I have been involved in a few discussions, both here and in the real, concerning fighters and how well they function at mid to high levels.
I believe, that for the most part, fighters work well at all levels. However, a few minor tweaks might make them not only more attractive, but encourage people to play them all the way to 20th.
1) Class skills to 4 ranks per level
Fighters are pretty well the only class that did not gain any benefit from the skill consolidation. Rogues get 8 skill points, and benefit from 6 of the consolidations. I, among others, have had all the classes have gain 4 skill ranks per level, with no adverse effects, quite the opposite.
2) Increase Will save to a good save
One of the biggest annoyances with playing a martial class, is when you get charmed by the opposition. Having a stronger will save would help on this.
And/or at 8th level, have a new class feature, Dutiful or such, add in ½ class level to saves vs mind affecting spells/abilities.
3) Damage Reduction, have it be incremental, every 4 levels increase by 1. This will show the fighter's toughness gradually, rather than all at once.
4) Perhaps allow accelerated healing, due to their endurance/stoic nature/training, based on their class level, say add in .5 to the multiplier every 5 levels. This means that at 20th level, a fighter heals up naturally 3 times faster than a non fighter.
I do not believe that any of these will change the fighter in any radical way, nor affect combat in a large way, except passively.
What does everyone else think?
Hmm, looks like the thread monster got the first attempt at doing this.
|
The only ones I would disagree with would be the Will Save and Skill Points. Skill points because of backwards compatability, and because the new skill system already makes it easier for fighters to diversify. Nay to good Will saves because it just makes the class more attractive as a "dip" class. I would prefer something like Bravery, where they get bonuses to specific Will saves in a progression that requires more than 3-4 fighter levels to activate.
I do like the other points.
I'll also throw my idea into the ring:
Allow fighters to select feats without meeting the prerequisities (like Rangers or Monks). This makes them way more versatile, and keeps them ahead of the Rogue, who now gets just as many potential feats...ugh.
Allow fighters to select feats without meeting the prerequisities (like Rangers or Monks). This makes them way more versatile, and keeps them ahead of the Rogue, who now gets just as many potential feats...ugh.
I like that concept, but how does that working for "dipping" when the Fighter gets two bonus Combat Feats for their first two levels...?
That wouldn't come close to fixing the fighter. He still has no way of dealing with the most obvious threats at high level - melee brutes, who have far more hp than he can deal with quickly and are about the only enemies he can catch. Class skill points per level and HD's have been changed already, so that's not an issue for backward compatibility. Even if it was, it's no different than using the "weaponmaster" or "frenzied berserker" prestige class - they are different from the core fighter, and don't violate "backward compatibility." What does backward compatibility mean to you?
Class skill points per level and HD's have been changed already, so that's not an issue for backward compatibility
Not sure I am following you on this, as fighters are currently still at 2 ranks per level, and their HD is still a d10.
|
|
That wouldn't come close to fixing the fighter. He still has no way of dealing with the most obvious threats at high level - melee brutes, who have far more hp than he can deal with quickly and are about the only enemies he can catch. Class skill points per level and HD's have been changed already, so that's not an issue for backward compatibility. Even if it was, it's no different than using the "weaponmaster" or "frenzied berserker" prestige class - they are different from the core fighter, and don't violate "backward compatibility." What does backward compatibility mean to you?
So having feats with no prereqs is not enough, but 2 extra skill points is necessary? I'm not advocating a single fix - the fighter needs an multi-pronged approach.
It's much easier to add a few mor hp (or not, since you can randomize hp). It is not so easy to add new skill points, even though PRPG has addressed this issue.
With HD, I just add more. With skill points, I have to pick a skill to put ranks in. Not worth the time, especially since the skill consolidations mean that fighters can typically get all the skills they need with 2 skill points.
I'm pretty sure the skill points aren't changing, so we should drop it and focus on other ways to improve the class. You can always house rule the skills.
|
That wouldn't come close to fixing the fighter. He still has no way of dealing with the most obvious threats at high level - melee brutes, who have far more hp than he can deal with quickly and are about the only enemies he can catch. Class skill points per level and HD's have been changed already, so that's not an issue for backward compatibility. Even if it was, it's no different than using the "weaponmaster" or "frenzied berserker" prestige class - they are different from the core fighter, and don't violate "backward compatibility." What does backward compatibility mean to you?
I to believe that the Fighters Dmg, especially at high levels needs boost, and that it would be better done through abilities not feats, though feats need working on.
One of my suggestions was bringing weapon mastery to level 15 when he needs it and adding an ability like improved crit that stacks with improved crit.
The problem is Jason does not see that fighters need a Dmg boost, so we have to convince him.
The only ones I would disagree with would be the Will Save and Skill Points. Skill points because of backwards compatability, and because the new skill system already makes it easier for fighters to diversify. Nay to good Will saves because it just makes the class more attractive as a "dip" class. I would prefer something like Bravery, where they get bonuses to specific Will saves in a progression that requires more than 3-4 fighter levels to activate.
Ah, but the fighter still cannot do much with their skill points, as they still only have 2 of them and they did not gain thru the skill consolidation. They are more limited to the old full plate, shield and sword template. If they want to do something a little different, they have a lot of problems doing so, say a pirate/buccaneer, needing profession sailor, climb, knowledge geography (navigation), survival and acrobatics.
As for the good will save, that is one reason I was suggesting having another class ability that only comes into effect later in the career.
|
|
So having feats with no prereqs is not enough, but 2 extra skill points is necessary? I'm not advocating a single fix - the fighter needs an multi-pronged approach.
It's much easier to add a few mor hp (or not, since you can randomize hp). It is not so easy to add new skill points, even though PRPG has addressed this issue.
With HD, I just add more. With skill points, I have to pick a skill to put ranks in. Not worth the time, especially since the skill consolidations mean that fighters can typically get all the skills they need with 2 skill points.
HP are not really a problem for Fighters... I don't understand why you think so..explain?
Director of Game Design
|
I to believe that the Fighters Dmg, especially at high levels needs boost, and that it would be better done through abilities not feats, though feats need working on.
One of my suggestions was bringing weapon mastery to level 15 when he needs it and adding an ability like improved crit that stacks with improved crit.
The problem is Jason does not see that fighters need a Dmg boost, so we have to convince him.
It is not a matter of convincing, truth be told. I am pretty opposed to adding an entirely new system to fighters that overcomplicates them. I am much more interested in adding feats that give fighters more of a punch. Some of that will certainly come in the form of extra damage, but other effects are needed as well, as this is an area that the fighter is sorely lacking. But as I have mentioned many times, that will come when we get to feats.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm pretty sure the skill points aren't changing, so we should drop it and focus on other ways to improve the class. You can always house rule the skills.
Some of us are holding out hope that it will change
:)|
|
It is not a matter of convincing, truth be told. I am pretty opposed to adding an entirely new system to fighters that overcomplicates them. I am much more interested in adding feats that give fighters more of a punch. Some of that will certainly come in the form of extra damage, but other effects are needed as well, as this is an area that the fighter is sorely lacking. But as I have mentioned many times, that will come when we get to feats.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Though I understand what you are saying on another system..what I have suggested was not adding another system but just boosting what was already there.
Feats though cool, making the boost to Dmg for fighters through feats just make the Fighters feel they need to take those feats, since Dmg is one of the primary things they need.
Instead feats would be better used for other things for fighters like for better control of the battle field..
all IMO
|
Director of Game Design
|
I'm pretty sure the skill points aren't changing, so we should drop it and focus on other ways to improve the class. You can always house rule the skills.Some of us are holding out hope that it will change
:)
Sorry, but this is one thing that I highly doubt will change. It is easy enough for folks to house rule and too much of a pain to convert (after all, it is easier to add skills than to subtract, generally speaking).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Some of us are holding out hope that it will change
:)Sorry, but this is one thing that I highly doubt will change. It is easy enough for folks to house rule and too much of a pain to convert (after all, it is easier to add skills than to subtract, generally speaking).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Crushed look.
OK.
I had to try
:)
Any possibility on getting comments on my other 3 suggestions?
|
|
HP are not really a problem for Fighters... I don't understand why you think so..explain?So having feats with no prereqs is not enough, but 2 extra skill points is necessary? I'm not advocating a single fix - the fighter needs an multi-pronged approach.
It's much easier to add a few mor hp (or not, since you can randomize hp). It is not so easy to add new skill points, even though PRPG has addressed this issue.
With HD, I just add more. With skill points, I have to pick a skill to put ranks in. Not worth the time, especially since the skill consolidations mean that fighters can typically get all the skills they need with 2 skill points.
Sorry, I was responding to the previous poster who stated that since some classes HD increased, why was I opposed to skill point increases. I've edited my post to reflect the quote.
Part of the problem with the fighter class is that they are too simple. If you insist on keeping them as they are, then they would be better used as a straight NPC class and something entirely different added for the player who wants a "melee weapon user" type of concept. The only core character worse off than the fighter is the monk.
This was a 3.0/3.5 design problem, not Pathfinder's. Fighter class abilities aren't there, and the feats (especially the "fighter only" ones) are just not good enough. He is completely, utterly outclassed in melee by druids and clerics, or by any outsider worth summoning at high levels. As written, the fighter makes a decent cohort/pack mule until about level 8 to 10.
Your ideas have merit, but they don't add enough to the class to make him a credible threat on a mid to high level battlefield. He needs to move enough, he needs to do tons more dmg, he needs to use SoD effects, and he needs to have a great success rate with combat maneuvers against reasonably powerful enemies. He also needs a lot more AC; currently, the best AC characters don't wear heavy armor, but that's another 3.0/3.5 system error and a subject for another thread.
There is literally nothing that the fighter brings to the table that changes the odds in the party's favor if the party already has a full caster.
I am of course talking about mid to high level play, the "sweet spot" until about 15th level, which is where fighters are left in the dust. At 1st through 3rd level, as someone pointed out, the fighter with a 2 handed weapon and high Str is basically making melee Save-or-die attacks against the dc of a mook's low AC.
|
|
Part of the problem with the fighter class is that they are too simple. If you insist on keeping them as they are, then they would be better used as a straight NPC class and something entirely different added for the player who wants a "melee weapon user" type of concept. The only core character worse off than the fighter is the monk.
This was a 3.0/3.5 design problem, not Pathfinder's. Fighter class abilities aren't there, and the feats (especially the "fighter only" ones) are just not good enough. He is completely, utterly outclassed in melee by druids and clerics, or by any outsider worth summoning at high levels. As written, the fighter makes a decent cohort/pack mule until about level 10.
Your ideas have merit, but they don't add enough to the class to make him a credible threat on a mid to high level battlefield. He needs to move enough, he needs to do tons more dmg, he needs to use SoD effects, and he needs to have a great success rate with combat maneuvers against reasonably powerful enemies. He also needs a lot more AC; currently, the best AC characters don't wear heavy armor, but that's another 3.0/3.5 system error and a subject for another thread.
There is literally nothing that the fighter brings to the table that changes the odds in the party's favor if the party already has a full caster.
I am of course talking about mid to high level play, the "sweet spot" until about 15th level, which is where fighters are left in the dust. At 1st through 3rd level, as someone pointed out, the fighter with a 2 handed weapon and high Str is basically making melee Save-or-die attacks against the dc of a mook's low AC.
All of the things you describe can be solved by adding new "fighter only" feats, which Jason has said he is very keen on.
Making them class features just complicates things. Not only is the feat system a more plug-and-play approach, but it also allows players even more customization to make every fighter your own.
|
|
All of the things you describe can be solved by adding new "fighter only" feats, which Jason has said he is very keen on.
Making them class features just complicates things. Not only is the feat system a more plug-and-play approach, but it also allows players even more customization to make every fighter your own.
Though I think SW goes to far and totally breaks backward compatibility that Jason wants, I do think that Dmg needs to be dealt with in Fighter abilities not Feats. If we leave it up to feats what we will see is the majority of fighters taken those feats to fix the Dmg problem instead of the Diversity of Feats Jason and you want.
Please explain what "backward compatibility" means to you, and how a Fighter rewrite with "Fighter talents" like "Rogue talents" would somehow break the game.
How is it anymore dangerous to backward compatibility than the dozens of presige classes in splatbooks that replace or enhance the fighter? Or how about the Book of 9 Swords? Pathfinder is supposed to work with that, so why not include an updated class in the Pathfinder RPG that has effective elements for the fighter class WITHOUT having to sort through dozens of splatbooks to make one solid Tier 3 Fighter?
|
|
Please explain what "backward compatibility" means to you, and how a Fighter rewrite with "Fighter talents" like "Rogue talents" would somehow break the game.
How is it anymore dangerous to backward compatibility than the dozens of presige classes in splatbooks that replace or enhance the fighter? Or how about the Book of 9 Swords? Pathfinder is supposed to work with that, so why not include an updated class in the Pathfinder RPG that has effective elements for the fighter class WITHOUT having to sort through dozens of splatbooks to make one solid Tier 3 Fighter?
It is not my explanation on Backwards compatibly that matters but Jason's... and i think you may be going far afield from it with your suggestions.
Jason if you are still paying attention you have somewhere explaining your thoughts on Backwards compatibility?
|
|
Though I think SW goes to far and totally breaks backward compatibility that Jason wants, I do think that Dmg needs to be dealt with in Fighter abilities not Feats. If we leave it up to feats what we will see is the majority of fighters taken those feats to fix the Dmg problem instead of the Diversity of Feats Jason and you want.All of the things you describe can be solved by adding new "fighter only" feats, which Jason has said he is very keen on.
Making them class features just complicates things. Not only is the feat system a more plug-and-play approach, but it also allows players even more customization to make every fighter your own.
Agreed. I want the feats to have unique abilities, save the attack/damage/defense stuff for class abilities.
To address SW: I've made it clear what I think of backwards compatability regarding skills, but here is a clearer view (for the record, I think the rogue talents ARE too much): if you add something it is easier than removing something, if the thing you add is just a single choice from a list that is easier than multiple choices, and finally if you use existing mechanics that is better than making a new subsystem. Above all the class has to maintain its purpose - for the fighter that means being a simple-to-build, simple-to-play class. Tome of Battle utterly failed in that regard - it turned warriors into spellcasters. If I had shown my little brother ToB in his first game, he would have looked at me like I was crazy. He likes hitting dragons with a big axe, what can I say?
I'll say it again: a good deal of the core classes, prestige classes, feats, and spells in later splatbooks were an intentional effort to test 4th Edition mechanics and to "break" 3rd Edition, by providing clearly superior options to those in the PHB, which gives people the notion that the system is inherently flawed.
The reason I don't allow ToB in my games is straight out of the DMG: If it does the job better than a PHB class, then it is overpowered. Now, can we go back to talking about PRPG?
While I agree with Dragon than Jason has the final say on compatability, there is an impetus for us to provide him with feedback with what we think is too far.
Fighter talents, Rogue Talents, and other new class features are exactly what was needed. I got the Book of Nine Swords and I find that they are not overpowered in the least, and if they resemble spellcasters, it's becasue the spells/level/day format is exactly what ALL classes needed in the first place for their tricks.
Notice no one is complaining about spellcasting (unless they complain that some spells are TOO good), precisely because the system works and is good. I wouldn't do a class rewrite exactly as Bo9S did, but the warblade is - for all intents and purposes - very close to what a fighter should have been in 3e.
The martial classes, especially fighter, paladin and monk... well, they aren't needed, or even particularly useful. The new abilities don't add enough, and the feats like Power Attack aren't as good as they were in 3.5. There's literally nothing to recommend the fighter, paladin, or monk at this point. Any cleric or druid has your "melee" aspect covered better than the fighter ever could, at the levels that matter. Fighters get no tricks of their own in 3.p, and that's why they're tier 5.
|
|
S W: While I acknowledge your point of view, can we please not go through the debate about spellcasters/melee here? This is a place for feedback on the actual PRPG rules and potential ways to fix them within the guidelines provided.
Rolling to hit the -10hp equine isn't helping. Warriors, especially fighters, have a simple fix: they rely on feats for power, so give them more and better feats. PRPG gives all characters more total, now they just need more and better to choose from.
3rd Edition had a weakness: That weakness was introducing a new subsystem, feats, and only providing a small quantity of options. In time, the feats available to warriors can make them shine just as bright as a spellcaster without resorting to quasi-magical effects.
I'm going to be blunt - if you really feel that the sorts of changes being presented here (by others, including those Jason has already provided in the Beta) are not helping your game, maybe Pathfinder isn't ever going to make you happy.
I'm all for new Abilities for high level Fighters,
but I think these abilities need to avoid duplicating the Barbarian Powers.
Jason has said he sees adding these abilities in thru Feats (possibly Fighter-only Feats),
so you'd have to think of the possibility of a Barbarian taking 2 levels of Fighter and gaining access to these,
which would stack with all their Barbarian Abilities and Barbarian Fast Speed.
The Fighter's forte needs to be that they get SO MANY of these options, and can choose them all to synergize well.
Slightly off topic:
So now you have to hobble the rogues so fighters can feel "special"? Just give them some powerful class abilities and be done with it.
I'm suggesting not giving Rogues the same Ability (-1 Feat) that Fighters have: to gain double the Feats as other characters.
And Fighter-specific Feats sound viable to me. You can even call them "Fighter Talent Feats" if you want to.
S W: While I acknowledge your point of view, can we please not go through the debate about spellcasters/melee here? This is a place for feedback on the actual PRPG rules and potential ways to fix them within the guidelines provided.
Rolling to hit the -10hp equine isn't helping. Warriors, especially fighters, have a simple fix: they rely on feats for power, so give them more and better feats. PRPG gives all characters more total, now they just need more and better to choose from.
3rd Edition had a weakness: That weakness was introducing a new subsystem, feats, and only providing a small quantity of options. In time, the feats available to warriors can make them shine just as bright as a spellcaster without resorting to quasi-magical effects.
I'm going to be blunt - if you really feel that the sorts of changes being presented here (by others, including those Jason has already provided in the Beta) are not helping your game, maybe Pathfinder isn't ever going to make you happy.
1. The problem is that the fighters rely on feats for power. Feats are not usually powerful in and of themselves, and the fighter has nothing that is uniquely "his."
2. Any "power" you can gain through feats is readily duplicated or superseded by another class using class abilities or (you guessed it) spells, usually low-level spells.
3. Among 3e's many problems was not the number of feats necessarily (3e has hundreds to choose from now) it's that they almost all stop mattering for straight-up fighting before level 10, at least the ones that don't affect spellcasters.
4. The racial changes and most of the class changes were good, especially to the magical classes. THOSE I really like. Pathfinder's setting is better than most rpg's. The overall product is already good. If martial classes were exotic, cool, and interesting to play, then Pathfinder would be very close to the perfect d20 rpg.
The issue is with martial classes in general, and the fighter, monk and paladin in particular. Their abilities compared to the other classes, especially in their favored "role" (melee combat) don't warrant use as a PC class. There is nothing spectacular in any of those classes, nothign "fantasy/legend" worthy - mechanically, they are straight attrition characters. Why is there not even a single "save or die" attack/feature. In fact, unless feats become the equivalent of 7th level spells, the above mentioned classes will sit at the bottom of the pile.
|
|
In fact, unless feats become the equivalent of 7th level spells, the above mentioned classes will sit at the bottom of the pile.
Well, why shouldn't we have feats on that scale? What is actually possible for a feat with a requirement of +16 BAB? We honestly don't know - the SRD contains nothing like that, and even Pathfinder hasn't exactly settled on something. The biggest obstacle to equating feats with spells is their usability (i.e., feats are typically always on), but at some point, we can probably ignore that or work around it in some fashion. So why not start looking at feats that would be worthwhile at that level, and see what we can come up with?
(Note: I mean in the Gen Discussion forum or elsewhere, so as to not get off topic and ahead of ourselves here.)
|
|
S W: Simply put, Fighters do not have Save or Die for two reasons:
1. Giving them Save or Die at will, like all other fighter abilities, would obviously over-power them. Giving them Save or Die at reduced capability means eventually the Save or Die becomes Always Saves Never Dies.
2. Fighters are supposed to be simple and easy to play - no tracking uses of abilities like the Barbarian or Druid.
3. Taking (1) and (2), the only other solution is invalidated: namely, giving them Save or Die with a limit on usage. It is arbitrary and complicated and doesn't mesh with the other class features. Like it or not, 3rd Edition fighters do not have a "martial" power source. Monks, Paladins, and Barbarians do. Adding one to fighters doesn't improve the fighter, it creates a new class that is better than the fighter.
Finally, Save or Dies are one of the things PRPG is moving away from (okay, forget the Bard Capstone debacle...).
You are arguing in circles - you say "fighters are useless", some of us respond with "they just need better feats" and you counter with "but feats aren't as good as spells".
Yes, some feats don't really achieve what spells do. They shouldn't. But new feats can push the limit of acceptable behaviour for extraordinary abilities. I don't see why this is a problem. There have been numerous suggestions, here and elsewhere, on feats for Jason to use that would go a long way to improving the fighters ability to fend for himself on the battlefield.
Personally, I thought Fighers DID have a Save-or-Die Ability (at least potentially): Massive Damage
Actually, Vorpal Nuggies would be a sweet high-level Feat. :-)
Slightly off topic:
It specifically says that each rogue talent can only be selected once. That includes "Combat Trick", I assume.
|
|
It specifically says that each rogue talent can only be selected once. That includes "Combat Trick", I assume.
Slightly off topic:
I was the one who made that mistake. I came by it honestly - the Combat Trick description makes it sound like you can take a combat feat whenever you get a talent. It is at odds with the talent limits you mention. I'll bring it up again when we get to the Rogue feedback.
Yes, but as somebody pointed out, the wording is tricky, because it doesn't just say: "Combat Rogue: Choose one Combat Feat", it says "in lieu of a Rogue Talent, choose a Combat Trait", which is ambiguous to how the rules apply, since you could be considered to not be atually using a Rogue Talent, since it's "in lieu" of one. (the "in lieu" wording is completely un-necessary, as far as I can tell)
Like I said, given that other Combat Feats are specifically granted by other Talents, the "single Combat Feat" reading seems the intended one... The wording could just be clarified.
Grappling, Tripping and combat maneuvers don't have the same level of threat they did in 3.5.
Even rangers get a save or die ability (although at level 20, it's way too late).
|
|
Grappling, Tripping and combat maneuvers don't have the same level of threat they did in 3.5.
How so? Aside from reducing the Improved feats bonus by 2 (and no more free attack after trip - hurray) they generally improved - flat DC, all use BAB+Str, reduced size penalties/bonuses. Warriors almost always win a CMB check, whereas in 3.5 it was a crapshoot.
I am much more interested in adding feats that give fighters more of a punch. Some of that will certainly come in the form of extra damage, but other effects are needed as well, as this is an area that the fighter is sorely lacking.
I strongly suggest feats along these lines:
Intercepting Step (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Fighter level 5th
Benefit: You may choose to move up to your normal movement speed as an immediate action in response to an enemy's movement. This movement counts as one of your attacks of opportunity for the round (but does not count against your normal movement), and must place you in a square along the enemy's line of movement; if you cannot reach such a square, you cannot use this feat. This movement forces the moving enemy to stop in the square in front of the one you now occupy. Alternatively, the enemy can attempt to bull rush or overrun you (at +2 to the normal DC) to continue movement, but this provokes an attack of opportunity as per those combat maneuvers.
Opportune Strike (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, BAB 6+
Benefit: When making a full attack, after making your primary attack, you may choose to hold one (or more, if applicable) of your iterative attacks. Held attacks can be made at any time later in the round as immediate actions, even when it is not your turn. If you hold more than one iterative attack, the two (or more) held attacks need not be made at the same time, although they can be if you so choose.
Disruptive Strike (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Opportune Strike
Benefit: When making an Opportune Strike in response to enemy spellcasting, a successful hit adds your BAB to the Spellcraft DC to avoid losing the spell.
Normal: The Spellcraft DC to avoid losing a spell is 10 + damage dealt + spell level.
|
I actually think a "talent" system for fighters would work well. It would give fighters abilities that are unique to them, unlike feats, which everyone can take. It is a worthy alternative to fighter-only feats, which always seemed awkward to me. The whole point of feats is that they apply to a more broad selection of characters than just one class, for the most part.
I actually think a "talent" system for fighters would work well. It would give fighters abilities that are unique to them, unlike feats, which everyone can take. It is a worthy alternative to fighter-only feats, which always seemed awkward to me. The whole point of feats is that they apply to a more broad selection of characters than just one class, for the most part.
Yeah, talents would be better, but Jason seems to prefer fighter-only feats. I'm happy to give the man what he wants.
Grappling, Tripping and combat maneuvers don't have the same level of threat they did in 3.5.How so? Aside from reducing the Improved feats bonus by 2 (and no more free attack after trip - hurray) they generally improved - flat DC, all use BAB+Str, reduced size penalties/bonuses. Warriors almost always win a CMB check, whereas in 3.5 it was a crapshoot.
I also think there better now myself.
shame bout the skills thoughmore feats would do the fighter a would of good.
I had a thought that maybe taking fighting styles in place od weapon training giving them a few options might be nice
|
|
I actually think a "talent" system for fighters would work well. It would give fighters abilities that are unique to them, unlike feats, which everyone can take. It is a worthy alternative to fighter-only feats, which always seemed awkward to me. The whole point of feats is that they apply to a more broad selection of characters than just one class, for the most part.
Unless Jason also added some of the "fighter only" feats to the list of Monk feats, which they can take regardless of prereqs. I owuld be okay with that, as monks deserve warrior mojo too. As long as they don't get the all the best ones.
|
|
Can't beleive so many folks are unhappy with the Beta Fighter.
I thought the Beta Fighter stood well as is.
I am glad to hear our designer is ready to hear about Feats, I really think this is where the Beta Fighter will be made to shine.
Great feats Kirth Gersen can't wait till the Design schedule gets there.
My players loved the new fighter, but I would love talents, tricks, anything like that, in the place of the plain combat bonus that weapon training gives.
I would specially love abilities that break from the fighter's typical opposed roll / CMB thing and entered the marvelous realms of Save vs My DC, like Stunning Fist. Maybe things like: You become dazed/blind/any effect if you fail your save after I hit you.