Assuming Core/OGL rules only, has the fighter indeed become irrelevant or the weakest link in the chain?
I don't see that at all. I play tested a 14th level fighter and I had no prob at all keeping up and some times outdoing my group.
|
Assuming Core/OGL rules only, has the fighter indeed become irrelevant or the weakest link in the chain?
The answer to this is that it depends on the situation, I have seen examples where a sword and board fighter is irrelevant, but a magic user shines, I have also seen high level encounters that the lvl 16 magic user was reduced to shooting his crossbow (that he hadn't updated since lvl 5), because all of his spells were useless and the fighter and ranger did all the damage.
ugh book of 9 sword. No thank you. Might be fun for an wuxia based game or something but not for my D&D
so since out of ranged opponents are an issue? should we all play true, seeing fireball flinging mages?
eh poor will is an issue with a few class not just the fighter, improved grab, well no not at all I used it alot...a hell of a lot[OH and vital strike is much fun]
flying, I have a bow...invisible...well we all take are chance.
Fighter is fine. Better feats would be cool but the base class is solid enuff.Does need more skills poor thing
If your wanting it to be all magical, seeing invisible critters, killing things at mass at range and such, your not wanting to play a fighter.
|
Given the way the threads on this topic tend to degenerate (and we've already seen one post with unecessary personal attacks in this one) I would say it's worth delaying this discussion until after the feat section is done.
Jason Buhlman has already stated he sees the fighter getting much more love in the feat section. Let's see what happens there before opening this can of worms again. After all, since the guy developing the game has pretty much said its what he's waiting for, all we're going to do is talk in circles and start arguments.
Your call though.
Cheers
Edit: I doubt this will occur, i've already read one post that's intrigued me enough to ask a question. However, I would call for more civility in posts for this one (starting with myself I guess, I've certainly thrown my weight around a bit in the last few days and probably need to pull my head in.)
|
|
- or build encounters in such a way as to deliver challenges to each class separetely.
I'd ask you to expand on this one Reumere. How is this a problem for a playtest or a reason for ignoring in game experience?
After all, this is a game where the DM is asked to craft adventures to thrill and challenge their players. Are you saying that a DM shouldn't do this? Is it possible that DM's are in fact going the other way and tailoring encounters where only the magic using classes can shine? After all, if the majority of your encounters are involving invisible flying ranged combatants, or creatures that can negate a fighter with a single failed will save then I believe that's a fairly big argument for ignoring the wizard is better type of thing as well.
Genuine question Reumere, no hidden attacks so please don't take it that way.
Cheers
|
|
After all, this is a game where the DM is asked to craft adventures to thrill and challenge their players. Are you saying that a DM shouldn't do this? Is it possible that DM's are in fact going the other way and tailoring encounters where only the magic using classes can shine? After all, if the majority of your encounters are involving invisible flying ranged combatants, or creatures that can negate a fighter with a single failed will save then I believe that's a fairly big argument for ignoring the wizard is better type of thing as well.
QFT Wrath hit the nail on the head. I pay my human BBEG to be smart, this means that if they have the means to buy a minor magical artifact that will make them immune to the spell the wizard uses the most in fights, and puts traps specially placed around him to catch the fighter if he goes head first like he usually does. But this only happens if he has time to do things like this. A mook must also escape (or the BBEG has time to use divination) to study the parties fighting styles. I don't try to TPK my parties, but they know to either kill all of the mooks, or save some new spells for the BBEG.
|
|
a DM isnt going out his way to make difficult encounters for the Fighter, the nature of how most monsters and NPCs are built does that for him. you cant use the " your DM just need to make an encounter to make you feel cool" argument because any problem can be solved by a versatile DM ( I got a friend than makes balanced RIFTS games, for christ sake!)
stop putting out Fighter feats that just make him different flavors of BLAH. ( i know more changes to feats are coming, but im doubtful of there impact )
I admit I started this thread to see how long it would take someone to start flaming. Thank you Rumere.
These days on the Paizo boards you can't go into almost any topic without some pompous ass flinging crap at you. I'm getting tired of it and I'm tired of the Paizo crew for letting it slide.
I remember a time when we all came here because we played a game called D&D and we just wanted to hang out with other gamers and shoot the breeze. Now folks just want to shoot you down.
If I can't come here without getting a negative vibe every single time I'm going to start looking at other options.
so since out of ranged opponents are an issue? should we all play true, seeing fireball flinging mages?[...]Would you be so kind and use English, please? It's already hard to decipher your sentences because of your dislike of capitals.
Until you achieve ability to produce coherent posts, feel free to reap benefits of public education.One does wonder how it is possible for someone so lacking to be able to use RPGs.
Regards,
Ruemere
Eh I see you have no wish to be polite so to hell with any thing you say man. You have a long post fallowing this but since you don't seem to be able to talk without hurling insults. I do not waste my time trying to hold a debate with someone unable to defend there arguments without hurling insults and trying to make themselves seem better then other people.
You will be ignored as not worth my time. And I will not be replying to you in this thread.
Thanks tarren and jack. I tend to get in a hurry and just try and make sure I do not flip words or get letters out of order. I am used to people like him in life that see the way I type and think they are better then me. Heh some Dumb smart people out there guys.
Well I will say many time the CR system just does not work. I often have groups that can roll over CR appropriate encounters.
I tend to be stingy on magic as well so My groups tend to have less then the needed amount of magic[so saith the DMG]. As a player and a DM the new fighter is not weak. I have been play testing this since alpha 1. Three days after I downloaded the book the new classes went into play.
Now I used core only. Or in some cases the Eberron setting or races of Eberron. The fighter can keep up. He is not magic, he cant do the things the wizard can, he cant do the things a cleric can. But with his feats he is hands down the most customizable class in the game. You can have some damned good builds or some bad build. But in my book the game is not about just great builds.
In the end you need to ask but one thing. Do I like playing this character?
If you say yes, well that character works. No List of numbers of min/max powergamers are ever gonna convince me otherwise.
I'd ask you to expand on this one Reumere. How is this a problem for a playtest or a reason for ignoring in game experience?After all, this is a game where the DM is asked to craft adventures to thrill and challenge their players. Are you saying that a DM shouldn't do this? Is it possible that DM's are in fact going the other way and tailoring encounters where only the magic using classes can shine? After all, if the majority of your encounters are involving invisible flying ranged combatants, or creatures that can negate a fighter with a single failed will save then I believe that's a fairly big argument for ignoring the wizard is better type of thing as well.
Genuine question Reumere, no hidden attacks so please don't take it that way.
Cheers
I'm not Ruemere, but if you look at all of the SRD monsters from CR10 to 15, using the handy monster filter available at d20srd.org, there are either melee brutes who will hit a Fighter on a 10 if he has an AC under 31, *and* outreach him, or have sufficient SLAs, or just plain spellcasting, to shutdown a Fighter in round 1 or 2. The only thing that a Fighter might be able to take on are the golems.
I can't personally find an encounter at these CRs that a Fighter stands a chance in without a ton of support. Adding a cloud of lower CR mooks to allow the Fighter a chance to be effective is not a reasonable assessment of the Fighter's ability to take on effective encounters past CR10, unless the Fighter can optimize to take out just one of the level appropriate challenges, with bane effects and damage vulnerabilities. Golf bag full of weapons is not good, at all.
That golfbag of weapons thing again.
I was initially against changing the 3.5 DR mechanic but I've noticed that it's one of the number one things that nerfs fighter types (i.e. they can't get damage through the DR).
Any thoughts on how the Beta "X plusses overcome DR/Y" mechanic? Does it bring the fighter back on par?
That golfbag of weapons thing again.
I was initially against changing the 3.5 DR mechanic but I've noticed that it's one of the number one things that nerfs fighter types (i.e. they can't get damage through the DR).
Any thoughts on how the Beta "X plusses overcome DR/Y" mechanic? Does it bring the fighter back on par?
I still would rather have a plain, old adamantine weapon and some potions of silversheen and align weapon (with a backup cold iron weapon) with my cleric/wizard buddy providing Greater Magic Weapon. YMMV, of course.
But as has been mentioned elsewhere, in Beta Greater Magic Weapon isn't quite as cool as it used to be.
But as has been mentioned elsewhere, in Beta Greater Magic Weapon isn't quite as cool as it used to be.
Huh? It's exactly the same as it used to be in 3.5, as far as I can tell.
But as has been mentioned elsewhere, in Beta Greater Magic Weapon isn't quite as cool as it used to be.Huh? It's exactly the same as it used to be in 3.5, as far as I can tell.
I was referring to the thing about it only bypassing DR/magic. "As cool as it used to be" refers to 3.0 (not 3.5) where a Greater Magic Weapon spell would bypass pretty much all DR of most critters.
|
After all, if the majority of your encounters are involving invisible flying ranged combatants, or creatures that can negate a fighter with a single failed will save then I believe that's a fairly big argument for ignoring the wizard is better type of thing as well.
I'm not Ruemere, but if you look at all of the SRD monsters from CR10 to 15, using the handy monster filter available at d20srd.org, there are either melee brutes who will hit a Fighter on a 10 if he has an AC under 31, *and* outreach him, or have sufficient SLAs, or just plain spellcasting, to shutdown a Fighter in round 1 or 2. The only thing that a Fighter might be able to take on are the golems.
Here's a bunch of critters of CR10, from a bunch of sources (thanks, Moff Rimmer!)
Abyssal Ghoul
Adamantine Dragon, Young
Aspect of Bahamut
Aspect of Fraz-Urb'luu
Aspect of Tiamat
Aspect of Vecna
Avolakia
Axial Dragon, Juvenile
Brainstealer Dragon, Juvenile
Brass Dragon, Young Adult
Bronze Serpent
Cerebrilith
Concordant Dragon, Juvenile
Couatl
Crab, Gargantuan Monstrous
Darkweaver
Deepspawn
Demon, Bebilith
Demon, Chasme
Dinosaur, Mosasaur
Dinosaur, Plesiosaur
Dire Elephant
Dunewinder
Eladrin, Firre
Elemental Drake, Fire
Eleven Headed Hydra
Entombed
Ephemera, Eumbral Banyan
Ermalkankari
Ethereal Ooze
Eviscerator Beetle
Fang Dragon, Adult
Formian Myrmarch
Gaspar
Gathra
Giant, Fire
Giant, Sand
Golem, Brain
Golem, Brass
Golem, Clay
Gormeel
Greenvise
Greyhawk Dragon, Young Adult
Guardinal, Ursinal
Hag, Shrieking
Hex Dragon, Young Adult
Kelpie
Knell Beetle
Landwyrm, Forest
Leechwalker
Legendary Shark
Legendary Tiger
Legendary Tiger
Maelephant
Minogon
Monstrous Scorpion, Gargantuan
Mooncalf
Naga, Guardian
Nerve Swimmers
Nine Headed Cryo-Hydra
Nine Headed Pyro-Hydra
Plague Spewer
Planar Dragon - Battle, Young Adult
Planar Dragon - Ethereal, Adult
Planar Dragon - Howling, Juvenile
Planar Dragon - Radiant, Juvenile
Planar Dragon - Styx, Young Adult
Planar Dragon - Tarterian, Juvenile
Rakshasa
Rattelyr Dragon, Adult
Razor Boar
Red Dragon, Juvenile
Runic Guardian
Salamander, Noble
Seryulin, Greater
Shaboath
Shedu
Shrieking Terror, Five-Headed
Sibyllic Guardian
Silver Dragon, Juvenile
Slaad, Gray
Spell Weaver
Sporebat
Ssvaklor
Storm Elemental, Greater
Swarm, Scarab Beetle
Swarm, Sunfly
Sword of Kyuss
Tome Dragon, Juvenile
Topaz Dragon, Juvenile
Troll, Mountain
Troll, Mur-Zhagul
Varrangoin, Rager
White Dragon, Adult
Wormcaller
Yugoloth, Marraenoloth
Yugoloth, Nycaloth
Yugoloth, Yagnoloth
I'm not going to dissect the stats of each one, but those are the things that a Fighter 10 should encounter as standard (along with his fellow party-members).
I'll leave it up to the rest of you to work out how he'd fare.
Play Nice.
One does wonder how it is possible for someone so lacking to be able to use RPGs.
What got into you? You bring a coherent, valid point to the table... only to flush it down the toilet with that kind of nonsense? I'll admit that I, too, sometimes have to expend an awful lot of effort in order to decipher seeker's posts... but so what? He seems like a pretty decent guy. Certainly, he's never lapsed into random insults to the best of my recollection. I'd hate to see an analysis I consider correct to be dismissed as worthless because of the insult "rider" -- like a decent bill that can't get past Congress because of all the pork tacked onto the end of it.
That golfbag of weapons thing again.
I was initially against changing the 3.5 DR mechanic but I've noticed that it's one of the number one things that nerfs fighter types (i.e. they can't get damage through the DR).
Any thoughts on how the Beta "X plusses overcome DR/Y" mechanic? Does it bring the fighter back on par?
ya know I never changed from the 3.0 way of doing this. So to me it really isnt that big an issue. I haven't really seen the whole golfbag thing many of you seem to have seen, so I really cant say if it's better or worse because of this change. What I can tell you is in my games it has never been an issue. I like that you may need a +3 sword to get past DR, it makes a +3 far better then a +2 and it isn't just because it does 1 more point of damage.
|
|
a clear and concise response to my question
Thanks Reumere, that was actually an enlightening post.
I'm also looking forward to discussing this topic again (fighter effectiveness) after the feats section (and hopefully some input from the designers).
Until then I'm going to bow out of this one and the other thread on the topic as I see it going in circles a bit.
I'm going to try to get some of my players together for a playtest for some of the beasties listed above and see what happens.
Will try 4 encounters determined randomly from the list above. Play through with 4 fighters, 4 mages, then standard 4 (fighter, mage, cleric, rogue). Will build an adventure around it so my playes aren't bored and it gives the rogue some class thigs as well, but will have to think long and hard about it so as to avoid over bias. Preferably I'd need twelve players so the scenario remians the same but players aren't building to cater for encounters after first run through. Alternatively I could make them build their characters and standard spell arrays before they run through the first game, to mitigate metagaming preparation.
If I can get it up and running will report back. I'll be doing this for my interest rather than to prove a point. I'll certainly be using your idea of fringe testing in that I'll tell my players to optimise their PC's as much as wealth by level allows them.
Any other advice on how I should try this test would be appreciated (to avoid bias).
Cheers
a clear and concise response to my questionThanks Reumere, that was actually an enlightening post.
I'm also looking forward to discussing this topic again (fighter effectiveness) after the feats section (and hopefully some input from the designers).
Until then I'm going to bow out of this one and the other thread on the topic as I see it going in circles a bit.
I'm going to try to get some of my players together for a playtest for some of the beasties listed above and see what happens.
Will try 4 encounters determined randomly from the list above. Play through with 4 fighters, 4 mages, then standard 4 (fighter, mage, cleric, rogue). Will build an adventure around it so my playes aren't bored and it gives the rogue some class thigs as well, but will have to think long and hard about it so as to avoid over bias. Preferably I'd need twelve players so the scenario remians the same but players aren't building to cater for encounters after first run through. Alternatively I could make them build their characters and standard spell arrays before they run through the first game, to mitigate metagaming preparation.
If I can get it up and running will report back. I'll be doing this for my interest rather than to prove a point. I'll certainly be using your idea of fringe testing in that I'll tell my players to optimise their PC's as much as wealth by level allows them.
Any other advice on how I should try this test would be appreciated (to avoid bias).
Cheers
You might also try a group of 1 fighter, 1 ranger, 1 barbarian, and 1 paladin to compare the classes with full BAB. When you do builds for the 4-fighter group, mix them up: 1 archer, 1 2-weapon, 1 2-handed, 1 sword and board. Test them over differing levels, differing terrains, and against a variety of foes. You might even let them try fighting against the other playtest groups (e.g. 4 fighters vs. the mixed warriors).
a clear and concise response to my questionThanks Reumere, that was actually an enlightening post.You're welcome.
I'm also looking forward to discussing this topic again (fighter effectiveness) after the feats section (and hopefully some input from the designers).The weird thing is that when I look at my shelf (shelves, actually) and browse games I played over years, I find that virtually none of other systems exhibits this problem. Of course, one is free to construct inferior characters, or it is possible to take advantage of system gaps to create a superior one, however none of those is built around the idea of preferring certain character concepts over others.
I am of the opinion, that unless feat system is simplified (feat chains out of the window) and tiered (vastly superior feats made available for higher tiers of play), we're still be looking at old familiar fighter with numerous yet largely ineffective abilities.
Damage (melee or ranged) is of secondary concern, though. It's the lack of options which I have issue with. For example, fighter gets hit and grabbed. High HD monster means no escape is possible - sorry, Mr Fighter, you had your 5 seconds of glory, you may rest of the rest of encounter. Or, Mr Fighter gets dominated, charmed, panicked... Or Mr Fighter again requests to get another 5 minute buff. Etc.
Until then I'm going to bow out of this one and the other thread on the topic as I see it going in circles a bit.
I'm going to try to get some of my players together for a playtest for some of the beasties listed above and see what happens.
Will try 4 encounters determined randomly from the list above. Play through with 4 fighters, 4 mages, then standard 4 (fighter, mage, cleric, rogue). Will build an adventure around it so my playes aren't bored and it gives the rogue some class thigs as well, but will have to think long and hard about it so as to avoid over bias. Preferably I'd need...
Good stuff Ruemere.
I think having a good solid approach to testing some of the fringe cases is good but my only hesitation with testing is the use of the CR/EL system as a guideline for challenges and measuring. The CR/EL system only works if it is an accurate measure of a monster or encounter's challenge and I think most people's experiences over the last eight years with the game is that CRs (and as an extension ELs) are very inaccurate or purposefully lowered (dragons). I think we can all agree that it is a pretty kludgey and dysfunctional system and if we could find a better way of measuring challenges then it would help testing greatly. Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas on a way to do this without using the CR/EL system?
Well the CR system has one big flaw. It works only if you use the lower end point buy. Rolling or useing high end point buy and the CR system starts to brake down.
Another thing to keep in mind is monsters are not planned to be one on one. There ment to be encounted with a group. Hince many of the monster have ability that are ment to challenge the whole group not just a fighter.
Some of that stuff on the list a fighter can handle pretty easy by himself. Others are a call for group action. We need to keep in mind that this is a group game and much is designed around that concept.
Still I have seen and played fighters that could stream roll over some of that very easy, and some that could not.
Case in point my 5th level STAP group ran into a hydra.7 headed CR 6
The fighter while wet and naked[long story] took it down by himself. It wasn't that hard of a fight he did get hit many times but he out damaged it hard.
still I may try some of those fights .
that was 9 or 10 months back. There was 1 crit. I used the CR listed on that link I may have looked wrong, been a long time. I missed about 3 in 7 attacks if I recall. it went 4 or 5 rounds if I recall he used a drawen warax. more detailsare fuzzy after all this time.
Maybe the question should be what do we expect the fighter to do?
My list would be:
1. Be Tough -- he should be able to shrug off some big hits.
2. Avoid damage -- all armor and shields available helps, armor training helps even more
3. Deal decent damage regularly -- I don't expect him to out do the mage's fireball, but he should be contributing enough damage to make him a worry, instead of the guy who only took 10% of the monsters hp.
4. Out melee the rest -- come on this is the one thing you should be able to expect out of a fighter, that when it's sword to sword he can out preform anyone.
The Fighter should be master of the battlefield. He should be able to:
I've written feats to accomplish all of the above, except the extra damage (a class feature giving him bonus weapon damage equal to 1/2 class level would do the trick). Can't wait for the feat section to come out!
|
|
The Fighter should be master of the battlefield. He should be able to:
Trade one or more attacks for an extra 10 ft. movement each, at will;
Hold attacks and movement for use as immediate actions in response to what the enemy does;
Intercept/prevent enemy movement;
Reliably disrupt enemy spellcasting through boosts to casting defensively DC and DC to retain spells when he hits;
Deal enough damage -- with ANY weapon -- to be a credible threat;
Have some means to avoid being instantly out of the fight every time someone throws a hold person spell;
Add his armor training bonus to armor and shield, much like enhancement bonuses on them stack;
Apply his shield bonus as a save bonus vs. fireballs and ray spells. I've written feats to accomplish all of the above, except the extra damage (a class feature giving him bonus weapon damage equal to 1/2 class level would do the trick). Can't wait for the feat section to come out!
I'm not sure if a fighter should be able to do all this because there are other classes that this overlaps with.
*Speed and melee damage is the Barbarians role in combat. Fighters could benefit from this but that's not their role. The fighter should be a combat tactician instead.
*Having them be more resistant to spells or prevent spellcasting is actually bad for fighters to have because most of the spells in the game have been designed specifically to stop fighters from reaching wizards. If you decide to give fighters more options to beat a wizard, the wizard quickly moves down the track from ubergood to the suck in no time flat. The reason that's true, the pc's are not the only fighters in the world.
So the things a Fighter should do could look like this.
1. Control the field of battle around him. That means preventing enemies from moving past him and keeping them engaged with him. Trips and Grappling of good ways of achieving this but so are boasts and intimidation.
2. Though this is for all melee builds, the fighter should do appropiate damage for it's level. Weapon damage plus Strength mod and any other little bonuses really are not enough to keep up with damage outputs of other classes. SO maybe the should be a weapon damage increase for the fighter at every 10 levels or so. 1 die of weapon damage at 1-9, 2 die of weapon from 10-19 and so on. IT's not a big increase but it's meaningful.
3. Fighters, unlike the other classes of martial characters, are supposed to master of weapons and armor. So getting better bonuses with them would be ideal.
Now that is the role that a fighter should be able to handle without hurting other characters roles. Now if you have been 3.5 for some time and have enough splat books, this is possible and I think beta has done a good job of covering this as well. The only thing that is not covered is number 2 but I can live with that because if the fighter can do number one well, that's enough for his class.
(a) I'm not sure if a fighter should be able to do all this because there are other classes that this overlaps with.
(b) If you decide to give fighters more options to beat a wizard, the wizard quickly moves down the track from ubergood to the suck in no time flat.
(c)1. Control the field of battle around him. That means preventing enemies from moving past him and keeping them engaged with him. Trips and Grappling of good ways of achieving this but so are boasts and intimidation.
(c) 2. Though this is for all melee builds, the fighter should do appropiate damage for its level. Weapon damage plus Strength mod and any other little bonuses really are not enough to keep up with damage outputs of other classes. SO maybe the should be a weapon damage increase for the fighter at every 10 levels or so. 1 die of weapon damage at 1-9, 2 die of weapon from 10-19 and so on. IT's not a big increase but it's meaningful.
(c) 3. Fighters, unlike the other classes of martial characters, are supposed to master of weapons and armor. So getting better bonuses with them would be ideal.
(a) He could do some of it, if he took the correct feats, but all of it wouldn't be default by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see it as too dangerous to the barbarian's 40 mph all day movement if the fighter can occasionally get in a 20-ft. sprint by investing in the correct feat chain.
(b) The wizard keeps the fighter off of him far too effectively now. Even with no defensive spells, he could just move away 30 ft. and then throw a spell, and the armored figher is plodding after him with that 20 ft. limit. The sad thing is that wizard doesn't even have to move; he can just stand there and cast hold person defensively (95% chance of success) and shut the fighter down that way (lousy chance of saving, given their poor Will saves). The wizard and fighter were at par in 1st edition because the former needed the latter as a bodyguard. He doesn't anymore, so the PC fighter's role has disappeared.(c) 1. I'm against the "taunt" mechanism for a number of reasons detailed at length on the "stickiness" thread: Cha-based save DC, number of immune enemies (undead, vermin, anyone with a decent Will save, etc.), and most of all because of the underlying silliness: the fighter takes control of people's minds and makes them act contrary to their obvious goals not by magic, but by sticking his tongue out at them? Strains my suspension of disbelief too far. (Yes, I know wizards cast spells, but if fighters can, too, then just go ahead and give them spells!) I vastly prefer an active move-and-intercept mechanic, which has the added bonus of being more fun for the fighter's player.
(c) 2. +1/2 class levels, as I proposed above, would do more to narrow the gap, and has the benefit of not requiring everyone to use the biggest weapon they can find, just so the damage boost will be bigger.
(c) 3. For weapons, see c(2), above. For armor, my original post contained a number of suggestions.
|
|
Well I'm not thinking that a +1/2 a level will cut it exactly. That's just like a small bonus leading up to a +10 total bonus on damage which can be achieved by a Power Attack without much penalty. I think the idea of increasing weapon damage as if he were a size bigger or just making the weapon damage double what it does would be more helpful. Taking one out of 4e's book there though.
I agree that a Taunt mechanic is not ideal. I would like to a sudden shift or something that involves movement for the fighter. I've seen a few feats that actually accomplish this in 3.5. But the overall problem with this, it gives the fighters a good number of actions that other characters just don't have which the 3.5 ones took away actions from the fighter. If the fighter has a movement based counter, that means he gets a free move action every round that an enemy goes to move past him on top of what his normal round of actions. I'm not saying that it hurts the game but it can lead to some bad synergy juju.
Other than that, I think we could come up with some way to make battlefield control, weapon and armor master to work for the fighter without giving him a boost to face off against magic(Which btw, 1e did no better than any other addition with the problem of wizard and warrior). Magic is meant as the ultimate form of power. Fighters are nor wizards are special in it's eyes because it effects them equally(Have you seen finger of Death or disintegrate hit a wizard? Scary if the wizard survives).
Well I'm not thinking that a +1/2 a level will cut it exactly. That's just like a small bonus leading up to a +10 total bonus on damage which can be achieved by a Power Attack without much penalty. I think the idea of increasing weapon damage as if he were a size bigger or just making the weapon damage double what it does would be more helpful.
If +1/2 doesn't do it, make it +1/class level instead. A straight bonus is better, in my mind, because it doesn't inevitably lead to an "arms race" of who can carry the most ridiculously oversized nonsense weapon. If that's your thing, the double weapon damage option already has feats (Vital Strike, et al.) -- I'd just as soon leave those as feats, and apply a straight damage bonus.
In 1e, the fighter was infinitely more effective against a wizard. Wizard starts casting; fighter moves 9" (45 ft.) and attacks twice at full BAB; if either attack hits, the spell is automatically lost. Contrast that with the current 20 ft. move and one attack that doesn't disrupt spellcasting, and the Concentration/Spellcraft check to cast defensively fails only on a 1.
Coming from that standpoint, I very strongly disagree that there should be an "ultimate form of power," and that any competent wizard should be automatically able to kill anyone except another wizard with ease. In that case, the other classes are redundant; rename the game "wizards vs. wizards" and be done with it.
|
|
I don't agree that Magic should be the ultimate form of power either but thats the stance that games have been taking since DnD came out. I would like to step away from that but find that magic is the most versatile and balanced effect(Excluding some spells)in the game.
If a wizards fireball is far more effective than a fighters sword swinging, why is that. Well it covers a 20ft radius. It does 1d6/level of the caster. And the caster can cast the spell while under fire using the 3.5 rules. The only element I can be removed from that equation is the Spellcraft/Concentration check making wizards lose there spells if hit. Now what part of that can a fighter gain? The damage is not what makes the spell good(because it's only usable 1/day/slot)but the radius of the spell is the culprit. Now a fighter shouldn't get an attack with that range but maybe if he could swing his sword in the area around him multiple times a combat, he would be just as effective.
Now this already exists in the game as a end of a feat chain. Whirlwind is good but it's requirements are a little steep(Prereqs: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.) And it requires a full attack option. So the fighter is stuck in place to perform it's area attack and that's if he has all those prereqs. Now I know all the fighters I build could qualify for this but I have seen many fighter builders buff up strength the most and not look at dex and int as stats they would need. Con usually overshadows Dex let along Int. Maybe if the feat was reworked a little to allow this to happen as a standard action, the fighter could move and provide an area attack. I mean, it requires spring attack for crying out loud. Why would a mobile character stop dead in his tracks to do one area attack a round?
I have no problem with your suggestions Kirth, they are in the right ballpark for what the fighter needs, they just need to be worked out more like mine. Damage is the last thing on the list that I would love to truly tackle. Right now, maybe we need to focus on what a fighter could do that's similiar to magical effects for battlefield control.
IE: Trip, Sunder, Grappling, Radius attacks, etc.
Right now, maybe we need to focus on what a fighter could do that's similiar to magical effects for battlefield control.
Intercepting Step (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Bull Rush, MobilityBenefit: 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 from you.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Right now, maybe we need to focus on what a fighter could do that's similiar to magical effects for battlefield control.
Intercepting Step (Combat)
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Bull Rush, Mobility
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 from you.
Kirth, I'm collecting proposed feats. Could you repost this one over here so that I can find it again when we get to the feats chapter?
Kirth, I'm collecting proposed feats. Could you repost this one over here so that I can find it again when we get to the feats chapter?
Done, along with a few others. Constructive feedback is most welcome.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Kirth, I'm collecting proposed feats. Could you repost this one over here so that I can find it again when we get to the feats chapter?Done, along with a few others. Constructive feedback is most welcome.
It's like Christmas! Lovely feats.
The mage bane seems like an elegant solution.
I see a lot of posts refering to how or why the fighter should be better at his job. My thought is that a DM should know the limits of his adventuring party and eventually know when/if said monster or group of monsters is simply too tough for the party in question. This applies even if the adventure is a prefab module.
Another point of note, and I believe others have somewhat mentioned this... the fighter should be well prepared to fight however he fights. Even if this means carrying a "golf bag of weapons". I don't usually consider what my fighters carry a "golf bag", but I come prepared. Main weapon(s), secondary weapon(utility) and a ranged weapon(thrown or shot) and dagger.