|
Ok I dislike fighter only feats on the base level that other martially inclined characters should be able to attain this level of training. The fighters above and beyond is the sheer number they get and the training class features.
Shifting the whole raft of these feats to the relavant base attack bonus would be my solution to the issue, this would include shifting the weapon spec tree out of the fighter only domain as well.
Director of Games
|
Ok I dislike fighter only feats on the base level that other martially inclined characters should be able to attain this level of training. The fighters above and beyond is the sheer number they get and the training class features.
Shifting the whole raft of these feats to the relavant base attack bonus would be my solution to the issue, this would include shifting the weapon spec tree out of the fighter only domain as well.
I can understand your desire here, but please remember that one of our earlier discussions about fighters centered around them having to share a niche with every other character with a full BAB progression. Fighter only feats help them break out of that to a limited extent.
That said of course, I am open to debate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It has been very poorly received by my players.
At the very least, some of these feats should be open to other classes. There's a lot the paladin could do with some better shield feats, for example, and he needs this stuff as bad as the fighter does.
I saw an excellent suggestion on these boards that you can switch all "fighter-only" feats to BAB requirements, and then allow the fighter levels to count double towards BAB (say). So you could give Weapon Specialization a +8 BAB requirement: the fighter qualifies at level 4, but a barbarian would need to wait until level 8. Similarly, a pure fighter can take Vital Strike at level 6 instead of level 11.
The exact formula isn't important, just the idea.
I for one love fighter only feats. A fighter's feats are his defining class feature. A barbarian has rage, and rage powers. A paladin has smite, auras, channel, and lay on hands.
A fighter has feat, he is suppose to be the master of trained combat. Heaving feats no one else can have is all part of the drawl of being a fighter. Sure other melee class can fight ok, but a fighter should have feats and tricks no other melee class can have.
We done have feats that are class only, extra rage, channel feats, spell class feats and such. What is wrong with giving the fighter class based feats just for them?
|
We done have feats that are class only, extra rage, channel feats, spell class feats and such. What is wrong with giving the fighter class based feats just for them?
Absolutely. We could, if we wanted, change the prereq for, say, Weapon Specialization to "BAB +4, armor training class ability" if, for some reason, "fighter level 4" is painfully unacceptable, but I really don't see the point. We already have class-specific feats, and they work just fine. I don't know why we'd change the fighter's, just because he gets no respect as it is...
I use a selection of cherry-picked manoeuvres from 9swords to add combat options to the Fighter. I think adding more Fighter-only Feats is a good thing as long as they grant him more options.
Just read through the manoeuvres in 9swords and you can't help but have a bunch of great Feat ideas.
I don't want to see more improved or greater Feats. We need more new options, not beefed up oldies!
Personally, I don't think the fighter needs unique feats, but what I think would really make him stand out a bit would be feat improvements. Like say, a fighter takes improved initiative for a bonus feat. It give a +4 bonus normally, but for a fighter it might give a +6 or even +8 bonus instead. Or a character with power attack only adds his strength bonus to the damage, but a fighter could add up to twice his strength bonus or something... Basically, any feat that can be taken as a bonus feat, is more powerful when taken by a fighter than by another class. This would kinda drive home the point that the barbarian and the ranger and the paladin can all throw down with the best, but the fighter has spent his career training this one specific area of expertise. Plus, every class could take any feat, but only the fighters could unlock the true potential or something...
Sorry I ramble a bit. 8.5 hours in office turns brain cells into oats...
|
I stand very much in favor of Fighter-only feats. Fighter's need something to of their own. As mentioned above, Barbarians have rage, Rangers have favored enemy, and Paladins have smite, etc. Opening Fighter-only feats to all martial classes only opens up the problem (or makes the already existing problem worse) of other classes being better fighters than the Fighter. Removing the level requirements but leaving the feats as [Fighter] feats opens up the 1-level dip problem the Fighter (take one level of Fighter and you have access to any [Fighter] feats you meet the requirements for).
All that said, maybe Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin levels could count as 1/2 Fighter levels for purposes of quilifying for Fighter-only feats. This would open up some but leave the best stuff for the Fighter (since his focus is on training).
-Skeld
While fighter only feats do act as an alternate method to describe class feature options, like the rogue talent system, I worry that making the fighter the shield character limits what could be interesting mechanics from other classes who may want to use shields. While I know we won't see fighter talents, I do consider some of these feats to be almost exactly that, and this is both good and bad.
Adding a dual path for prerequisites might be useful, like tying shield feats into the armor training feature being at a certain bonus, or requiring a BAB of +2 the fighter level where that would occur. That way, the paladin can grab shield tricks a bit later, and the fighter can get it sooner. Consider it roughly like the ability to cast an X level spell, which is a common feat prerequisite, which hits at different points for different characters.
With that said, the DR bypass feats I feel can be considered extensions of Weapon Specialization, and perhaps should be prerequisted off of such, with a BAB prerequisite as well. That does open up these feats to anyone who has taken enough fighter levels to qualify for them, but I don't know that this would be an actual problem. In a related way, I think Disruptive and Spellbreaker certainly provide a niche for the Fighter, and that I consider to be a good thing as written to keep them Fighter only. They do depend entirely on what happens to the cast defensively mechanic, though.
Edit: What appear to be a capstone feat, Critical Mastery, I am likewise fine with staying Fighter only. Not like anyone else is going to be able to grab enough feats to build interesting stacking combos, or provoke enough criticals.
|
|
It seems to me that several of the sticking points for the fighter-only feats are the shield feats, driven (I suspect) by the long-time pure suckage of sword-and-board fighting. Perhaps it would make the Shield Mastery chain easier to take if there were a few more non-fighter-only feats that built off of it, much like Dazzling Display builds off of Weapon Focus?
One shield feat I would like to see might look something like this:
SHIELD COVER
Prerequisites: BAB +4, Shield Mastery, Shield Proficiency
You have learned how to shield yourself from area attacks by blocking them with your shield.
Benefit: While carrying a light shield, heavy shield, or tower shield, you gain the benefits of evasion (as the monk class ability, except that you can be wearing any amount of armor and carrying a shield), as long as you are aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
(This is because warriors should be able to hide behind their shields with the dragon breathes fire on them. It's just not fair that they can't.)
More shield-based feats could make the fighter-only ones less painful, I think.
The opposition to this idea might be lessened by placing the Fighter-only feats in the Fighter Class description.
For me, part of this is jealousy.
On the shield feats. How about allowing the lesser shield feats be standard with the high end better ones being fighter only. That allows other melee classes basic shield feats while keeping mastery of they style with the high end fighter.
|
Director of Games
|
On the shield feats. How about allowing the lesser shield feats be standard with the high end better ones being fighter only. That allows other melee classes basic shield feats while keeping mastery of they style with the high end fighter.
I am currently thinking that the AC bonus feats might be open to all, whereas the DR feats are fighter-only.
As for the rest, I am pretty comfortable with their current status.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yes that sounds like a fine middle ground. I t allows other melee types to have some shield feats but keeps mastery of them at the fighters hand
I see no reason to have fighter only feats.
As the game is built right now the fighter is the only class that could take advantage of any large number or multiple chains of these.
Other classes have certain feats that are nearly "must haves". So that limits their already limited number.
Simply putting the BAB restriction on these allows other characters to take them but they must pick very carefully and decide early on which route they want.
Whereas the fighter, he can take many different routes and still gain some of the feat chains that others would want, faster.
I dont feel that fighter "only" feats are the fighters niche...rather, the fact that he gets SOOOO many is the big point here. He can be skilled in so many areas, no one else can match that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I see no reason to have fighter only feats.
As the game is built right now the fighter is the only class that could take advantage of any large number or multiple chains of these.
Other classes have certain feats that are nearly "must haves". So that limits their already limited number.
Simply putting the BAB restriction on these allows other characters to take them but they must pick very carefully and decide early on which route they want.
Whereas the fighter, he can take many different routes and still gain some of the feat chains that others would want, faster.
I dont feel that fighter "only" feats are the fighters niche...rather, the fact that he gets SOOOO many is the big point here. He can be skilled in so many areas, no one else can match that.
I agree, Vult.
Let them be restricted by BAB.
It's just going to be more work to undo this text later when other classes for whom these feats make perfect sense are given a way to acquire them.
While fighter only feats do act as an alternate method to describe class feature options, like the rogue talent system, I worry that making the fighter the shield character limits what could be interesting mechanics from other classes who may want to use shields. While I know we won't see fighter talents, I do consider some of these feats to be almost exactly that, and this is both good and bad.
Adding a dual path for prerequisites might be useful, like tying shield feats into the armor training feature being at a certain bonus, or requiring a BAB of +2 the fighter level where that would occur. That way, the paladin can grab shield tricks a bit later, and the fighter can get it sooner. Consider it roughly like the ability to cast an X level spell, which is a common feat prerequisite, which hits at different points for different characters.
With that said, the DR bypass feats I feel can be considered extensions of Weapon Specialization, and perhaps should be prerequisted off of such, with a BAB prerequisite as well. That does open up these feats to anyone who has taken enough fighter levels to qualify for them, but I don't know that this would be an actual problem. In a related way, I think Disruptive and Spellbreaker certainly provide a niche for the Fighter, and that I consider to be a good thing as written to keep them Fighter only. They do depend entirely on what happens to the cast defensively mechanic, though.
Edit: What appear to be a capstone feat, Critical Mastery, I am likewise fine with staying Fighter only. Not like anyone else is going to be able to grab enough feats to build interesting stacking combos, or provoke enough criticals.
Fighters need the love!
And that said, some of these should be opened, because they are martial feats, and there are other martial classes that need them! However:
- Other martial classes lack the sheer versatility and ability to take these feats.
- Other martial classes have other priorities for their limited feat slots.
- Raising the requirement to BAB+2 (or BAB+3) for a martial class, then just to BAB for the fighter, gives the fighter one more advantage when taking these feats: they get them sooner and faster, and more of them. So far these are three solid advantages.
I can understand if the above isn't an option--the poor fighter's felt, well, shafted for a very long time. All the martial classes fairly well have: they're in the same boat, here. Before arguments start, remember that they are in the same boat. Martial needs some help.
No one's arguing that the fighter shouldn't get advantages when it comes to feats.
Now, what if we don't do that? What if we keep the fighter-only feats accessible to say, fighters only?
This is fine. No, seriously.
It could be what all these posts are saying: we have these other martial classes, and they need to be able to do martial things as well. So, remember: we're in the same boat, everyone. Let's give the fighter some really cool options. ...and let's not forget that we love martial characters as a whole.
So we're in the same boat. The difference here is flavor:
Fighters: All martial, multitude of weapons, ultimate mastery over specific weapons or weapon types
Barbarians: Smashing things, rage, unpredictability
Paladins: Defenders, holy warriors, martial arm of the Church
So let's look at these feats in terms of flavor. The fighters should get access to all of them, no question.
However, sword and board fits the paladin's flavor as a defender. And paladins are some of the most common sword and boarders. This, I think, is a very strong argument. Sword and boarders in general, need help. This, others have acknowledged, is a strong argument.
So, maybe the sword and board feats need shared. Good! And, the fighter has some good, fighter-only feats. Good!
Now, what about martial options for other martial classes? I think this is some of the disgruntlement. It would be nice to see some martial feats that were ahem, more accessible to the paladin than the cleric. Does this sound similar to the argument for fighter-only feats? Avoiding stepping on toes? Definitely. Absolutely.
The cleric already steps on the paladin's toes enough. Let's give the holy warrior some options. Special effects on smite, for instance: or, shocking, some combat abilities not tied to smite. Maybe some dual paladin-mount maneuvers. Or, some limited channeling, more martial uses for that holiness they're carrying around.
So, two opinions I see here:
Opinion one: Some limited access to the fighter feats would come in handy for all martial classes (note: martial, not caster or thieving!). However, they'd get them later and at a penalty and they'd get far fewer of them (no bonus feats for one, and they have other things they have to worry about). This leaves the fighter as the top dog, the most versatile...but doesn't deny the martial nature of other warriors.
Opinion two: Maybe looking at the feats as "flavor points" is a better option. Share what should be shared, and don't share what shouldn't be. Personally, I sort of like two, but this isn't a democracy, is it? ;)
As an aside, a feat to create that "sticky" feeling for defenders would be a great addition: Goad isn't as good as it needs to be, and Goad isn't Pathfinder. This sort of "sticky" feat is something sword and boarders need. This would fit the "theme" for both fighters and paladins. Ragers already hit hard, and hit very, very, very hard. They don't need this option. :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
In another Thread:
I think that Fighter only works fine, but I do also think that there should be some exceptions.
If something has a thematic feel for another Class as well, then there should be no reason why it can't be available for that Class as well, but maybe at a higher level. eg. Shield Mastery: Fighter 4th, Paladin 7th.
Another way of doing it might be to open the Feats up to every Class with the Martial BAB Progression, but at a Higher Level for non-Fighters. eg. Weapon Specialization: Fighter 4th, Martial 7th.
Think of Fighter only Feats as being exactly the same as a Wizard's Spells.
A Fighter's Thing is his use of Feats, just as a Wizard's Thing is his ability to Cast Spells.
Not everyone can use Wizard Spells, so why should everyone be able to use certain Feats?
Think of Fighter only Feats as being exactly the same as a Wizard's Spells.A Fighter's Thing is his use of Feats, just as a Wizard's Thing is his ability to Cast Spells.
Not everyone can use Wizard Spells, so why should everyone be able to use certain Feats?
That is 100% correct. There are already feats that are class only, rage, channel,spell fouces and so on. Whats so bad about a fighter having fighter only feats?
That is 100% correct. There are already feats that are class only, rage, channel,spell fouces and so on. Whats so bad about a fighter having fighter only feats?
Think of Fighter only Feats as being exactly the same as a Wizard's Spells.A Fighter's Thing is his use of Feats, just as a Wizard's Thing is his ability to Cast Spells.
Not everyone can use Wizard Spells, so why should everyone be able to use certain Feats?
What makes me wonder here, is if instead of fighter-feats these shouldn't be reclassified as fighter class options. Perhaps the class does need a redesign, as so many have suggested. This would also avoid confusion, and further specialize the fighter.
Then again, I think what folks would like to see more would be:
- Increased martial options for all martial characters
And:
- Acknowledge that the fighter isn't the 'only' martial class: however, they're more versatile. And, they're more focused on being the master of weapons. The mercenaries. The legions. And, they can slug just about anything.
The others, however, are martial also, just in specific, different ways. Please see my flavor divisions above. :)
Having fighter-only feats works completely well with this. I don't think it's exclusive. It works.
However, I think the outcry is: hey, we're martial too. We may do it in different ways, but we're still martial.
So probably looking at flavor is the answer. Share what should be shared, don't share what shouldn't be, and create flavor options suited to the classes that don't step on toes.
Remember, probably the folks arguing for "access but at a penalty" aren't your wizards and rogues. They're the other martial classes. You're in a similar boat, and there's room for everyone if we focus on flavor options.
Can we agree on that?
Sure there are other martial class but what roles do they have? The fighter has just one role,he fights. Other class have features and such and even there own feats to help them do there role.
The fighter should have his own class feats just like every one else.
Why not allow access to all but give fighters specific bonuses when they take a specific feat?
For example:
Armor Specialization:
Prerequisite: Armor Proficiency
Benefit: Gain +1 to the armor bonus of a specific type of armor (light, medimum, heavy).
Fighter Benefit: Fighters also gains 2/- damage reduction with the type of armor they choose with this feat.
Weapon Focus:
Prerequisite: Proficiency with weapon
Benefit: Gain +1 to hit with the chosen weapon.
Fighter Benefit: Gain a +1 to hit + 1 per every 5 fighter levels.
Every core class has something unique, some interesting ability/abilities, that no other class can achieve or gain. The sole exception to this rule has been the Fighter. This has been partially rectified by Armor/Weapon Mastery rules, but that is simply not enough. As such, Fighter-only feats are a good way to give Fighters things that no other class can gain, yet maintain the spirit of the Fighter as the ultimately customizable martial class.
Yes, I can see the arguments against Fighter-only feats, but to me, the above consideration trumps the objections to Fighter-only feats by a huge margin.
Call them something else besides feats heh, people would be a lot less caught up on it. Just call them class abilities or something, take away some of the fighter feats later on and just let em pick from the class abilities instead.
Yeah, this is probably the only problem some people have with it - the name. You could even have the class abilities for the fighter grant a choice: pick from the following abilities or forego them to gain a combat feat... and it would be exactly the same thing but with a different window dressing.
|
Where do prestige classes fit in? Do they lose access to gaining new fighter-only feats even if they started off as a fighter? I'm thinking of a Dualist, for example. Something like Greater Weapon Focus would be totally appropriate. Or is that just part of the trade off, gain cool new PrC abilities, lose access to some feats.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Where do prestige classes fit in? Do they lose access to gaining new fighter-only feats even if they started off as a fighter? I'm thinking of a Dualist, for example. Something like Greater Weapon Focus would be totally appropriate. Or is that just part of the trade off, gain cool new PrC abilities, lose access to some feats.
I can see where you're going with this and agree to some extent that they shouldn't necessarily be penalized, but unfortunately that's the trade off for cool new PrC abilities.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
You could even have the class abilities for the fighter grant a choice: pick from the following abilities or forego them to gain a combat feat... and it would be exactly the same thing but with a different window dressing.I was thinking about this a short while ago and that's not entirely true. You can't just change fighter-only feats into class abilities for one reason: a fighter doesn't have to wait for a fighter bonus feat to take a fighter-only feat; he can take a fighter-only feat any time he gains a feat, even if it isn't a bonus feat (and even if he gains it for taking a non-fighter level!). That makes fighter-only feats different than class abilities.
An excellent point.
You could even have the class abilities for the fighter grant a choice: pick from the following abilities or forego them to gain a combat feat... and it would be exactly the same thing but with a different window dressing.I was thinking about this a short while ago and that's not entirely true. You can't just change fighter-only feats into class abilities for one reason: a fighter doesn't have to wait for a fighter bonus feat to take a fighter-only feat; he can take a fighter-only feat any time he gains a feat, even if it isn't a bonus feat (and even if he gains it for taking a non-fighter level!). That makes fighter-only feats different than class abilities.
That's a technically fair point. In practice, though, it would probably not make much difference, as a fighter would most likely want to take some non-fighter only feats anyway.
Sure there are other martial class but what roles do they have? The fighter has just one role,he fights. Other class have features and such and even there own feats to help them do there role.
The fighter should have his own class feats just like every one else.
Seeker, I'm actually agreeing with you. Take another look. :)
"Share where flavor fits, don't share where it doesn't."
If a paladin's mount-maneuvering feat fits a fighter, why not give the fighter access to them?
But fighters should have their own feats, true. Their own abilities. I think that they're called 'feats' and not 'abilities' is causing the confusion.
However, I think others have made a strong case for many of the sword-and-board feats being shared.
Again: "Share where flavor fits, don't share where it doesn't."
Keep the focus on flavor and I don't think there could be an issue. Keep them separate in theme, and focus on flavor. I wouldn't mind there being more fighter-feats than this. Develop that flavor.
I think what the outcry stems from, some of it, is wanting to see some martially-focused feats for the other martial classes also. Just more (useful) martial feats.
Of course, other warriors aren't going to get as many as the fighter, or as varied. Even folks who've said, "other martial classes could use these options, because they, too, are martial" have said "but let's impose a penalty because they're not as good as the fighter. So, not only do they get so many fewer, they also get them later."
I think there's alot of agreement, especially in sentiment. I think there should be fighter feats. And I think the disgruntlement would be easily answered by giving the occasional nod, and saying, "let's give a nod to all the martial classes, and some nods to each of their flavors in the martial arena."
See? In that sentence, the fighter benefits too. It doesn't preclude fighter-only feats. It supports them.
Am I making sense? I don't really think there's an argument at all. Instead, I think there's a basis for a strong agreement. And I think there are some concerns expressed, concerns erupting because for the longest while, martial classes have been shortchanged in respect to casting classes, but they are concerns that can easily be answered.
Sound good?
There are various ways of letting the other classes access fighter-only feats. We could, for example, have a Fighter Training or [b]Practised Warrior[b] feat that would enable a character to count 4 of his hit dice/levels (similar to practised spellcaster) towards fighter levels for the purposes of qualifying for feats. The feat could taken multiple times and the respective iterations of it would stack.
Such measures might satisfy some of those not happy about fighter-only feats, but mostly preserve these feats for Fighters. They would lead to quasi-exclusivity of these feats to Fighters, rather than full exclusivity.
There are various ways of letting the other classes access fighter-only feats. We could, for example, have a Fighter Training or [b]Practised Warrior[b] feat that would enable a character to count 4 of his hit dice/levels (similar to practised spellcaster) towards fighter levels for the purposes of qualifying for feats. The feat could taken multiple times and the respective iterations of it would stack.
Such measures might satisfy some of those not happy about fighter-only feats, but mostly preserve these feats for Fighters. They would lead to quasi-exclusivity of these feats to Fighters, rather than full exclusivity.
This is and isn't quite an option: the other martial classes, as is pointed out somewhat frequently, lack feats to spare on developing things like swords and armor, which they also use and focus on.
A warrior, who isn't a Fighter, doesn't have alot extra to spend on developing their martial powers--but they'd like to do some of it.
It's a martial/warrior thing. Casters have their sun. Give the martial types the moon. Rogues can have the shadows.
Again, just in case the argument comes up again, not saying, "give everyone access to the fighter feats." But where the theme fits, some, but not all, should probably be allowed to other warriors: the sword and board. The rest? Probably not.
Or, if we're going to let other warriors into fighter-feats wholesale, give them a penalty.
And yeah, I know. More of the same. The other warrior-types are fairly strapped for feats as-is, though, is the point, and have other things they have to dedicate to. So a penalty might better reflect that.
Or maybe some would prefer a feat. Personally, I think the penalty reflects it--and the feat-strap on other warrior-types is painful enough as it is. :) You're welcome to disagree, of course!
There are various ways of letting the other classes access fighter-only feats. We could, for example, have a Fighter Training or [b]Practised Warrior[b] feat that would enable a character to count 4 of his hit dice/levels (similar to practised spellcaster) towards fighter levels for the purposes of qualifying for feats. The feat could taken multiple times and the respective iterations of it would stack.
Such measures might satisfy some of those not happy about fighter-only feats, but mostly preserve these feats for Fighters. They would lead to quasi-exclusivity of these feats to Fighters, rather than full exclusivity.
This is and isn't quite an option: the other martial classes, as is pointed out somewhat frequently, lack feats to spare on developing things like swords and armor, which they also use and focus on.
A warrior, who isn't a Fighter, doesn't have alot extra to spend on developing their martial powers--but they'd like to do some of it.
It's a martial/warrior thing. Casters have their sun. Give the martial types the moon. Rogues can have the shadows.
Again, just in case the argument comes up again, not saying, "give everyone access to the fighter feats." But where the theme fits, some, but not all, should probably be allowed to other warriors: the sword and board. The rest? Probably not.
Or, if we're going to let other warriors into fighter-feats wholesale, give them a penalty.
And yeah, I know. More of the same. The other warrior-types are fairly strapped for feats as-is, though, is the point, and have other things they have to dedicate to. So a penalty might better reflect that.
Or maybe some would prefer a feat. Personally, I think the penalty reflects it--and the feat-strap on other warrior-types is painful enough as it is. :) You're welcome to disagree, of course!
Yes, but that's kind of the point of my suggestion - to make it hard for other classes to pick up the Fighter-only feats. Theoretically they could do so if they really wanted and it fit their theme, but mostly the feats would remain for fighters (that's why I said they would be quasi-exclusive). Of course, an alternative would be to just keep Fighter-only feats as Fighter-only feats...
Yes, but that's kind of the point of my suggestion - to make it hard for other classes to pick up the Fighter-only feats....
Absolutely.
However, I think perhaps it should be easier for a warrior-type, who focuses on armor and weapons, to be able to pick them up a little more easily than say, a wizard.
Does this make sense at all?
A penalty does this--and the penalty never goes away. It'll always keep them as sub-par. Always.
Tying the penalty to BAB makes it "easier" for a warrior and not a wizard. But it doesn't make it "easy." Or "easier." It also, at absolute best, keeps them levels behind the fighter when they're trying to learn the same thing.
Again, I can only hope the point comes across. Does it? :)
Yes, but that's kind of the point of my suggestion - to make it hard for other classes to pick up the Fighter-only feats....Absolutely.
However, I think perhaps it should be easier for a warrior-type, who focuses on armor and weapons, to be able to pick them up a little more easily than say, a wizard.
Does this make sense at all?
A penalty does this--and the penalty never goes away. It'll always keep them as sub-par. Always.
Tying the penalty to BAB makes it "easier" for a warrior and not a wizard. But it doesn't make it "easy." Or "easier." It also, at absolute best, keeps them levels behind the fighter when they're trying to learn the same thing.
Again, I can only hope the point comes across. Does it? :)
Yes, now I see what you mean. I think I initially misinterpreted your post slightly. Basically, you are suggesting that there should be three tiers of access to feats dedicated to combat:
1) Fighter
2) Other Warrior Classes
3) All Other Classes
I can certainly get behind that suggestion. Basically, something like this would fulfill that:
1) Fighters can get Fighter feats normally
2) Non-Fighters can substitute half their BAB (rounded down) for fighter level.
This would ensure that the high-level Fighter feats remain Fighter-only, but open up some lower-level Fighter feats to other classes, though only when they reach higher level and their level and speed of access to these feats would be based on BAB, so other Warrior classes would benefit more than non-Warrior classes.
Yes, now I see what you mean. I think I initially misinterpreted your post slightly. Basically, you are suggesting that there should be three tiers of access to feats dedicated to combat:1) Fighter
2) Other Warrior Classes
3) All Other ClassesI can certainly get behind that suggestion. Basically, something like this would fulfill that:
1) Fighters can get Fighter feats normally
2) Non-Fighters can substitute half their BAB (rounded down) for fighter level.This would ensure that the high-level Fighter feats remain Fighter-only, but open up some lower-level Fighter feats to other classes, though only when they reach higher level and their level and speed of access to these feats would be based on BAB, so other Warrior classes would benefit more than non-Warrior classes.
Definitely. :) The warrior classes make their living, ultimately, off of their swords and armor, but the fighter's more focused and dedicated, and should absolutely get rewarded for it.
Now, I'll make a proposal. :)
A -3 would have precedent as, for instance, rangers having an AC equal to the druid -3, paladins having turning -3...and so on and so forth, -3 having been used to designate a "subpar" ability that belongs to a class, but isn't as developed as the "master" class. I wouldn't go for less than the -3, however, so -3 or worse.
The 1/2 BAB is probably alright, too. And there's precedent for that, such as 1/2 a casting level to represent a subpar ability when compared to the master class.
I honestly couldn't say which one would work better. It sounds about this point, it's appropriate to turn over to testing to see if "this plays well" and "this doesn't." And, "does this catch the theme we're going for, and keep the distinct flavor of the classes?"
See, I don't know. :)
I like the tiers. That's exactly what I was trying to say. It wouldn't do for the wizard to "just take a feat" and be able to take these warrior feats as competently as a warrior class would. But, a warrior class isn't a bookish class, and I think that's part of what folks want recognized.
And we can turn it into an effort to strengthen the whole martial sphere. And give the fighter "first pick" when it comes to many of these abilities. Give them more of them. Make the feats worth taking. Make more than one feat chain worth taking: make everyone else really weep when they can only afford one or at most, two, compared to the fighter's five and six martial skillsets. Make fighters disappointed that they can't have all of them.
Jason is doing this. Let's keep doing it.
The fighter needs to come out on top when it comes to fighting versatility, or mastery of the sword, and so forth. However, other players want their martial characters to develop their skill with the sword, with armor, and so forth. They'd just be allowed to at a more limited, and lessened, degree.
Hence, a penalty tied to BAB. :)
1. Fighters
2. Other warrior classes
3. Every other class
|
|
Ruemere: At that point you are effectively telling the other martial classes not to bother. Why would a Paladin give up all of their feats and wait to level 17 just to acquire a single shield feat when Toughness would probably do just as well. Jason`s system is cutting around the complication and just saying that the feat is meant for fighters so it is fighter only. I`ve seen some cool Rogue Talents that should belong to fighters, but they are rogue-only so no go.
Call them something else besides feats heh, people would be a lot less caught up on it. Just call them class abilities or something, take away some of the fighter feats later on and just let em pick from the class abilities instead.Yeah, this is probably the only problem some people have with it - the name. You could even have the class abilities for the fighter grant a choice: pick from the following abilities or forego them to gain a combat feat... and it would be exactly the same thing but with a different window dressing.
I think that's the solution right there:
Take every feat that is currently a Fighter-only feat and put it in a new list, called Fighter Tactics. They are no longer considered feats.
Then change the fighter's gain every other level from "Bonus Feat" to "Bonus Feat or Fighter Tactic".
Same mechanical effect, and all the people who complain that they can't take such-and-such a feat will be mollified.
|
|
Ok heres the list of things that a fighter gets if these feats are opened up to not being fighter only.
1: Early access as these fall on levels where base attack bonus is an even number this gives the fighter access 1 level earlier than other martial classes and considerably earlier than anyone else.
2: More of them, other classes can just about get 2 of these feat sets if they devote all their feats to it, the fighter can get 4 easily and doesn't have many other real choices to take up his attention.
3: Weapon and armour training class features, this counter balances quite a lot of the but the fighter only gets feats, ok thier a fairly boring static bonus mechanically speaking but lets not knock the fact that they are very powerful effects (especially the armour training.)
Some people are talking about the fighters thing being feats and that he should have special things that are fighter only, but I always saw the fighters thing as you can build just about anything you want out of a fighter build across 20 levels its the versitility of the calss that makes it what it is form a sheer amount of concepts you can run through it from Knight in shining armour to swashbuckler, Achilles to Zorro, other people may not agree bit there it is, if the aim of these feats is to help the martial classes compete at the higher levels then they need to be open to ALL the martial classes.