Alright, finished writing up an initial draft of my take of the Feat Exchange concept.
FIGHTER FIGHTING STYLES
Starting at 5th level, a Fighter begins to develop multiple fighting styles that they can employ in combat. By changing their fighting style, they may effectively swap-out a certain number of their existing selection of bonus feats for those of a different style. These fighting styles are developed from a pool of feats with which the Fighter has familiarized themselves.
Feat Pool:
The feat pool contains a number of feats equal to the Fighter’s class level. Thus, at 5th level, the feat pool consists of the Fighter’s 3 bonus feats (selected at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd levels) plus another 2 feats they select upon reaching 5th level.
Fighting Styles:
A fighting style is comprised of one bonus feat for every fighting style the fighter knows plus one feat per point of their Intelligence modifier (minimum 1). A fighter is considered to know one style at 1st level, two at 5th, and an additional one for every 4th level thereafter to a maximum of 5 styles at level 17.
Creating Styles:
Upon reaching 5th level, the Fighter chooses which bonus feats are set and which can be swapped out as part of their fighting styles*. A 5th level Fighter with a +1 Int modifier could include all 3 of their bonus feats, whereas a 5th level Fighter with a -1 Int modifier could select only 1 of their bonus feats for swapping. Any time a Fighter’s permanent Int modifier or the number of fighting styles they know changes, the bonus feats they have selected for swapping must also be adjusted accordingly.
* Note that Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, or feats requiring either as a prerequisite are not included in the Fighter's bonus feat pool and cannot be included as part of a style. The same goes for feats that are a requirement for any prestige classes taken by the Fighter.
At this time, the Fighter creates their fighting styles by assigning bonus feats to each fighting style. These feats may be selected from their entire feat pool, thus two different styles may contain some of the same feats if desired. Note that each fighting style must include all of the appropriate prerequisite feats (i.e. if a fighting style contains Mobility, then Dodge must either be part of that fighting style or one of the Fighter’s other static feats).
Modifying Styles:
After their initial assignment, once per day, the Fighter may further refine their fighting styles by replacing a bonus feat in one of their fighting styles with another from their feat pool. The fighting style must still ensure that all feat prerequisites are still fulfilled.
Switching Styles:
Upon awakening each day, a Fighter should declare what fighting style they are currently using. While this choice can be changed throughout the day, during situations such as surprise rounds it may be important to know what feats the Fighter is currently working with. Upon rolling initiative, the Fighter may either continue using that fighting style or select another.
Once the Fighter has joined combat, switching fighting styles requires that they refocus. Refocusing is a full round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A fighter may attempt to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity by refocusing defensively. This requires a successful Fighter level check (d20 + Fighter level + Con modifier) versus the most powerful creature threatening the Fighter (DC 10 + creature’s Hit Dice). After refocusing, the Fighter selects their fighting style and must re-roll their initiative to rejoin combat in the following round.
It should be better just to ask for giving fighter a double number of feats ... this is the only result of this rule ... he can use how many feats he wants when he wants and change them at will, just spending one round ..
An istant refocus allowing changing feats is just a nonsense ... fighter needs years of training to master their feats .. no way they can change reflex and style of fighting every 6 seconds ...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think that it's overly contrived for a Fighter to "pick what they know" every morning as if their martial routines were spells. I don't think I've ever seen a basis for such a thing in any work of fiction except where it's a gish of some sort selection their "magical loadout" — not their extraordinary abilities.
See the example given upthread of Lan, Rand, and various other warders and blademasters in the Wheel of Time who "practice the forms" each morning, working on different sets of combat styles and tricks, and don't do the same ones every day.
Now if the Fighter was shifting between stances/styles by refocusing in combat, or after perhaps making a check to discern their opponents' abilities, that I might be sold on. However, something like that shouldn't have some sort of artificial limit on it beyond the brief period needed to adjust.
An appropriate fix should not break something as important as the sense of immersion. I'm pretty certain that I'm not the only person here who is sticking with 3.x rather than 4E for this very reason.
I'm still writing up a suggestion of my own...
I'm interested to hear...
1. If you have a counter-argument to the logical/factual real-world examples given by me and others of having training in a particular or set of tricks (such as singing/piano playing) that are always in the background but need to be refreshed to be used at a top level.
2. If you can describe how allowing spellcasters the ability to freely change the capabilities in which they have trained every day with no loss of skill doesn't violate the simulationist ethic of immersion.
The more I read, the more I want to shout, No! No! No! I can see the arguments for it, but, really, if the fighter still needs a boost in power (which is something I will agree with), there are much better ways to handle this. This is mechanically clunky and largely nonsensical.
Feats were never designed to be switched out 'on the fly', or even day to day. A pool of points, similar to the barbarian and monk, would be a more elegant way of achieving this. Either way, this far along in development is way too late to be suggesting such an overhaul to the rules. Giving one class access to all feats they qualify for, ever, is going to create more problems than it will solve.
Please, no!
tfad
See the example given upthread of Lan, Rand, and various other warders and blademasters in the Wheel of Time who "practice the forms" each morning, working on different sets of combat styles and tricks, and don't do the same ones every day.
I have never read WoT, but that seems little different than varying your weights routine at a gym, or katas in a martial arts practice. I don't buy that performing kata A on Monday would prevent you from using any of the techniques in kata B if you know them both.
1. If you have a counter-argument to the logical/factual real-world examples given by me and others of having training in a particular or set of tricks (such as singing/piano playing) that are always in the background but need to be refreshed to be used at a top level.
Practicing songs is an exercise in mental and social energy. However, muscle memory is a different matter all together. I have friends in the Army, who YEARS after having finished their service can still break down and reassemble an M16/AR15 with their eyes closed. See also: Riding a Bike.
2. If you can describe how allowing spellcasters the ability to freely change the capabilities in which they have trained every day with no loss of skill doesn't violate the simulationist ethic of immersion.
It hasn't come up in a few months, but I have quite often expressed my distaste for Vancian casting. Also, once again, spellcasting is a mental exercise rather than a muscle reflex. I like oranges, you like apples, but comparing them in this context is somewhat inane.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Swapping feats daily is not logical at all ... there is no relation with wizards spell .. wizard has to know the spell and they chose just because they cannot prepare infinite spell ... fighters can use all their feats anytime without memory limit ... so they would excange feats for whic ones ... feats they never had got?
I have seen a misunderstanding that seems to keep cropping up, of fighters "learning feats they never knew and forgetting other feats," so pehaps I will take one final stab at re-explaining it.
1. Fighters like, every other class, can absolutely master a feat. You use a regular feat slot, you have the feat mastered. You have trained with it so long (even though 3rd Ed doesn't really have training rules, but anyway) that you know it stone cold. Period. End of story.
2. Beyond those feats he has devoted a permanent slot and completely and permanently mastered, a fighter is assumed, as a class feature of the fighter class to be familiar with and trained in ALL [COMBAT] FEATS. He knows basically how to do all of them. He knows the more difficult aspects of the tricks, but hasn't practiced them as much as his super-expert mastered feats (#1). At no point does he actually learn or forget them. They are ALL feats that he has studied and in which he has trained. He already knows them. He doesn't suddenly wake up one day and know someone he never knew. He doesn't suddenly forget anything when he switches away from a feat. He still knows basically how to do everything on the [COMBAT] feat list all the time.
3. BUT, to gain the full benefits of your basic training in those other [COMBAT] feats (other than ones you have mastered as #1 above), you need to practice with them. You have all of the skills, but for your level of skill with it to rise to the level of getting to use the feat ability, you need to practice it. Since the time scale of adventuring typically works in the scale of days, we assign an arbitrary amount of practice time to work with your tricks.
- If you're going to go mounted combat, you spend time working out with your horse and practicing the ride by and the trample and whatever, to get the feel back for riding and fighting, skills you already have, at top effectiveness.
- If you're going to go archer, you get out your bow and do target practice to get the feel of your bow back and refresh up to top effectiveness your archery skills that you already have.
So here's the division:
A. Combat skills/maneuvers/stances that you have already learned through training and have absolutely mastered.
These are your permanent feat slots
B. Combat skills/maneuvers/stances that you have already learned through training but have not completely mastered, but you are good enough at that you could get your skills in shape to use by working on them for an hour or so.
These are the feats you master each day with your 'martial training' or 'feat exchange.'
C. Combat skills/maneuvers/stances that you have already learned through training but have not completely mastered, and if you don't spend an hour or so practicing with them your skills won't quite be good enough to get the benefits of having a feat.
These are other feats of the [COMBAT] type. Things that you COULD bring up to mastery level (i.e., good enough to get feat benefit) with some practice, but that you are not currently choosing to practice.
*****
I honestly am puzzled by the notion that having skills that you know at a decent level but need to polish to use at a high level of skill (i.e., enough to gain the bonus a feat provides) is illogical.
Ask any performer (singer, musician, stage magician) or athlete whether they think constant practice is important, especially for difficult tricks, or tricks you don't usually use. If you don't keep practicing certain skills, you lose the ability to do them at a high level (the level at which you get the benefits of a feat).
If you start practicing a new trick, one that you already knew how to do but weren't all the great at, you could become expert in that one, but the ones you stopped practicing would slip. BUT, if you go back and practice them again, the ability usually comes back. You haven't forgotten the skill, and you haven't gained a new skill. Your specific mastery of a set of skills or tricks is based on whatever you are practicing most recently and most intensely.
You could practice certain tricks so much that you never forget them or your skills never decay. Those are your permanent feat slots.
You could have one trick that you picked up and practiced for a while, then lapsed, then went back to and eventually dedicated yourself to completely mastering. This would be a feat that you initially used through your exchange feats but eventually decided you liked well enough to devote to a permanent feat slot. Now you can use your exchange feats to represent other skills of which you have temporary mastery.
Find a strange exotical weapon and suddenly learn how to master it and unlearn at the same moment how to use the weapon they used till few hours ago?
First all, it's not sudden. The fighter has to practice for an hour and can do it only once a day.
Secondly, the fighter is supposed to be a master of weapons and all forms of combat. He can figure out which end of any weapon is the business end.
Thirdly, a fighter does not forget how to use another weapon. He is simply focusing his energy and attention on mastering the nuances of using this new exotical weapon, and in order to focus his attention on that skill, he needs to take practice time and attention away from keeping other exotical tricks up to par. Whatever you've practiced most recently is what is freshest in your mind.
If I was practicing baseball before but I'm practicing basketball now... is it illogical that my basketball skills are fresher in my mind and I'm better at them than at the baseball skills I'm not using right now? It seems like the most logical thing in the world.
Permanently 'unlearning' a feat for a new one every five level .. like a sorcerer, is just a little more logical, even if strange.
Besides, as a DM, i fear the confusion given by players changing their weapon attack stats every day ...
That may be true, but there's a simple solution. Don't change your feats. Just keep them same every day. You don't have to change them, just as a spellcaster doesn't need to change their spells each day.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It should be better just to ask for giving fighter a double number of feats ... this is the only result of this rule ... he can use how many feats he wants when he wants and change them at will, just spending one round ..
An istant refocus allowing changing feats is just a nonsense ... fighter needs years of training to master their feats .. no way they can change reflex and style of fighting every 6 seconds ...
By the same logic wizards and other casters have to spend years of training to master a small number of spells. There should be no way they can change incantations and magical channeling pathways and sources of power every 6 seconds.
However, I wouldn't argue with your original premise either - just to give the fighter even MORE feats.
|
I am truly amazed at the negativity some of you give towards this concept, I have a hard time imagining us being able to help build a better fighter when every idea that is new gets shot down because its....new. I dont want boring, noninvolved fixes to the Fighter and I think there are alot out there who dont want boring fixes either.
The Fighter doesnt need a bump, it needs a mechanic that is fun. It needs to stand apart from the other martial classes because of some dynamic and involving play style. This a noninvasive procedure to make the Fighters more fun (its backwards compatable, it makes sense if you think about it, and it changes the way you play the worst class in the game)
Remember the Fighter would be only able to switch out CERTAIN feats (not all of them. So see, a Fighter would have a consistent base of feats that would be unchanged daily)
It should be better just to ask for giving fighter a double number of feats ... this is the only result of this rule ... he can use how many feats he wants when he wants and change them at will, just spending one round ..
An istant refocus allowing changing feats is just a nonsense ... fighter needs years of training to master their feats .. no way they can change reflex and style of fighting every 6 seconds ...
I ride mountain bikes... a lot. The one thing I've never been able to master is riding drops... that is, rolling over something that goes straight down for 2' or more. There is a special technique to it, as you roll up to the drop you essentially ride a wheelie off the edge so when you hit the ground your rear wheel lands first.
The other day I was riding at a park where they have a series of 3 2' drops. I was rolling through and I just decided I was going to roll them. I roll up and Bam!... roll, Bam! Roll, Bam! Roll... I rolled all three drops which I swear I wouldn't have been able to do 5 minutes before.
I am an expert mountain biker, and I find it's surprisingly often that those "Oh Wow!" moments pop up on a ride, sometimes I'll do something like that and never be able to do it again. Some of it is just years of practice but often I don't even see something coming and it sure feels like instant mastery to me. Do I lose access to the things I knew before? Certainly not. On the other hand I find that the techniques I use quickly fade if I don't practice them frequently.
Sure if the instant mastery was a frequent thing it would probably be frustrating but I don't see it being very commonly done. Maybe a fighters shield is sundered so he picks up a short sword and swaps Deft Shield for Two Weapon Defense. He's known the theory and practiced it with his instructor but he's never actually done it in combat before. After working with the sword defensively his muscle memory and mind set gets in the mode of using the sword and while he doesn't forget how to use the shield he loses his edge with the shield for a bit.
|
|
Ok, I've been mulling this idea over in my head the last couple of days and I think I've managed to formulate my thoughts on it correctly.
First of all, I think this is a pretty decent idea for several reasons. 1) it does allow a little more customization and adaptability for a class that, while simple, was a bit of a drag to play. it lacked some flavour. 2) it makes more sense to me. the fighter is supposed to be the best resource for all-around combat. the barbarian is more offensive and the ranger more find and sneak, buit the fighter is supposed to be the generic warrior that can fill any slot needed in combat. this would allow that. 3) It also makes sense that a fighter would know more then just one trick. maybe he can fight with two weapons, as well as fight on horseback. this would allow him to have a larger range of abilities, which I think would be a good thing.
a slot every 4 levels would be about the right amount I think. I think it would add just the right amount of free roaming it needs, and the fighter would still have a solid base of its "favorite trick" to fall back on.
my only concern is how often he can switch them up. I think once a day, after 8 hours of sleep (or 7 hours and 1 practice hour where he dusts off the rusty skills) would work best. any more then that, and I think there may end up being problems where the fighter becomes a swiss army class.
I would also wonder which feats would be labled as "switchables", if it's any fighter bonus feat, or only specific ones. I would suppose you can't take any that would be prereqs, but I don't think that leaves too many options. perhaps you could allow the ones that have prereqs so long as they're met in some way. otherwise, that only leaves Blind Fight, Combat Reflexes, Exotic weapon proficiency, Improved Critical/init/shield bash/bull rush/overrun, quick draw, rapid reload, weapon finesse. I can see a problem where most of the "tricks" that would be best for swapping are actually feat trees, like mounted combat or unarmed strike or spring attack. The only way I can see to correct that, or make it usale, would be immense amounts of text to lay out exactly the conditions of when they can take prereqs or when they can't swap out something.
Sorry about the block of text.
Just my 2cp.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
See the example given upthread of Lan, Rand, and various other warders and blademasters in the Wheel of Time who "practice the forms" each morning, working on different sets of combat styles and tricks, and don't do the same ones every day.I have never read WoT, but that seems little different than varying your weights routine at a gym, or katas in a martial arts practice. I don't buy that performing kata A on Monday would prevent you from using any of the techniques in kata B if you know them both.
That depends entirely on whether you have completely mastered kata B (i.e., have spent a permanent feat slot) or whether you are still working on it from time to time (i.e., you were using an exchange feat on it yesterday but now you aren't and are practicing other skills instead).
1. If you have a counter-argument to the logical/factual real-world examples given by me and others of having training in a particular or set of tricks (such as singing/piano playing) that are always in the background but need to be refreshed to be used at a top level.Practicing songs is an exercise in mental and social energy. However, muscle memory is a different matter all together. I have friends in the Army, who YEARS after having finished their service can still break down and reassemble an M16/AR15 with their eyes closed. See also: Riding a Bike.
Which means your friends effectively took a permanent feat in weapon assembly/breakdown. Can they also perform all of the other tasks that they performed during the army with equal proficiency as they used to? How is their rapelling? Marksmanship? Balance and field crawl? Handfighting?
Would they still be better at than I would? Sure. They have fighter levels. BUT, the question is would they be good enough at it to count as an expert (as in, performing it at the level of getting a feat bonus)? They could, for instance, handfight at an okay level (i.e., using their BAB and stat mods), but against a trained opponent would be in some trouble (cuz they haven't practiced their Ipv Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist exchange feats, having subbed them out for Watching TV and Fantasy Football).
Athletes who have been injured or forced to sit out games for other reasons, even when physically healed, need work to get back into 'game shape.' A boxer with too long a layoff may get his clock cleaned by a fighter who has kept on top of his game. These athletes haven't forgotten how to play, and some skills (their permanent feats) are still there; but, for other skills away from their core of mastery, they need to practice. This is due to muscle memory being only part of the battle - physical skills do involve muscle memory, of course, but engagement with the enemy requires attention, perception, anticipation, adaptation, and timing.
That's the difference between field-stripping an M16 and laying an Improved Trip on an opponent. The M16 sits exactly where you put it. The enemy does not. A pure muscle memory task can only happen with an inanimate object. Combat skills rarely deal with those. To paraphrase the famous maxim: "No purely muscle memory task survives first contact with the enemy." :)
Still, even if you accept that combat skills are purely physical and not mental:
The idea of ingrained muscle memory = permanent feat slots.
The idea of fluid muscle memory/learned but not mastered to the point of reflex = exchange feats.
2. If you can describe how allowing spellcasters the ability to freely change the capabilities in which they have trained every day with no loss of skill doesn't violate the simulationist ethic of immersion.It hasn't come up in a few months, but I have quite often expressed my distaste for Vancian casting. Also, once again, spellcasting is a mental exercise rather than a muscle reflex. I like oranges, you like apples, but comparing them in this context is somewhat inane.
I haven't seen your feelings on Vancian so I apologize for not knowing of your distaste for it. Spellcasting is not entirely mental (being that it often has somatic components, which would rely on muscle memory), nor is singing (just try singing a whole concert some time and seeing how your physical conditioning, breathing patterns, posture, stance, and facial muscles affect what your brain thinks it wants your voice to produce) nor playing the piano (or doing both at the same time), any more than combat skills are entirely physical.
If they were purely so, I would agree with you that comparing them would be inane from a simulationist perspective (the gamist, of course, doesn't care), but neither is. The hard distinction you make between physical and mental tasks, while convenient in its association with mental recall vs. muscle memory, seems rather arbitrary rather than representing the composite physical and mental nuance of either spellcasting or combat skills.
|
|
It should be better just to ask for giving fighter a double number of feats ... this is the only result of this rule ... he can use how many feats he wants when he wants and change them at will, just spending one round ..
An istant refocus allowing changing feats is just a nonsense ... fighter needs years of training to master their feats .. no way they can change reflex and style of fighting every 6 seconds ...
I ride mountain bikes... a lot. The one thing I've never been able to master is riding drops... that is, rolling over something that goes straight down for 2' or more. There is a special technique to it, as you roll up to the drop you essentially ride a wheelie off the edge so when you hit the ground your rear wheel lands first.
The other day I was riding at a park where they have a series of 3 2' drops. I was rolling through and I just decided I was going to roll them. I roll up and Bam!... roll, Bam! Roll, Bam! Roll... I rolled all three drops which I swear I wouldn't have been able to do 5 minutes before.
I am an expert mountain biker, and I find it's surprisingly often that those "Oh Wow!" moments pop up on a ride, sometimes I'll do something like that and never be able to do it again. Some of it is just years of practice but often I don't even see something coming and it sure feels like instant mastery to me. Do I lose access to the things I knew before? Certainly not. On the other hand I find that the techniques I use quickly fade if I don't practice them frequently.
Sure if the instant mastery was a frequent thing it would probably be frustrating but I don't see it being very commonly done. Maybe a fighters shield is sundered so he picks up a short sword and swaps Deft Shield for Two Weapon Defense. He's known the theory and practiced it with his instructor but he's never actually done it in combat before. After working with the sword defensively his muscle memory and mind set gets in the mode of using the sword and while he doesn't...
I really like your swapping of Deft shield for Two weapon defense. It goes to show that you can be quite logical with your feat swap. I am still leaning towards only being able to swap at the beginning of the day (perm. feats could be spent to give a number of time per day to swap instantly)
People have long term and short term memories, The use of this system is only reflecting how people really are. I havent drawn in a while, so my illustration skills are a bit rusty right now, on the flip side, my bike riding skills have become notably improved ( Im trying to save on gas lately) nothing the Fighter can take will drastically change the game or the character (any feats, such as exotic weapon prof, that doesnt make a whole lot of sense, we simply dont put on the Fighter swap list)
we should instead be making a list of good feats to put in the pool and bad feats to put in the pool
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Sure if the instant mastery was a frequent thing it would probably be frustrating but I don't see it being very commonly done. Maybe a fighters shield is sundered so he picks up a short sword and swaps Deft Shield for Two Weapon Defense. He's known the theory and practiced it with his instructor but he's never actually done it in combat before. After working with the sword defensively his muscle memory and mind set gets in the mode of using the sword and while he doesn't forget how to use the shield he loses his edge with the shield for a bit.
Maybe this is the best, simplest way to express what I've spent too many words trying to articulate.
Exchange feats are those tricks you know but you just haven't tried that many times in the heat of battle, and if you don't keep up with practicing them you lose your edge with it until or unless you practice some more (use it as an exchange feat again) or finally master it (take it as a permanent feat).
Short, sweet, to the point. Thanks Mr. da Ogre... :)
|
I have seen a misunderstanding that seems to keep cropping up, of fighters "learning feats they never knew and forgetting other feats," so pehaps I will take one final stab at re-explaining it.
2. Beyond those feats he has devoted a permanent slot and completely and permanently mastered, a fighter is assumed, as a class feature of the fighter class to be familiar with and trained in ALL [COMBAT] FEATS. He knows basically how to do all of them. He knows the more difficult aspects of the tricks, but hasn't practiced them as much as his super-expert mastered feats (#1). At no point does he actually learn or forget them. They are ALL feats that he has studied and in which he has trained. He already knows them. He doesn't suddenly wake up one day and know someone he never knew. He doesn't suddenly forget anything when he switches away from a feat. He still knows basically how to do everything on the [COMBAT] feat list all the time.
I am going to have to disagree with this statement. I think fighters should be the masters of combat, beating out all PRCs and subclasses (old school) in general utility. I think a fighter does learn feats over time....the idea that a fighter can summon up training based upon a morning selection and some prep work doesn't make too much sense. Sure there can be some kind of daily warm-up mechanic put in place for fighters...but what about the time he really needs a feat in combat - say he doesn't have POWER ATTACK, yet he really needs it? By your definition in a "life or death" situation he should be able to improvise some form of POWER ATTACK since to some degree he knows the ability, yet he didn't retrain for it that morning. This is again assuming that fighters know the basics of all feats.
I like the focus idea, but I don't think it solves the problem by utilizing switch out feat system.
BTW what is the problem again? Fighters are too weak compared to other classes?
|
1. The fighter gets a special feat slot every couple levels (replacing his normal bonus feat). The feat in this slot can be swapped out in the morning, allowing the fighter to customize his package a bit. This feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for other feats or pclasses.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Simple in its approach, and will add a dimension to the Fighter that will be both fun for gamists and simulationists.
As someone mentioned, its very wheel of time'ish', in that every morning the characters would practice certain manuevers that would be used later... ;)
I like.
slip the first one in at 2nd level, then 1 at 7th, then 1 at 12th, and a last one at 17th....and have them replace any bonus feats the fighter gets at that level.
I wouldnt want to see much more than that, as then the pregame could be real bogged down and that would cover most any 'feat trees'
I agree with the OP when he says, dont allow any of these Temp Feats to act as prereq's for perm feats...but do allow them to act as the prereq's for more temp feats.
|
|
I do like the idea of feat slots for fighters. But there is a big problem with just turning bonus feats into feat slots. The "real" feats are needed to enter prestige classes.
Its very common multiclass one or two fighter levels so you can meet the prestige class requirements. It would be impossible to do that with this new feat slot system.
Lucio
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I am going to have to disagree with this statement. I think fighters should be the masters of combat, beating out all PRCs and subclasses (old school) in general utility. I think a fighter does learn feats over time....the idea that a fighter can summon up training based upon a morning selection and some prep work doesn't make too much sense. Sure there can be some kind of daily warm-up mechanic put in place for fighters...but what about the time he really needs a feat in combat - say he doesn't have POWER ATTACK, yet he really needs it? By your definition in a "life or death" situation he should be able to improvise some form of POWER ATTACK since to some degree he knows the ability, yet he didn't retrain for it that morning. This is again assuming that fighters know the basics of all feats.I have seen a misunderstanding that seems to keep cropping up, of fighters "learning feats they never knew and forgetting other feats," so pehaps I will take one final stab at re-explaining it.
2. Beyond those feats he has devoted a permanent slot and completely and permanently mastered, a fighter is assumed, as a class feature of the fighter class to be familiar with and trained in ALL [COMBAT] FEATS. He knows basically how to do all of them. He knows the more difficult aspects of the tricks, but hasn't practiced them as much as his super-expert mastered feats (#1). At no point does he actually learn or forget them. They are ALL feats that he has studied and in which he has trained. He already knows them. He doesn't suddenly wake up one day and know someone he never knew. He doesn't suddenly forget anything when he switches away from a feat. He still knows basically how to do everything on the [COMBAT] feat list all the time.
Actually, if you go back to the first post in the thread, you will see that I proposed exactly that.
That 1/day per 5 levels a fighter should be able to, as you say, improvise the use of a feat, spontaneously gaining access to it.
I like the focus idea, but I don't think it solves the problem by utilizing switch out feat system.
BTW what is the problem again? Fighters are too weak compared to other classes?
We are doing a massive playtest for a new game, so the idea of altering the classes is less a problem than an opportunity. If we didn't want to change anything, we'd just play the SRD and let it go at that. Paizo wants to develop PF as a unique game, so they are asking for contributions that would make PF's classes unique and distinct from their 3.5/SRD predecessors. This is one such idea.
In answer to your second question, the answer is yes, that fighters are too weak compared to other classes. More specifically to the point, fighters are too inflexible compared to other classes. Fighters are not less fun to play, less able to role-play, completely useless, or any of the other silly notions thrown about.
The problem for the fighter is that they get a lot of feats, but the stack of feats required to become really good at ONE thing is so large (in another thread I posted a build of my 16th level fighter-type cohort, who had like 8 or 9 feats out of 13 devoted to charge-based feats) that fighters are hamstrung in situations where their favored build doesn't work as well.
The initial idea of this as a class ability was that fighters should be assumed to be skilled at all forms of combat (much as, in the change from 1st/2nd to 3rd Ed, fighters became auto-proficient in almost all weapons), but to enable them to have the flexibility WITHIN THEIR CLASS ABILITIES to be able to adapt to new and different challenges, being able to show off their "elite skills" as the kids say these days
For those who want to play fighters as straight-up one-trick builds, you can still do that. Just don't change your feats. The fighter is still ultra-simple. Build and run it.
For those who want more flexibility within the fighter class, this gives them that option, both to prepare for expected challenges and, if you use the add-on ability, to even have a limited ability to react to an unexpected tactical situation.
|
I'm sorry OP but I don't care for the system you came up with, however I have to weigh in that I love the idea that you drew from and that Jason offered as option #1 and agree that they need to be unable to be used as a prereq (or if they are used as a pre-req they loose their switchable status and become permanent, ooh I like that) except for other switchable feats. I like one every 4 levels myself, 5 switchable feats by level 20, and I agree that they should only be combat feats, is the perfect # for me. Either 4 or 5 by level 20.
|
|
I do like the idea of feat slots for fighters. But there is a big problem with just turning bonus feats into feat slots. The "real" feats are needed to enter prestige classes.
Its very common multiclass one or two fighter levels so you can meet the prestige class requirements. It would be impossible to do that with this new feat slot system.
Lucio
No it wouldn't because we are not proposing that all feats become that, only that a few feats be switchable.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I do like the idea of feat slots for fighters. But there is a big problem with just turning bonus feats into feat slots. The "real" feats are needed to enter prestige classes.
Its very common multiclass one or two fighter levels so you can meet the prestige class requirements. It would be impossible to do that with this new feat slot system.
Lucio
No, it's quite possible. They key point is that you MAY leave those feat slots open as exchange feats. You don't have to. You can just use them as regular slots.
Also, I think Jason B's proposed concept was that you wouldn't get those swappable exchange slots until 4th level anyway, so dippers would be unaffected.
|
|
I honestly am puzzled by the notion that having skills that you know at a decent level but need to polish to use at a high level of skill (i.e., enough to gain the bonus a feat provides) is illogical.
Ask any performer (singer, musician, stage magician) or athlete whether they think constant practice is important, especially for difficult tricks, or tricks you don't usually use. If you don't keep practicing certain skills, you lose the ability to do them at a high level (the level at which you get the benefits of a feat).
This really crystallized for me why I disagree.
See, I don't see the fighter as a musician -- that's the wizard, whose broad knowledge of magic (music) theory allows him to cast virtually any spell (play any song) he's ever learned with a few hours of study (practice).
The fighter, on the other hand, is your Olympic athlete. While he is more capable and athletic than your average Joe (represented by his higher-than-normal BAB, HP, weapon and armor proficiencies) his talents typically are highly focused -- they're hard-coded in muscle memory. With some short-term training, a runner might switch between the 200 meter and 400 meter dash, but he's still essentially a short distance runner. But you don't see Olympic divers re-training overnight and becoming pole-vaulters. In the same way, I don't see a sword-and-boarder suddenly gaining above-average proficiency in two-weapon-fighting because he swings around an off-hand dagger a few times in the morning. Sure, he's got some familiarity with the style (as in, he can do it, with a higher BAB than regular schmoe) but he's not as good as someone who has taken specialized in that style by taking the appropriate feats.
That's the simulationist argument. On the gamist end of things, my best argument again goes back to play style. The wizard has weak baseline (physical) abilities, but is daily-adaptable and can be very situationally powerful. The fighter is on the other end of the spectrum -- broadly capable (per base physical stats), but his adaptability (greater number of feats/breadth of training) is not as malleable on a short-term basis. I think that's a feature worth preserving, not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Again, however, I'm definitely open to some sort of limited, long-term feat retraining that's open to all classes, if for nothing else than to allow players to swap out a feat that later turned out to be a mistake or little-used.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm sorry OP but I don't care for the system you came up with, however I have to weigh in that I love the idea that you drew from and that Jason offered as option #1 and agree that they need to be unable to be used as a prereq (or if they are used as a pre-req they loose their switchable status and become permanent, ooh I like that) except for other switchable feats. I like one every 4 levels myself, 5 switchable feats by level 20, and I agree that they should only be combat feats, is the perfect # for me. Either 4 or 5 by level 20.
Hey, I think any or all of these concepts are all to the good. I'm not so stuck on my specific idea that I think it's the only way to accomplish the general goal. I think getting them at 4/8/12/16/20 would be a good progression.
|
|
I do like the idea of feat slots for fighters. But there is a big problem with just turning bonus feats into feat slots. The "real" feats are needed to enter prestige classes.
Its very common multiclass one or two fighter levels so you can meet the prestige class requirements. It would be impossible to do that with this new feat slot system.
Lucio
No, it's quite possible. They key point is that you MAY leave those feat slots open as exchange feats. You don't have to. You can just use them as regular slots.
Also, I think Jason B's proposed concept was that you wouldn't get those swappable exchange slots until 4th level anyway, so dippers would be unaffected.
Jason only suggested that it be a feat slot at a certain level, I was the one who suggested 4th and for that exact reason :)
|
|
Adding on to the above: what it sounds like to me is you want to make the fighter into a warrior that plays more like a wizard, with daily adaptability. That's fine, but to me, that's not what the fighter is. A separate class (Monte's Ritual Warrior from AE or the Warblade from Bo9S come to mind as good examples) is a better fit, in my mind.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I honestly am puzzled by the notion that having skills that you know at a decent level but need to polish to use at a high level of skill (i.e., enough to gain the bonus a feat provides) is illogical.
Ask any performer (singer, musician, stage magician) or athlete whether they think constant practice is important, especially for difficult tricks, or tricks you don't usually use. If you don't keep practicing certain skills, you lose the ability to do them at a high level (the level at which you get the benefits of a feat).
This really crystallized for me why I disagree.
See, I don't see the fighter as a musician -- that's the wizard, whose broad knowledge of magic (music) theory allows him to cast virtually any spell (play any song) he's ever learned with a few hours of study (practice).
As a hobby-level singer for 20 years and someone who used to be married to a pro singer/musician, I can tell you that:
1. Yes, you can produce a so-so rendition of a tune with a couple hours of work. To actually give a mastery-level performance (i.e., the level of having a feat), you really can't half-step it.
2. #1 above, that's one tune. If you want to learn a concert worth of songs (aka a mid-level spellcaster's suite of spell options), you will be rehearsing for weeks if not months. Even then, you will often get uneven performances if you do not keep up practicing over and over even in the midst of performing on consecutive days.
3. Sure, our wizard/singer can develop a repertoire of songs they know, but to have a large repertoire of songs that you are ready to deliver at mastery level at the drop of a hat is virtually impossible. Not totally impossible, but pretty hard.
The fighter, on the other hand, is your Olympic athlete. While he is more capable and athletic than your average Joe (represented by his higher-than-normal BAB, HP, weapon and armor proficiencies) his talents typically are highly focused -- they're hard-coded in muscle memory. With some short-term training, a runner might switch between the 200 meter and 400 meter dash, but he's still essentially a short distance runner. But you don't see Olympic divers re-training overnight and becoming pole-vaulters. In the same way, I don't see a sword-and-boarder suddenly gaining above-average proficiency in two-weapon-fighting because he swings around an off-hand dagger a few times in the morning. Sure, he's got some familiarity with the style (as in, he can do it, with a higher BAB than regular schmoe) but he's not as good as someone who has taken specialized in that style by taking the appropriate feats.
The first problem I have with this is the 'inanimate object' problem. Most sporting events are, functionally, you against the event. There is strategy (when to kick, ability to draft off of other runners, when to go for style points vs. certainty of a hit routine), but most sports operate in parallel. You are trying to do X. Opponent is ALSO trying to do X. Opponent is not trying to STOP you from doing X; they are just trying to do it better than you. (yes, I know there is blocking, cutting, and other stuff)
Combat is rarely parallel. You and your opponent aren't racing to see who gets the most hits on the speed bag. You are trying to do something TO him while he is trying to do something TO you (and you are countering your opponent while trying to overcome him).
But even if we grant that, here's my second point, and perhaps this analogy will serve:
Warriors are single-sport athletes. They can train in one thing and be good at it.
Fighters are decathletes/heptathletes/pentathletes. They are multi-sport stars. They win the all-around in gymnastics and the individual medley in swimming. In high school, fighters letter in track, baseball, and football, and they play basketball on weekends with their friends, swim for their club team, and play tennis with their mom then go bowling with their dad (or vice versa).
NOW, they might be better at one or more of those sports than the others, and with focus they might be an All-American in baseball but just All-League in football and maybe just a school letterman in track and the second-best guy on their swim team. But, if they focused and practiced a bit, they could probably turn that around pretty quickly.
What this ability does is simply puts that concept into a D&D-relevant time scale (gamist alert!) as a retraining ability that can be used once a day. It also (another gamist alert!) models the ability of casting classes to master entirely different disciplines of hand gesture/reflex skill, vocal intonation, and mental focus from day to day. We know that physical skills involve muscle memory and mental acuity; simulationism would have to assume tha the same is true of casting, unless all channeling of magic is done in a uniform fashion and technique that works for all kinds of spells, which seems an odd assumption to make in simulationism.
That's the simulationist argument. On the gamist end of things, my best argument again goes back to play style. The wizard has weak baseline (physical) abilities, but is daily-adaptable and can be very situationally powerful. The fighter is on the other end of the spectrum -- broadly capable (per base physical stats), but his adaptability (greater number of feats/breadth of training) is not as malleable on a short-term basis. I think that's a feature worth preserving, not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Must... resist... urge... to argue... casters vs. non-casters...
[cleansing breath]
Ahhh...
YMMV.
Again, however, I'm definitely open to some sort of limited, long-term feat retraining that's open to all classes, if for nothing else than to allow players to swap out a feat that later turned out to be a mistake or little-used.
I like the retraining rule too.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Adding on to the above: what it sounds like to me is you want to make the fighter into a warrior that plays more like a wizard, with daily adaptability. That's fine, but to me, that's not what the fighter is. A separate class (Monte's Ritual Warrior from AE or the Warblade from Bo9S come to mind as good examples) is a better fit, in my mind.
Could be. I've never read either of those books (BoXM2 or Bo9S) so I'm not familiar with those classes.
I think it's a neat feature for fighters to have as a core class for PF, but we'll see how it all shakes out.
Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion.
The fighter, on the other hand, is your Olympic athlete. While he is more capable and athletic than your average Joe (represented by his higher-than-normal BAB, HP, weapon and armor proficiencies) his talents typically are highly focused -- they're hard-coded in muscle memory. With some short-term training, a runner might switch between the 200 meter and 400 meter dash, but he's still essentially a short distance runner.
This is just clearly wrong. 200 versus 400 meter dash? The difference between the two is peak output versus endurance. The guy who's incredible at the 200 meter dash will likely be incredible at the 400 meter dash... to the degree that a normal human wouldn't notice the difference without complex equipment. Who wins these events is more a matter of a slight difference in training and often just flat out genetics.
Feats are tricks, techniques, and learned skills. The guy who can do the 400 meter dash knows all the tricks and techniques to run a 200 meter dash but he is most likely genetically less capable of higher speed sprint in the 200M.
But you don't see Olympic divers re-training overnight and becoming pole-vaulters. In the same way, I don't see a sword-and-boarder suddenly gaining above-average proficiency in two-weapon-fighting because he swings around an off-hand dagger a few times in the morning. Sure, he's got some familiarity with the style (as in, he can do it, with a higher BAB than regular schmoe) but he's not as good as someone who has taken specialized in that style by taking the appropriate feats.
Your example is so ridiculous to be laughable pole vaulting? The fighter cannot be a master two weapon fighter instantly or even when he wakes up in the morning because he won't meet the prereqs for the more advanced techniques. If he already knows TWF he might pick up a technique he's practiced in training but never used (Two Weapon Defense). If he doesn't have TWF he will lean on the basic TWF techniques his instructor showed him and be adequate at TWF but far from a master at it because the more subtle techniques are beyond him (Double slice, weapon swap/ etc which he doesn't meet the prereqs for).
That's the simulationist argument. On the gamist end of things, my best argument again goes back to play style. The wizard has weak baseline (physical) abilities, but is daily-adaptable and can be very situationally powerful. The fighter is on the other end of the spectrum -- broadly capable (per...
The wizard is situationally powerful? I suppose if you have a poorly built wizard this is the case. In my experience wizards are powerful most of the time, and the chances a fighter is going to be ineffective are much higher than a wizard being ineffective. If nothing else the wizard can seriously buff the fighter.
stuffQuit changing your avatar Dennis, I didn't even realize it was you.
I've been longing for an Ogre looking avatar that isn't used by 20 people. This one was just added and I couldn't resist it :P I'll stick with this one for some time honest.
My 2c,
I like the concepts of retraining and open feat slots but I'd limit them to something simple and easy to use.
Have the re-trainning every 4th level and have the open feats at every 6th level and require 8 hours of rest (non necessarily consecutive) and one hour of practice to change/load.
In both cases i'd go for a "last-in-first-out" system for feats in pre-requiste branches.
An higher level (12th or 18th) fighter can still load up a "short-branch" (power-attack+cleave+great-cleave, Point-Blank-Shot+Mounted-Combat+Mounted-Shot, etc.) or pile up on an already started branch.
Otherwise, I personnaly hear the call for a tylenol in the future for handling these options since feats stack up on one another even more so than spells.
|
|
Jason only suggested that it be a feat slot at a certain level, I was the one who suggested 4th and for that exact reason :)I do like the idea of feat slots for fighters. But there is a big problem with just turning bonus feats into feat slots. The "real" feats are needed to enter prestige classes.
Its very common multiclass one or two fighter levels so you can meet the prestige class requirements. It would be impossible to do that with this new feat slot system.
Lucio
No, it's quite possible. They key point is that you MAY leave those feat slots open as exchange feats. You don't have to. You can just use them as regular slots.
Also, I think Jason B's proposed concept was that you wouldn't get those swappable exchange slots until 4th level anyway, so dippers would be unaffected.
Jason B original post was: "1. The fighter gets a special feat slot every couple levels (replacing his normal bonus feat). The feat in this slot can be swapped out in the morning, allowing the fighter to customize his package a bit. This feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for other feats or pclasses."
As written, it`s not an option. All your fighter bonus feats became slots, and none of them could be used to meet Pclass requirements.
So, IMHO, simply transform bonus feat into feat slot is a poor execution to a good idea. I would prefer to have one "virtual" feat every 5 level, for instance.
|
|
Sure, our wizard/singer can develop a repertoire of songs they know, but to have a large repertoire of songs that you are ready to deliver at mastery level at the drop of a hat is virtually impossible. Not totally impossible, but pretty hard.
See, I don't see a wizard who casts Magic Missile one day and Burning Hands the next to be casting either one at mastery level. Your average spell-chucker memorizing a spell will be casting it at a proficient level - like a good cover band. For a Jimi Hendrix-level performance, you're talking about a a specialist who has invested feats (metamagic, Spell Focus, etc.) to really cast a spell. And you don't magically retrain that level of mastery in a short period of time.
Combat is rarely parallel. You and your opponent aren't racing to see who gets the most hits on the speed bag. You are trying to do something TO him while he is trying to do something TO you (and you are countering your opponent while trying to overcome him).
Ok, so let's use team-on-team sports like football or baseball instead. First off, name five pro athletes, other than Bo Jackson and Michael Jordan, who have played on the pro level in multiple sports.
Then look at the time required for players to even re-train positions in the same sport and continue to play on the pro level. Former St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Rick Ankiel comes to mind as a local example. After beaning one too many batters, Ankiel decides he'll be an outfielder/hitter. It took him two years in the minors to make it back into the big leagues. That's within the same, competitive sport.Hopefully that addresses Dennis da Ogre's needlessly antagonistic response to my earlier analogy, as well.
Fighters are decathletes/heptathletes/pentathletes. They are multi-sport stars. They win the all-around in gymnastics and the individual medley in swimming. In high school, fighters letter in track, baseball, and football, and they play basketball on weekends with their friends, swim for their club team, and play tennis with their mom then go bowling with their dad (or vice versa).
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just don't see your average fighter as being that superhuman. Sure, he's naturally gifted and probably played one or more high school sports, but only the most exceptional (highest level) fighter is going to be able to master multiple sports (combat styles). And, so far, the Beta fighter's sheer number of feats emulates that, IMHO.
Must... resist... urge... to argue... casters vs. non-casters...
I'm not arguing that fighter's don't need a boost compared to the Wiz/CoDzilla -- although I do think a lot of the disparity came from ill-conceived/easily abused splat book options. I just think parity can be (and is starting to be) achieved without changing the play-style of the fighter. That is one of my major gripes with 4E -- all the classes play the same, just with slightly different flavors layered on top.
Anyway, it's been a fun discussion!
|
|
Jason B original post was: "1. The fighter gets a special feat slot every couple levels (replacing his normal bonus feat). The feat in this slot can be swapped out in the morning, allowing the fighter to customize his package a bit. This feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for other feats or pclasses."
As written, it`s not an option. All your fighter bonus feats became slots, and none of them could be used to meet Pclass requirements.
So, IMHO, simply transform bonus feat into feat slot is a poor execution to a good idea. I would prefer to have one "virtual" feat every 5 level, for instance.
No you are reading it wrong, the way it is worded means that the special feat slot replaces his normal feat slot on that level, not every normal bonus feat is being replaced by special feat slots.
What this means is that whatever levels Jason chooses, say 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th the normal fighter bonus feat is replaced by the special feat slot. Yes those feats can't be used for pre-reqs, but the feats that he gets every other level can be used for pre-reqs.
Hope that clears up your confusion, but you aren't reading it right.
I would prefer to have one "virtual" feat every 5 level, for instance.
yeah that's what he's suggesting, he just hasn't chosen levels yet because he wanted our feedback, I think the issue is that you are reading "every couple of levels" to mean every two levels, when couple can mean any unspecified small number, say as you suggest every 5 or as I suggest, every 4
No you are reading it wrong, the way it is worded means that the special feat slot replaces his normal feat slot on that level, not every normal bonus feat is being replaced by special feat slots.Jason B original post was: "1. The fighter gets a special feat slot every couple levels (replacing his normal bonus feat). The feat in this slot can be swapped out in the morning, allowing the fighter to customize his package a bit. This feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for other feats or pclasses."
As written, it`s not an option. All your fighter bonus feats became slots, and none of them could be used to meet Pclass requirements.
So, IMHO, simply transform bonus feat into feat slot is a poor execution to a good idea. I would prefer to have one "virtual" feat every 5 level, for instance.
Well the fact that Jason used the phrase "every couple levels" then reinforced that with "replacing his normal bonus feat". Gives me the same impression that Lucio has.
I agree with the concept but at the very least the idea needs to be fleshed out more fully.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Sure, our wizard/singer can develop a repertoire of songs they know, but to have a large repertoire of songs that you are ready to deliver at mastery level at the drop of a hat is virtually impossible. Not totally impossible, but pretty hard.See, I don't see a wizard who casts Magic Missile one day and Burning Hands the next to be casting either one at mastery level. Your average spell-chucker memorizing a spell will be casting it at a proficient level - like a good cover band. For a Jimi Hendrix-level performance, you're talking about a a specialist who has invested feats (metamagic, Spell Focus, etc.) to really cast a spell. And you don't magically retrain that level of mastery in a short period of time.
I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps we're reading too much into "mastery" as a concept vs. "being the uber-funk Grand Master Flash." A performance need not be the BEST EVARRR to be show mastery, but it must rise well above the level of merely competent.
Perhaps here's a distinction.
A 5th level wizard learns fireball for the first time. The first time he casts it he does 5d6 damage. This is a competent, proficient, and unexceptional use of the spell.
A 10th level wizard learns fireball for the first time. The first time he casts it, since he is merely proficient at it, with no special talent, at making fireballs, he should also do 5d6 damage, right?
He has just learned how to use it and so should be competent at it but certainly could make no claim to having mastered it. He is, after all, at precisely the same stage of learning to use the spell as Mr. Wiz5. Unless we are asserting that the 10th level wizard possesses inherently superhuman traits as a magical vessel/conduit, he's just a normal human being learning a new spell and using it for the first time.
We know, of course, that in the game Wiz10 will cast it and BOOM do 10d6 damage with a spell he's never seen or used before. But why?
Do the humans (or other races) who become wizards possess a special superhuman trait that allows them immediate full mastery with new skills or techniques that they learn, whereas the humans (or others) who become fighters do not?
Shouldn't a wizard have to work his way up to mastery in a particular skill (the making of fire). If he spends his whole career mastering all the special tricks and techniques of making fire, wouldn't it seem rather strange that he could just turn around the very next day and be equally good at an entirely different set of magical skills (the making of ice, or acid, or death spells, or summoning angels or fiendish wildebeests or zombie orphans, or making squiggly tentacles that touch you in a bad place)?
I'm just sayin'. Why don't we require the same degree of dedication and effort to master the many and various methods of reshaping the fundamental forces of the universe (as Vaarsuvius might say) as we require for learning how to beat on something with a metal stick?
Combat is rarely parallel. You and your opponent aren't racing to see who gets the most hits on the speed bag. You are trying to do something TO him while he is trying to do something TO you (and you are countering your opponent while trying to overcome him).
Ok, so let's use team-on-team sports like football or baseball instead. First off, name five pro athletes, other than Bo Jackson and Michael Jordan, who have played on the pro level in multiple sports.
Jim Thorpe
Danny AingeMark Hendrickson
Chris Weinke
Deion Sanders
Renaldo Nehemiah
Quincy Watts
Michael Bates
Bob Sapp
And that was just off the top of my head, without looking online!
There are others who had ample opportunity to do multiple pro sports but ended up choosing one or the other (e.g., Charlie Ward, Dave Winfield, Nate Robinson).
Also, it's a bit of a false comparison, since you are arguing that only superduper cross-athletes qualify, the grandmaster level of uberness. Skip down to the major college level, a mastery level, and your numbers get a whole lot bigger. In high school, of course, it's gigantic numbers.
Then look at the time required for players to even re-train positions in the same sport and continue to play on the pro level. Former St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Rick Ankiel comes to mind as a local example. After beaning one too many batters, Ankiel decides he'll be an outfielder/hitter. It took him two years in the minors to make it back into the big leagues. That's within the same, competitive sport.
Hopefully that addresses Dennis da Ogre's needlessly antagonistic response to my earlier analogy, as well.
That's a good example, as far as it goes, but there are tons of players who change positions and have to code-switch their skill set, in football in particular, at a micro-level on a down-to-down basis, to say nothing of a game-to-game or year-to-year basis. Some tricks of the trade are cross-applicable, many require very different physical and mental approaches.
Fighters are decathletes/heptathletes/pentathletes. They are multi-sport stars. They win the all-around in gymnastics and the individual medley in swimming. In high school, fighters...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just don't see your average fighter as being that superhuman. Sure, he's naturally gifted and probably played one or more high school sports, but only the most exceptional (highest level) fighter is going to be able to master multiple sports (combat styles). And, so far, the Beta fighter's sheer number of feats emulates that, IMHO.
I think you are inadvertently proving my point.
All of this argument is moot for low-level fighters, because they can't possibly master in swap/exchange terms much, because they have very few exchange feats. At low level (high school multi-jock), he will have one exchange feat. There will be lots of fighters like this. At mid-levels (college multi-jock), he will have two. These fighters will be a lot rarer and more exceptional than the low-level mooks, and their skills will be remarkable to a lot of people.
It's not until you get into double-digit levels than you could possibly have 3 or more exchange feats, and it is precisely my point that 12th+ level characters SHOULD be super-good at whatever they are good at. Clerics are raising the dead and dialing their deities on the phone. Wizards are disintegrating stuff and controlling the weather and teleporting hundreds of miles in an instant. Rogues are dodging unscathed through balls of fire that melt steel and able to kill armed soldiers with toothpicks if they get the drop on them.
And we have a problem with a 12th+ level fighter being a decathlete?
It is precisely the high-level (exceptional) fighter who SHOULD be exceptional in this way, a master of multiple combat styles. This whole thing of swapping a bunch of feats, if you'll pardon my bolded all caps, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT EVERY MOOK WITH A SWORD CAN DO!
It's an exceptional ability that only exceptional people can do. By the time you get to 12th level as a fighter, you ARE Michael Jordan and Bo Jackson! A few more levels and you're frickin Captain America!
I think that's the point I'm getting to. This is an ability that is handy at low levels (one exchange feat), nice at mid-levels (two), and really cool at high levels (3+), which is precisely when:
1. The cool stuff that all the other classes get to do starts leaving the fighter in the dust, unless he dumps everything he has into one uber-trick and hopes it works against whatever he meets (and even that might not be enough); and,
2. When the fighter should be transitioning from "tough guy" to "master of battle." He's had a dozen levels of training and practice fighting every bad guy who came at him. Now he is able to apply the weight of that experience, observing other enemies and their tactics and training as he goes up levels, to become a versatile butt-kicking combat machine.
Thankfully, we don't have to go into Wuxia/superhero hysterics and gymnastics of making the fighter "extreme hardcore" to rationally present a realistic basis for making the high-level fighter more flexible, fun, and awesome. I'm not really into fighters flying around all "Crouching Tiger" style; not my bag. But this kind of mechanic is, I think, both logical and realistic as well as being fun.
As always, YMMV.
Jason Nelson wrote:
Must... resist... urge... to argue... casters vs. non-casters...
I'm not arguing that fighter's don't need a boost compared to the Wiz/CoDzilla -- although I do think a lot of the disparity came from ill-conceived/easily abused splat book options. I just think parity can be (and is starting to be) achieved without changing the play-style of the fighter. That is one of my major gripes with 4E -- all the classes play the same, just with slightly different flavors layered on top.
Anyway, it's been a fun discussion!
I think there are abundant ways in core 3.5/SRD for casters to completely dominate non-casters; if anything, non-core probably did more to boost fighter-types than casters.
I likewise share the distaste for 4th Ed's homogenized approach. You can call it "shoot with bow" or "magic missile" or "holy zap" but if it's all just a ranged attack for 2d8 damage, then who the frick cares what it's called?
And I've blown way too much time on the discussion when I'm supposed to be working, but that's how a good conversation should be... :)
WOW. I don't check this thread for a day, and there's just GOBS of rule-upon-rules how to balance this.
It should not be this way. The Fighter is supposed to be simple.
The only way something like this will ever be added if it is simple.
I think that should be obvious to all.
Going back to basics, I think "Feat Exchange" can be added to the Fighter, but at a much simpler level. More like exactly what the Sorceror has: every few levels, he gets to exhange one spell (or Feat, for the Fighter). It is not a "daily" ability, it only happen at level-up, and even then, not every level.
Like the Sorceror, a Fighter doesn't even NEED to exhange his Feats: it's not such a MAJOR part of the Class' Abilities that not taking advantage of it would majorly "gimp" the Fighters' power. The suggestions' I've seen here ARE so signfigant that ignoring them WOULD make the Fighter signifigantly weaker.
I'm going to give one more reason why allowing "daily" Feat-swapping is a bad idea:
It messes with how the game is run. You *WANT* the DM to know your character, and know what they're capable of. If the DM carefully tweaks an advaenture the party's capabilities, and then you swap out to something completely different, what happens? Likewise, being able to swap out Feats DAILY implies that you need to track MANY MORE FEATS, to "pick" the most optimal ones from those. Your DM has to deal with this as well (beyond destroying a carefully balanced-around-the-PCs adventure), they need to decide if these new Feats are allowable in their game. NO WAY.
Swapping a single Feat out, every other level, at level-up (when you upgrade your characer's Feats ANYWAYS) doesn't mess with the basic way you play the game. There doens't need to be bizarre rules on "Feat Groups" you can choose from. You can just swap 1 Feat out every other level. Nice and Simple. And makes the Fighter most able to make optimum use of their Feats. Sheesh!
I'm going to give one more reason why allowing "daily" Feat-swapping is a bad idea:
It messes with how the game is run. You *WANT* the DM to know your character, and know what they're capable of. If the DM carefully tweaks an advaenture the party's capabilities, and then you swap out to something completely different, what happens?
Considering how much more havoc spellcasters cause to the game is this really an issue? There is tons more variety in a wizard/ druid/ cleric's spellbook than what feats are available. Do you tweak your adventure every time your players select a new spell or do you run sorcerer only games?
A cleric can go from being a wrath-of-god warrior to being a spirit nurturing healer with a nights sleep and you are worried about a fighter using improved trip instead of power attack screwing things up for a DM?
A wizard can overnight go from being the buffmaster who casts haste/ bear's endurance/ protection from evil to being a hardcore conjurer with tentacles sprouting up and summoned animals. And you are worried about the fighter getting two weapon fighting instead of power attack?
The amount of flexibility gained for a fighter swapping one feat is a drop in the bucket compared to the flexibility any of the caster classes have in a given day.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
WOW. I don't check this thread for a day, and there's just GOBS of rule-upon-rules how to balance this.
It should not be this way. The Fighter is supposed to be simple.
The only way something like this will ever be added if it is simple.
I think that should be obvious to all.Going back to basics, I think "Feat Exchange" can be added to the Fighter, but at a much simpler level. More like exactly what the Sorceror has: every few levels, he gets to exhange one spell (or Feat, for the Fighter). It is not a "daily" ability, it only happen at level-up, and even then, not every level.
Like the Sorceror, a Fighter doesn't even NEED to exhange his Feats: it's not such a MAJOR part of the Class' Abilities that not taking advantage of it would majorly "gimp" the Fighters' power. The suggestions' I've seen here ARE so signfigant that ignoring them WOULD make the Fighter signifigantly weaker.
I'm going to give one more reason why allowing "daily" Feat-swapping is a bad idea:
It messes with how the game is run. You *WANT* the DM to know your character, and know what they're capable of. If the DM carefully tweaks an advaenture the party's capabilities, and then you swap out to something completely different, what happens? Likewise, being able to swap out Feats DAILY implies that you need to track MANY MORE FEATS, to "pick" the most optimal ones from those. Your DM has to deal with this as well (beyond destroying a carefully balanced-around-the-PCs adventure), they need to decide if these new Feats are allowable in their game. NO WAY.
I really don't understand this objection, for this one simple reason:
DM's already do this every day, with druids, clerics, wizards, and any other spellcaster that can choose different spells each day. Those characters are allowed to be "destroying a carefully balanced-around-the-PCs adventure" and this passes without objection.
Okay, I lied, it's more than one reason:
1. Compare the number of spells in PF (about 300) with the number of [COMBAT] feats (about 30). Which is easier to deal with?
2. Outside of PF/SRD/core, where do you have the biggest explosion of content? Perhaps you've never had a game crawl to a halt while the DM had to read up on some obscure spell from the Spell Compendium (let alone any splatbook). Sure, there are new feats out there, but a typical splat will have about a 10-20 feats and usually twice (or more) that many spells.
3. Look at variety of effect. Most feats are described in a few sentences (especially [COMBAT] feats, which are the only ones relevant here). Most spells aer described in a few PARAGRAPHS.
4. Look at power of effect. The best feats are probably equal to around 3rd level spells, maybe 4th at a stretch. Most are 1st or 2nd level effects. A spellcaster (sorcerers and bards included) has dozens of ways to destroy an adventure built around the PCs. A fighter might go from zero to one.
5. Look at the scale of the effect you're talking about: For a fighter to retrain, at most, a handful of feats each day. About 20-25% of the feats he gets. The rest all stay static. They don't change. The fighter is not rebuilding his character every day. He has the same stats. He has the same equipment. HE EVEN HAS MOST OF THE SAME FEATS!!! The only difference is that he has a small amount of daily flexibility in his class abilities, rather than having none.
Whereas a caster can turn over their entire spell allotment in a day (not to mention tailoring spells through metamagic within that allotment), radically changing what they and their party are capable of doing from day to day.
And this is okay, but a fighter being able to swap 1-5 fighter-only feats a day is a frickin Armageddon of complexity. You think there might be confusion as a fighter player decides what feats to swap; have you ever been in a high-level party when it's time for the caster's to prepare spells for the day? Aiyiyi...
There is a biblical expression for this, "straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel."
I get that just because one batch of classes create headaches for the DM is not by itself a reason to have the fighter do it to, but the complexity addition is such a miniscule drop in the bucket and the changeability of the fighter's capabilities is so piddly compared to the degree of change that a caster can accomplish, that it just... I just... I just don't get it.
I don't mind if you don't like the idea. That is A-OK by me. Don't like the flavor, the feel, okay.
But because it's too complicated? I just don't get it.
Swapping a single Feat out, every other level, at level-up (when you upgrade your characer's Feats ANYWAYS) doesn't mess with the basic way you play the game. There doens't need to be bizarre rules on "Feat Groups" you can choose from. You can just swap 1 Feat out every other level. Nice and Simple. And makes the Fighter most able to make optimum use of their Feats. Sheesh!
I'm fine with the level-based swap of permanent feats too. I dunno about cutting off the roots of a 'feat tree' and keeping the fruit, though.
|
|
A 5th level wizard learns fireball for the first time. The first time he casts it he does 5d6 damage. This is a competent, proficient, and unexceptional use of the spell.
A 10th level wizard learns fireball for the first time. The first time he casts it, since he is merely proficient at it, with no special talent, at making fireballs, he should also do 5d6 damage, right?
Ah, but, like the guitar player who's been gigging around town for two decades, as opposed to two years, the 10th level Wizard has much greater proficiency at magic in general. Just like I'd expect said guitar veteran to play "Stairway to Heaven" the first time with greater proficiency than a novice doing the same, it makes sense for the 10th-level Wizard to cast fireball with greater effect -- but without the extra "umph" of a specialist invoker who's taken Greater Spell Focus, for example.
Jim Thorpe
Danny Ainge
Mark Hendrickson
...
I bow to your superior sports knowledge ;)
But, rather than continuing the point-counterpoint of questionable analogies, let's tackle this from another angle:It seems like your beef is that high-level fighters don't have enough feats to emulate the range of combat knowledge/ability you think they, as star athletes, should be capable of. Your solution is to give them a number of "virtual" feats, representing that breadth of knowledge, that they can choose from on a day to day basis.
I agree with the first notion. But I think there are simpler, more elegant ways to address the problem that don't introduce additional complication to the Fighter class.
I think a better solution is to give Fighters more "bang for the buck" with each feat, allowing them to master more styles/techniques with their existing feats. For example, why require three feats to master Two-Weapon Fighting (regular, improved and greater)? Just make it one feat that grants an off-hand attack at +1/+6/+11 and +16 BAB. Why not roll Overhand Chop and Backswing into a single feat that grants you 2xStr bonus, rather than 1.5xStr, on all your attacks when using a two-handed weapon? That way, a mid-level fighter can use the existing number of feats to "master" multiple combat styles (even though they're not using all of them all of the time), without adding an additional system that introduces added complexity.
I've advocated elsewhere (in defiance of the ban on feat-talk) that the various combat style feats (2WF, 2HD, mounted, sword-and-board, etc.) should be compressed into trees small enough that the Fighter can master 2-3 styles, with some extras for weapon-specific feats, by high level. That, it seems to me, would address the problem cited above, without the need to justify the Fighter forgetting/remembering feats each morning.
Of course, if your real goal is to introduce added complexity to the Fighter, we're just going to have to battle it out cage-match style with Nic Logue as referee ... [/unnecessary invocation of Logue's depravity]
Hey... step back a minute here. I like this idea a lot but ultimately it is a minor band aid on the problem.
Ultimately as long as we have weak feats the fighter is going to suck. (no offense Jason B but the changes you have made still fall short) If the feats suck then the fighter will suck regardless of whether he can swap between one ineffective feat and another.
Again I really love this idea but it's impact on the class is going to be relatively minor unless individual feats become reasonably powerful. Otherwise the AoO discussion had much more chances of significantly improving the class.
I think a better solution is to give Fighters more "bang for the buck" with each feat, allowing them to master more styles/techniques with their existing feats. For example, why require three feats to master Two-Weapon Fighting (regular, improved and greater)? Just make it one feat that grants an off-hand attack at +1/+6/+11 and +16 BAB.
This is an excellent idea... in particular if combined with the concept of retraining at various levels (Stepping away from the idea of shifting feats each day though for a moment). Are you Ok with the concept of retraining feats similar to the way a sorcerer retrains? The big reason I push for retraining is because fighters carrying around 'dead' unusable feats is bad for the game and punishes beginning players the most. As an example if a player gets weapon focus longsword later decides to pick up Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)... one of the two feats will likely be useless for the rest of that characters existence.
(Shifting back to daily feat swaps) Swapping analogies isn't getting this conversation anywhere. I think it boils down to some folks like the idea and can see it and some folks can't. For the record, I like it.
|
|
I think a better solution is to give Fighters more "bang for the buck" with each feat, allowing them to master more styles/techniques with their existing feats. For example, why require three feats to master Two-Weapon Fighting (regular, improved and greater)? Just make it one feat that grants an off-hand attack at +1/+6/+11 and +16 BAB.This is an excellent idea... in particular if combined with the concept of retraining at various levels (Stepping away from the idea of shifting feats each day though for a moment). Are you Ok with the concept of retraining feats similar to the way a sorcerer retrains? The big reason I push for retraining is because fighters carrying around 'dead' unusable feats is bad for the game and punishes beginning players the most. As an example if a player gets weapon focus longsword later decides to pick up Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)... one of the two feats will likely be useless for the rest of that characters existence.
(Shifting back to daily feat swaps) Swapping analogies isn't getting this conversation anywhere. I think it boils down to some folks like the idea and can see it and some folks can't. For the record, I like it.
Yay! Truce on! I could definitely live with Fighters (hell, anybody) being able to retrain a feat every few levels, like the Sorcerer retrains spells. Although I think that allowing Fighters to apply weapon-specific feats to any weapon in a group they have Weapon Training in is a kewler solution to the longsword-bastard sword problem you mentioned.
I think feats are really the key component to fighter re-balancing -- so much so that I posted some of my thoughts on the matter a few days ago in violation of Jason B's feat-embargo.
Yay! Truce on! I could definitely live with Fighters (hell, anybody) being able to retrain a feat every few levels, like the Sorcerer retrains spells. Although I think that allowing Fighters to apply weapon-specific feats to any weapon in a group they have Weapon Training in is a kewler solution to the longsword-bastard sword problem you mentioned.
I think feats are really the key component to fighter re-balancing -- so much so that I posted some of my thoughts on the matter a few days ago in violation of Jason B's feat-embargo.
I don't think it's a feat embargo so much as 'post what you want, I'm not gonna pay attention to it until we get there'.
The focused approach to the beta seems to be baring a lot more fruit than the shotgun approach during the alpha. You think the discussion is hot now, next week is going to be interesting with the Cleric/ Druid discussion. *The Ogre says as he sharpens his hook*
|
|
...friggin gamer conservatives gumming up progress...(breathe, Dragon breathe) your options are lackluster as well as too little. I hope Jason is willing to roll some dice and try something new ( cause it aint going to be fixed with an addition +1 to weapon focus) I would like to make sure that all putting input ACTUALLY like to PLAY Fighters. Because if you like them how they are than we simply disagree and I am fine with that. If you are afraid of a new style of play that you cant use the shield of "backwards compatibility" then you are an agent of stasis.
You dont see me agreeing with those who proclaim "Armor should give DR!" even though I agree with them. because I know the balance of moving forward yet not stumbling over a game enhancing cliff. Trading feat like a sorcerer changes spells is a concept already printed within 3.5, and that STILL doesnt fix the Fighter. some of you want a simple form of the Fighter...and that is what will doom the Fighter too boring playstyle.
Im not trying to burn anyone, I just want to be clear that simple is not a character virtue of the Fighter, its is a horrible flaw. (They are TACTICAL, and Im getting WAY more of that with EVERY other class)