope to be anything close to making a difference in comparison? Even the barbarian is easily out-distanced.
I keep hearing two different things from people on these fighter threads - one seems to just want to do more damage, and the other thinks fighters should be more utilitarian with their weapons and feats and simply do more maneuvers with them - not just do more damage.
I don't know which is right. I dont know if it matters. I just keep seeing more and more ooomph is being lobbied for the fighter - and we haven't even gotten to the feats area yet. Meanwhile there doesnt' seem like there's a lot of need for the other martial classes at this point...
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The more I consider the idea - the more I'm liking the idea of doing more damage.
Im about 80% sold on it; specifically the more dice. The D6s are okay too (saw an option for that a la sneak attack). Last choice would just be a die size increase.
I can see the need for the damage increases at higher levels, and I can see the call for it in comparison to a wizards spells, and a rogues sneak attacks.
Just so that I'm sure I understand the intent: a 5th level fighter with a longsword would be doing 2d8 point of damage - plus all modifiers (but don't double the modifiers). A 9th level fighter would do 3D8 correct?
The only reason why I'm not 100% sold is that I just cant help but feel that this a) get exponentially powerful when you start applying several of the bunches of feats fighters get, and b) it even more grossly seperates the fighters lethality over the other...
A potential fix might be a BAB-dependent feat analogous to Improved Natural Attack, to be "Improved Weapon Attack," increasing the die size. It could be taken multiple times, but each time the prerequsite BAB would go up by like 4 or 5.
That is, if we want to make it a feat that all the martial types can get in on, rather than a fighters-only benefit.
We don't want to get to the place where, say, we beef up the paladin's defense but the class ends up with no offense, to where the paladin is a turtle with a limp noodle for a weapon.
I don't mind it getting exponentially more powerful for the fighter so they become super-melee-studs. Why SHOULDN'T an uber-level fighter plowing into a pile of enemies hit them like a meteor swarm? My issue would be making sure that the ranger, paladin, and barbarian have equally vicious things that they can do, each with their own particular flavor.
|
|
We don't want to get to the place where, say, we beef up the paladin's defense but the class ends up with no offense, to where the paladin is a turtle with a limp noodle for a weapon.
I don't mind it getting exponentially more powerful for the fighter so they become super-melee-studs. Why SHOULDN'T an uber-level fighter plowing into a pile of enemies hit them like a meteor swarm? My issue would be making sure that the ranger, paladin, and barbarian have equally vicious things that they can do, each with their own particular flavor.
We're seeing eye to eye on this. I feel exactly the same way.
Robert
|
|
We don't want to get to the place where, say, we beef up the paladin's defense but the class ends up with no offense, to where the paladin is a turtle with a limp noodle for a weapon.
I don't mind it getting exponentially more powerful for the fighter so they become super-melee-studs. Why SHOULDN'T an uber-level fighter plowing into a pile of enemies hit them like a meteor swarm? My issue would be making sure that the ranger, paladin, and barbarian have equally vicious things that they can do, each with their own particular flavor.
We're seeing eye to eye on this. I feel exactly the same way.
Robert
Speaking of hitting like a meteor swarm, this change would bridge the gap between Fighters and the Book of Nine Swords classes...
No issues with me: I love the idea of a feat chain to increase weapon damage dice, with scaling BAB prerequisites. This would, flavor-wise, reflect the fighter's superior training, and, crunch-wise, would supercede the need for that silly "monkey grip" nonsense.
|
Take a look at four of the methods mentioned so far: increasing the size of damage dice, multiplying damage dice, adding level-based damage, and adding d6's.
-----
Increasing di size by one step for each instance of Weapon Training and look at it from a statitical point of view:
Di Mean
d4 (4+1)/2 = 2.5
d6 (6+1)/2 = 3.5
d8 (8+1)/2 = 4.5
d10 (10+1)/2 = 5.5
2d6 (6+1) = 7
Looking at the above, I don't see how increasing the size of the dice involved is any more statistically different from adding +1 damage. Also, note that this method values weapons like greatswords (2d6) over weapons like scimitars (1d6). Not that it's a bad thing; just an observation.
-----
Using the above exmaple, you can see that multiplying damage dice multiplies the damage accordingly (example: 3d8 = 3*[(8+1)/2] = 15.5. However, multiplying the damage dice without multiplying the corresponding damage bonuses (like from Strength) will devalue Strength and a damage modifier. It will also devalue some feats as currently written (like Weapon Specialization). In other words, ability modifiers and feats that matter at low levels, won't mean much at high levels (if a high-level Fighter does 8d6 damage with a greatsword, who cares that he took Weapon Specialization at 4th level?).
-----
Adding level-based damage (like adding Fighter level) to each weapon strike is a very consistant and reliable method for increasing a Fighter's damage output. The only real issue I can find with this method is the same issue I have with 3.5 as it currently stands: at higher levels, once Fighter bonus damage is added, weapon enhancements, power attack & other feats, Strength mod, etc., who care that you're even rolling dice? The bonuses quickly outstrip the random contribution of the dice. Additionally, this method will devalue high-enhancement weapons (but really, all these methods do that). The other issue I have is purely personal taste: adding Fighter level or 1/2 Fighter level to damage just seems ... bland.
-----
The reason I advocate adding d6's is that it combats some of the shortcomings I see with the other methods. It's more statistically menaingful than increasing damage dice (or adding +1 for that matter). It doesn't value one particular weapon over another because a Fighter can deal the additional damage as well with a dagger as he can with a greatsword. It's also not an overwhelming amount of damage (and, like sneak attack, whouldn't be subject to crit modifiers). Also, there are dice being rolled and random outcomes to be anticipated.
The problems with my favored method are that two-weapon Fighters are valued higher than two-handed Fighters (but the THF'ers have ruled the roost for too long). Also, by the numbers, +4d6 doesn't add that much damage. A Fighter20 still wouldn't be on par with a Rogue20, but the advantage is that a Fighter's bonus damage wouldn't be as situationally dependent as a Rogue's sneak attack.
Just some observations to chew on.
-Skeld
Skeld,
I'm sold. How about this:
Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequsite: Fighter level 4th
Benefit: You gain +1d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision-based damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical.
Greater Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequisite: Fighter level 8th, Precision Fighting
Benefit: You gain +2d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical. This additional damage supercedes (does not stack with) extra damage from the Precision Fighting feat.
Improved Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequisite: Fighter level 12th, Precision Fighting, Greater Precision Fighting
Benefit: You gain +3d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical. This additional damage supercedes (does not stack with) extra damage from other Precision Fighting feats.
Superior Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequisite: Fighter level 16th, Precision Fighting, Greater Precision Fighting, Improved Precision Fighting.
Benefit: You gain +4d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical. This additional damage supercedes (does not stack with) extra damage from the Precision Fighting feat.
|
|
Skeld,
I'm sold. How about this:Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequsite: Fighter level 4th
Benefit: You gain +1d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision-based damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical.Greater Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequisite: Fighter level 8th, Precision Fighting
Benefit: You gain +2d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical. This additional damage supercedes (does not stack with) extra damage from the Precision Fighting feat.Improved Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequisite: Fighter level 12th, Precision Fighting, Greater Precision Fighting
Benefit: You gain +3d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical. This additional damage supercedes (does not stack with) extra damage from other Precision Fighting feats.Superior Precision Fighting [Combat]
Prerequisite: Fighter level 16th, Precision Fighting, Greater Precision Fighting, Improved Precision Fighting.
Benefit: You gain +4d6 on all weapon damage rolls. This is precision damage; it does not apply against creatures immune to sneak attacks, nor is it multiplied on a critical. This additional damage supercedes (does not stack with) extra damage from the Precision Fighting feat.
I'd rather see this tied to the weapon training bonuses. +1 ATK/+1d6 DMG per 4 levels, as a previous poster suggested. This would give the fighter way more dmg with his chosen weapons, but not with everything he happens to touch.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Take a look at four of the methods mentioned so far: increasing the size of damage dice, multiplying damage dice, adding level-based damage, and adding d6's.
-----
Increasing di size by one step for each instance of Weapon Training and look at it from a statitical point of view:Di Mean
d4 (4+1)/2 = 2.5
d6 (6+1)/2 = 3.5
d8 (8+1)/2 = 4.5
d10 (10+1)/2 = 5.5
2d6 (6+1) = 7Looking at the above, I don't see how increasing the size of the dice involved is any more statistically different from adding +1 damage. Also, note that this method values weapons like greatswords (2d6) over weapons like scimitars (1d6). Not that it's a bad thing; just an observation.
The difference between die size and 'straight +1' is that the dice don't continue to increase linearly. They skip and turn over, so to say.
Take long sword, base d8 (avg 4.5)
First die increase to 2d6 (avg. 7) +2.5
Second to 2d8 (avg. 9) +2
Third to 4d6 (avg. 14) +5
Fourth to 4d8 (avg. 18) +4
An epic 5th increase (or the 4th increase on a greatsword, which starts one 'step' ahead of the longsword) would be to 8d6 (avg. 28) +10
Sure, if you start with a small halfling-sized dagger (1d3 up 4x only to 1d8) then it's just a straight +1 per iteration (well, +0.5 from d3 to d4), but that's an acceptable loss in my book.
Yes, the rule does advantage weapons that start with bigger die sizes, and I think that's fair enough.
Now, there is some wonkiness with it - frinstance, a bastard sword and a greatsword end up with identical damage with die increases (since 1d10 and 2d6 both > 2d8), but even that is okay - after all, what is a bastard sword but a greatsword that, if you take ExWP, you can use one-handed?
I'd rather see this tied to the weapon training bonuses. +1 ATK/+1d6 DMG per 4 levels, as a previous poster suggested. This would give the fighter way more dmg with his chosen weapons, but not with everything he happens to touch.
I could go with that, but I really like the idea of a fighter being the guy who can kill you with a chunk of concrete if he has to, or a drinking straw. Realistically, people don't specialize to the extent that the rules imply: if you're really good with a sword, you'll have no trouble braining someone with a baseball bat.
|
|
I'd rather see this tied to the weapon training bonuses. +1 ATK/+1d6 DMG per 4 levels, as a previous poster suggested. This would give the fighter way more dmg with his chosen weapons, but not with everything he happens to touch.I could go with that, but I really like the idea of a fighter being the guy who can kill you with a chunk of concrete if he has to, or a drinking straw. Realistically, people don't specialize to the extent that the rules imply: if you're really good with a sword, you'll have no trouble braining someone with a baseball bat.
Not historically. Your example is being proficient, not mastery. There's a reason a club is a simple weapon...heh
It takes yerars of training to master a weapon. Ask a fencer, or a martial artist. you might be able to brain someone with a baseball bat, but a master fencer could take you apart piece by piece with a rapier. Heh in fact, a master fencer could take you apart with a training foil. Same as a Kenjutsu master could defeat a kenjutsu student with his bokken.
Same as a Kenjutsu master could defeat a kenjutsu student with his bokken.
And Musashi stopped using swords in duels, because he could kill just as easily with an oar (as he learned from experience).
I've trained with bare hands, sticks, and knives. Anything else is pretty straightforward after that. Once you can use a few weapons, they all start to seem alike.
|
|
I will add this again to this thread.
What ever form it comes in, Fighters need a major boost to their Dmg, especially at high levels.
As it stands they are outshine by almost every other class when it comes to Dmg.
But what ever Form that does or if comes in will be best served by putting it into the Fighters Abilities and not into Feats.
If you were to add that Major boost into feats all you will end up doing is making almost every fighter feel that they have to take those feats and therefore losing the idea of Diversity when it comes to fighters and the choices they make on feats.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Same as a Kenjutsu master could defeat a kenjutsu student with his bokken.And Musashi stopped using swords in duels, because he could kill just as easily with an oar (as he learned from experience).
I've trained with bare hands, sticks, and knives. Anything else is pretty straightforward after that. Once you can use a few weapons, they all start to seem alike.
I remember having this same conversation on rec.games.frp.dnd in the latter days of 2nd Ed when I actually proposed something like what became sneak attack damage in 3rd. The basic argument I made was that, since in 1st/2nd Ed backstab was a multiplier, it was to a thief's advantage to backstab with the biggest weapon he could find. Using a dagger was nuts. Use a longsword at least, if not a two-hander if you were multiclassed. That never sat well with me.
In creating a revised assassin class actually, I posited the idea of backstab damage that was its own damage, tied to the user's skill, not tied to the implement, to allow an assassin to kill with whatever was at hand - garotte, dagger, hand crossbow, rusty spoon, whatever...
In the end, I was tickled and happy to see 3rd Ed come out with a mechanic like that for rogues because it enabled that very thing - deadly attacks with small weapons.
Maybe the time has come for a similar nod to fighters, to represent their killer "l33t ski11z" of killification that they can use with any weapon they've trained in, not just one specific uber-specialized weapon (although there are add-ons that can boost that).
I like the idea of tying the big bonus to weapon groups in which the fighter has trained, so that it's not just a universal boost to everything, and I like the idea that the overall bonus is less than what the rogue gets, BUT with the absolute caveat that, unlike a rogue's spring attack, the fighter's maximum killpower isn't blocked by wussy "immunity to crits" and junk like that. Crits? Crits? We don't NEED no stinkin crits!
But they're nice when you get em, of course... :)
What it sounds like, then, is that a more or less general consensus: changing each +1 damage from weapon training to +1d6 would do the trick.
Except that this winds up putting the fighter ahead of the raging barbarian in damage output, doesn't it?
Well, it lets him keep even if he's using a sword and shield, and the barbarian is Power Attacking away with a greataxe. I never liked it that THW automatically trumped all other fighting methods in 3.5e.
For the barbarian, I'd make Greater Rage and Mighty Rage automatic at the proper level breaks (not cost extra rounds' worth of raging).
I still prefer increases the dice of the weapon's base damage, if only to differentiate it from the rogue's sneak attack and make weapon choice matter more.
I dunno... the more I think about it, the more I like a standardized mechanic for precision-based damage. Give it to the rogue when he sets it up right, give it to the fighter all the time, when he has proper tools. The Duelist's precise strike also uses +Xd6. The only oddball was the Swashbuckler, and he's not OGL, and hence meaningless to us.
|
|
Except that this winds up putting the fighter ahead of the raging barbarian in damage output, doesn't it?Well, it lets him keep even if he's using a sword and shield, and the barbarian is Power Attacking away with a greataxe.
At the level that fighters get Weapon Training +1, the barbarian has standard rage. All else being equal, the THF barbarian has +2 to hit and +3 damage while raging, while the fighter has +1 hit and +3.5 (avg) damage all the time.
When the fighter gets Weapon Training +2, the barbarian is still at +2 hit and +3 damage, but the fighter is now at +2 hit and +7 (avg) damage.
When the fighter gets Weapon Training +3, the barbarian has greater rage, and so is getting +3 to hit and +4.5 damage (avg), while the fighter is getting +3 to hit and +10.5 (avg) damage.
When the fighter gets Weapon Training +4, the barbarian is still at greater rage, and is still where she was before, but the fighter is now getting +4 to hit and +14 (avg) damage, all the time.
That's a bit better than "keeping even" to me.
|
|
I still prefer increases the dice of the weapon's base damage, if only to differentiate it from the rogue's sneak attack and make weapon choice matter more.I dunno... the more I think about it, the more I like a standardized mechanic for precision-based damage. Give it to the rogue when he sets it up right, give it to the fighter all the time, when he has proper tools. The Duelist's precise strike also uses +Xd6. The only oddball was the Swashbuckler, and he's not OGL, and hence meaningless to us.
But is the suggestion for this extra fighter damage to treat it as precision-based? I'm not for or against, just curious.
Why not just increase the damage from both Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization (to +2 and +4 respectively). That would have the simultaneous effect of increasing overall damage, and also make specialization a more attractive choice as feats.
When the fighter gets Weapon Training +4, the barbarian is still at greater rage, and is still where she was before, but the fighter is now getting +4 to hit and +14 (avg) damage, all the time.
At 12th level, the barbarian is dealing 1d12+21 with Power Attack (Str 18 + 3 due to leveling +2 with belt = 23), all the time, or 1d12+31 when raging. AND his extra damage multiplies on a crit, unlike the fighter's.
|
|
Skeld,
I'm sold. How about this:<Good stuff>
Like Xaaon, I think it needs to be the Weapon Training class ability. This way the Fighter doesn't need to spend a feat (or chain of feat slots) on it.
If Jason likes this idea, maybe some additional feats can be worked up that augment this ability. Kirth's feats might be a good starting point. Also, I think there's room for a feat that increases the size of the bonus damage dice (or multiplies them).
-Skeld
|
|
But is the suggestion for this extra fighter damage to treat it as precision-based? I'm not for or against, just curious.
I'm on the fence about this. Part of me wants to say no and that it would apply anytime a Fighter hits with a weapon applicable to his Weapon Training ability.
It would certainly help the Fighter to shine against foes that vex the Rogue's sneak attacks (especially now that the Rogue can sneak attack more enemies than before). It would also really cause the Fighter to shine against those foes that are immune to crits. It could be a real jewel in the Fighter's crown.
Really, though, I could go either way.
-Skeld
|
|
When the fighter gets Weapon Training +4, the barbarian is still at greater rage, and is still where she was before, but the fighter is now getting +4 to hit and +14 (avg) damage, all the time.At 12th level, the barbarian is dealing 1d12+21 with Power Attack (Str 18 + 3 due to leveling +2 with belt = 23), all the time, or 1d12+31 when raging. AND his extra damage multiplies on a crit, unlike the fighter's.
At 12th level, the fighter is dealing 1d12+21+2d6 with Power Attack (because he has all the same bonuses as the barbarian) and has a +2 to hit over the barbarian to boot. Even when the barbarian is raging and using PA, it's 1d12+21+2d6 (avg 34.5) vs 1d12+31 (avg 37.5), and the fighter still has the +2 to hit over the barbarian - +2 hit, -3 damage, and this is really about as good as it gets for the barbarian. One level later, the fighter gets an additional +1 to hit and +1d6 damage, meaning that they are equal on damage output (technically, the figher is .5 hp of damage ahead) and the fighter is now 3 points of attack bonus ahead as well.
The dice step increase is not the same as a size category increase. I think some of you are confused. Monk progression skips some die step increases.
I know there was a 3.5 book out there that explained dice step vs. size category increases, but I am trying to remember what it was so you'll need to humor me for a while...
***EDIT I think we're better off just going with straight size increases as it's easier to reference and only a bit more powerful than die type increases. I just found the arms and equipment guide, just use the chart in there on page 4.
Squirreloid, is there some way I could communicate with you off these boards? Are you on another forum? I don't see a pm feature here and I'd like to email you some stuff to critique for me (it's too long to post here).
|
|
...as we'd like normal characters to deal meaningful damage. Which means melee damage probably needs to go up across the board - but as they all get damage in different ways, we need to address them one at a time.
I was about to say something similar. The Barbarian and Ranger need to be handled differently since their bonus damage comes from slightly different sources.
For example, it might make sense to boost the Barbarian's damage while raging by 1/2 Barbarian level. Mechanically, the Barbarian's Rage ability is partially level-dependent already.
Personally, I'd like to see the Ranger's Favored Enemy stuff change. I'd like to see it become either additional d6's worth of Insight damage or change entirely to some kind of Marking ability where he can designate a single foe tyoe and get some bonus against them for the encounter (or maybe designate it in the morning and get the bonus all day against a certain type of enemy).
But each needs to be handled in their own way and each in its own thread. >:)
-Skeld
|
|
(Oh, having just built a 15th level fighter, its clear that 'all those feats' isn't actually all that many when you try to do just one trick, much less maintain some degree of versatility. Seriously, the number of feats per trick needs to be greatly condensed, and the number of possible tricks via feats needs to be increased. We want fighters to be more than one-hit wonders, which means every 1-2 feats needs to be a viable trick).
Emphasis mine. I agree, but this is something to be handled at the feat level, not the class level.
-Skeld
I did rewrite the Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin as well (Ranger and Paladin isn't done yet) but, you're right I do increase their offenses as well.
Fighters also get to master 2 Combat Styles and can pick from several Fighter Talents as they level up.
Don't worry, the fighter didn't get all the boosts. The weapon training = greater damage dice thing is reflecting his mastery of weaponcraft the same way the monk's unarmed damage progression reflects his mastery of martial arts and ki.
The barbarian gets some interesting things to keep his damage high, and he's more "rage enhanced" than "rage dependent." Rage Powers and "always on" Rage effects, as well as auras while raging.
The ranger gets an equal animal companion to the druid's, the weapon styles are free feats and not situational, the Master Hunter ability comes sooner than 20th level... haven't decided on his capstone ability yet. I was considering giving the Ranger a wildshape variant.
The Monk gets full BAB, is no longer MAD (Str and Wis are important now) bonuses to Combat Maneuvers, Ki strike is an actual enhancement bonus like a permanent magic fang, quite a few new Ki powers that act as self-only buffs, melee powers, and certain targeted spells. He also gets his dice size increases sooner (monk chart tops out at level 14) and can still get INA and some martial arts styles. Monk looks the best out of all of them right now, I designed 2 monk paths, one more physical the other more mystical.
The paladin is no longer MAD (Str and Cha are important), gets auras, access to domain powers, an "always on" version of smite evil as well as specific "smite attacks," more powerful LoH and I don't know what else yet.
All martial classes get combat styles and combat stances at different levels depending on what class you are. Only the Fighter gets all of them.
Combat styles like Two Handed Fighting, Archery and Thrown Weapons, Weapon and Shield Style, and Dual Wielding (so as not to be confused with Two-Weapon Fighting feats). The Fighter can master any 2, others only get 1. Ranger can master Archery/Thrown or Dual Wielding, Barbarian can master Two Handed Style or Dual Wielding, and Paladin can master Two Handed style or Weapon and Shield style.
Monks have their own martial arts talents, and don't get weapon styles.
Combat stances are simple right now, aggressive, defensive, and tactical. Nothing is copied from Bo9S.
|
|
I will add this again to this thread.
What ever form it comes in, Fighters need a major boost to their Dmg, especially at high levels.
As it stands they are outshine by almost every other class when it comes to Dmg.
But what ever Form that does or if comes in will be best served by putting it into the Fighters Abilities and not into Feats.
Can you provide some general realistic* examples of a monk, ranger and paladin that would outclass the fighter of equal level in damage - including the chance to hit said target in order to do said damage?
I fail to see your point as valid - but I'm curious if I'm not looking at it correctly.
Thanks
Robert
* by general realistic, I mean not some special feats from a book that no one is heard of or some super-esoteric circumstance against one exact foe that a build has been specifically designed to fight that truly only happens 1 in 100 encounters.....
|
|
I like the idea of increasing the size of the damage dice in congruence with the monk chart - based on weapon training.
As for Weapon Specialization: I say make it available to all classes - but tie damage to BAB, not character level.
For instance
Weapon Focus
Prereq: BAB+1
Benefit: You gain a +1 to all attack rolls with the chosen weapon. This bonus increases by +1 every time you gain a new attack based on BAB. (+2 at 6 BAB, +3 at 11 BAB)
Weapon Spec
Preqreq: BAB +4
Benefit: You gain an amount of damage equal to one/half you BAB with a specific weapon.
Greater Weapon Focus
Prereq: Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Ftr level 8
Benefit: You gain some special maneuver with the type of weapon you
use. (axes cause bleeding, hammers, maces cause dazed, sword cause sickened, etc).
Greater Weapon Specialization
Prereq: Grt Weapon Focus; Ftr level 12
Your weapon of choice now has bonus damage equal to BAB.
Weapon Training Class Ability:
Weapon-related feats such as Improved Critical, Weapon Focus and Specialization applies to all weapons in that group, and adds a +1 to attacks and damage with that group of weapons,.
Edit: the weapon spec being open to all classes would allow the other martial classes to have some gap closure on the dmg output with the fighter - but the fighters true testimony is that he can still be the only one to Greater Specialize, and the weapon training allows the fighter to apply those bonuses to a wide array of weapons instead of just one that the barbarian or paladin may opt for.
Robert
|
|
Skeld,
I'm sold. How about this:
Kirth nice thought - but I must say I really loathe feat trees that simply replace the effectiveness of previously chosen feats.
I dont mind Power Attack to Cleave or PA to Improved Sunder; but when the tree simply means your previous feat will never again be used because it's been replaced by an upscaled one, are not comforting to me.
I suppose sometimes its nearly inevitable and unavoidable - but I try not to create new ones that do it.
Robert