I can't take it anymore people. I try to help and all Elizabeth, the fighter of my group, but hell, she simply isn't great as everyone else. She has a lot of feats but everyone else has other option, and she only got some more feats instead of class abilities. And she doesn't even got THAT MANY MORE feats...
While I have no problem with the fighter being the guy who has a ton of feats, I can't really see that this is really that much. The feats (still) don't equal class abilities, and while the class abilities of the fighter now are cool, it still ins't all that way to cool. You still have to burn a lot of feats to be good at something and horrible at everything else.
While I see that the PF fighter is very good for a book, and a long way improving the poor fighter, for MY pf games I think I need something more. I don't like much the new feats (besides, too much headache for me comparing them to all my other books of 3.50, so, FOR MY PERSONAL GAME (please note that I'm speaking for my game only) I can't go to the way "feats will fix it" thing solely. I intend to hug as many fighter only feats as possible, but then I need some help.
I've seen many fixes for the fighter, but two actually caught my eyes in a myriad discussions ans threads I've been. I want your opinions (PLEASE, CONSTRUCTIVE OPINION) on what those could help. Oh, and if someone has a good "fix" that fits on my expectations, please:
Expectation 1: No ToB. The fighter isn't to be the master of manuevers. He is to be the guy with the many many feats. Cool powers are nice, but the original idea is that.
Expectation 2: No really new subsystem. I like things simple. A small subsystem is cool, nice and worthy it, like the barbarian's rage. A big subsystem like ToB is bad...
But then, the fixes I found were those.
1 - Fighters gain feats at every level. Like this they gain "class abilities" (since their class abilities are just feats on plain D&D) at every level. This still does not solve the problem that feats are weak or that the fighter suffers to master anything. It helps giving the fighter more feats to specialize more than other classes. Since everyone on PF already gains more feats this could make the fighter and more...ahm... "Featish"...
2 - Same as above, but those feats (3, 5, 7, 9, etc) are like Iron Heroes "wild card" feats. At the beggining of the day the fighter may choose how to choose those feats from the fighter feats (in the normal way, you must have the pre-reqs and all). With that he can customize himself to the situations that will appear along the day, much like spellcasters can.
3 - Same as above, but the fighter doesn't choose at the beggining of the day, but instead he spends a move action to assign as many "blank" feats as needed to some feat. Once a "blank" feat is assigned to a feat, he can't change it until the next day. In that way the fighter begins the day with some "blank" feats, and he can assign some (or all) to a combat situation that he finds, while leaving space (or not) to other situations. I find this one interesting.
Well, I didn't create any of those. While I see wisdom in them, I would love some other opinions. What do you gentlemen think?
|
The 'choose your Feats' thing is cool, but I'd consider saving it until a certain level and then allow the Fighter to pick a single Feat as a swift action once / day. (I like the swift action idea because I see this sort of thing like Wesley in the Princess Bride, saying to the swordsman that he also happens to be right-handed. It's not magic, it's just the Fighter remembering a style / technique he saw back in 'Fighter school.')
Variations on this idea;
1) The fighter gets one of these 'open' feats every four levels. (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th). Each use as a limited duration (1 minute?).
2) The fighter must have all prerequisites for the feat in question. (Will encourage a Fighter to pick up a lot of 'gateway' feats like Combat Expertise and Power Attack, so that he can take the others as open feat options).
3) The Fighter only gets one of these open feats, right at 1st level, but can swap it out once per day per five Fighter levels (so at 5th level, he'll be able to change it again later in the day).
There's wisdom there...
Let me see.
1 - More or like something like taste, I think. But then, the 3 and beyond would help the fighter to get those levels. More or less like pure taste...
2 - Oh, sure, this is basic, and I think I didn't make it clear. You must have all the pre-reqs.
3 - The idea is good, but I think it goes against the idea of the Wild Card feats. Why?
Because to me this whole idea seems to help the fighter complement his choices of feats. of course ther will be those dorks who will always choose the same feats, sure, but the whole idea behind this is to help the fighter get to some other situation. You know, at level 8 he is supposed to have three of those wild cards feats, and he never actually used a bow in the adventure, but now's the time to use one (don't ask me), and he could take Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, feats that he would NEVER get normally, and he could at least fire it without having the nasty -4 to shoot into melee. He still would have his only one left wild card feat of the day. With that maybe he could get, don't know, Two Weapon Fighting in a moment that this could help, or maybe even improved trip, or whatever.
I think that this whole idea is to give acess to some "you would never get those otherwise" feats. This could potentialy double the number of feats (for thoe who would trow the versatility out of the window), but then how could this make the fighter overpowered? He would have more feats, but poor fighter, needs all help he can get. And then, since the good feats still need bba and fighter level pre-reqs...
But anyway, good points Set.
Fighter needs Escape Artist and Tumble as Class Skills and at least 4 base Skill Points per level. I would also add Balance. That makes Dex-based fighters without multiclassing much more interesting.
I already have the fighter choose one more class skill (making him kinda versatile) that on part with the BG and some other little things here and there.
Now, really, Bumping this one, do anyone else has some other kind of idea? I would really love a brainstorm here.
I already have the fighter choose one more class skill (making him kinda versatile) that on part with the BG and some other little things here and there.
Now, really, Bumping this one, do anyone else has some other kind of idea? I would really love a brainstorm here.
What might do well would be a combat-style based supplement. Already Rogues are the dex-fighters, and really, that role /should/ belong to the fighter, who's supposed to be The Fighter, and customizable to a variety of options and styles.
I'd see such a thing as a focus on different styles, with appropriate feat options for both. The majority of the feats would be fighter-only, or equal to BAB requirement, with martial classes being BAB-3 to take them (earlier editions did section off Martial and NonMartial classes, and I think this is a positive thing).
I realize this is not a fix now, but it's something we can start thinking towards. Namely:
- What styles would be included?
-- Options for expanding Sword and Board
-- Two-handed
-- Finesse/Dex
-- Dueling styles
-- Two-Weapon styles
-- "Classic" weapon combos: sword and dagger, for example
Granted, we have feat options that basically cover many of these, but this would be focused, providing additional feat options that let the fighter branch off into any style she chose, and due to the amounts of feats they have, can master two or three, and master them faster, and further, whereas other martial classes could take one...and at later levels.
A supplement focused on fighting styles.
The fighter is infinitely expandable, as a class. Such an option would take advantage of this.
I realize this is probably what you don't want to hear: you want a fix /now/. However, this is something we can look forward to, and due to the nature of the class, be glad such a thing is possible.
Sure, a base supplement like this could be released, but themed web add-ons could be made, either by Paizo or through campaign: local fighting styles, specific to locale.
The fighter has the advantage to adapt to anything. We can just gear up to provide her that option.
Crap. I just spent over an hour detailing how I worked out substituting challenged attack rolls for some of the feats I considered wasted space, how I jacked up the number of skills available to a fighter and how I altered skill lists to make a much more intensive list for most of the classes, without jamming things up or getting really obscure, but the preview post button ate it.
There is no reason whatsoever for a game mechanic to limit a fighter to being good only on the field of battle. The things I mentioned above were implemnetation I began making in the late 80's to my own campaigns that seemed to work well. Play balance was maintianed. The fighter remained important for more than just kicking in the door the thief wasn't sure was trapped. He didn't get completely snowed under in body parts when the barabarian was cut loose next to him, and he was seldom ever the one that needed the heal spells the most.
I have always loved the fighter character class. I have made some that were straight out of the king's army and were generally sticks in the mud until the game developed them into "normal" people and I have played a Half-devil gladiator that was a combat version of the bard's entertainment skills and frequently only wore a set of bracers and greaves as armor. (Got to love armor optimization as my group read it for 2nd ed.) I have been the poor lost kid who's single parent was the town sheriff brutally murdered by passing banditsand became one of the lands most sung about heroes. I have been a similar kid that became something far more feared, but still accomplished the same goal inthe end: avenge the fallen.
The lack of skills outside of combat, and the sheer vastness of what I deem useless feats has made made Fighters pretty shaky. I don't think they need "powers". They need more guts. They don't need maneuvers. They need more freedom in what can be accomplished in a fight without feats.
The lack of skills outside of combat, and the sheer vastness of what I deem useless feats has made made Fighters pretty shaky. I don't think they need "powers". They need more guts. They don't need maneuvers. They need more freedom in what can be accomplished in a fight without feats.
The larger issue is "what a melee can do versus the spellcaster on a standard action" portion needs evened out...except it'd require so much change in the game.
It'd be nice to some noncombat options, as well for the fighter and all melee classes. People are clamoring for 4 skill points per level, and that's the biggest reason why, but that isn't going to happen: it can, however, be implemented fast and frequently in home games, and I suspect it will be.
That fighter wanting to be a master of weapons, inside and out, including their smithing, will only have a single skill point to devote anywhere else.
As for the style/combo book--it's a workaround using the current system that /could/ be implemented. There's very little space in the PHB compared to what a book like that could offer, and the focus it could offer to various types of styles and maneuvers. I envision such a book also having some flavor text, introducing each style, covering the history, perhaps even detailing suggestions per game.
That does bring us to: needing a separate book to play the fighter.
...however, what the fighter is, is a shell. It's made to be fitted and changed, much like a swiss army knife.
How about a feat that lets fighters always take iterative attacks at full BAB? (i.e., +16/+16/+16/+16 instead of +16/+11/+6/+1). I've done the math using a decently-built fighter (I admit I'm better at building gishes than pure fighters, so I might have left out some good tricks) and found that it makes the fighter about even with high-level wizard direct damage spells.
|
|
Now, really, Bumping this one, do anyone else has some other kind of idea? I would really love a brainstorm here.
My personal Fighter 'wish-list;'
1) +1 damage bonus per 2 levels (round down, so +1 at 1st level, +2 at 3rd level, to +10 at 19th+ level). This damage bonus applies to weapon damage, ranged or melee. If the Fighter has Improved Unarmed Strike (or Monk levels) it also applies to unarmed damage, but not otherwise.
2) Fighters get better functionality out of worn armor. If wearing Light Armor, add +1 to their total armor bonus. If wearing Medium Armor, add +2 to their total armor bonus. If wearing Heavy Armor, add +3 to their total armor bonus.
3) A Fighter can choose at 1st level to 'trade in' Armor proficiency feats for dodge bonuses to AC, for Fighters from lightly armored regions / cultures. Trading in Heavy Armor (and Tower Shield) proficiency gives a +1 dodge bonus to AC. Trading in Medium Armor (and Heavy Shields) gives a second +1 dodge bonus to AC. Trading in Light Armor proficiency (and Light Shields) gives a third and final +1 dodge bonus to AC. It's not much, but at least a lightly armored Fighter from the Mwangwi Expanse gets a +2 Dodge bonus to AC for losing the ability to wear Medium or Heavy Armor.
4) An option to sacrifice iterative attacks and just add bonus dice to a single swing made as a Full Attack. Someone with a longsword and a BAB of +11 could take a single attack at +11 and do 3d8 plus his usual bonuses, instead of attemping attacks at +11, +6 and +1. He'll do less damage overall than if he'd hit with all three attacks (since his bonuses won't be tripled, and he's only got one chance at a Crit) but if he's up against a CR-appropriate challenge, he probably wouldn't have hit with all three attacks anyway.
5) An option to inflict Conditions with special attacks. Morningstar to the junk, Sickened for a round or two and save vs. Fort or be Nauseated for one round also. Slashing blow to the temple to open a bleeding wound over the eyes, be Dazzled for a round or two, and save or be Blinded for a round. Etc. Feats would be a fine option here, but not Feats with a BAB +16 requirement!!!
|
Personally, I'd like to see stuff more addressed at the feat and combat rules end, so that other melee classes have access to some of it. The Ranger and Paladin, for example, are supposed to have the fighter stuff but less of it, except that restricting solutions to fighter-only doesn't address the general meleer problem, which is more fundamental. So, fix the generic meleer and then dress up the fighter...
I'm with Bagpuss, but barring that, and barring time and effort to design new feats that are actually worthwhile: ones that give a full move and full attack; ones that allow immediate-action intercepts; ones that interrupt enemy spellcasting... well, if you're stuck with existing feats, at least make them scale by BAB. For example:
|
|
I'm with Bagpuss, but barring that, and barring time and effort to design new feats that are actually worthwhile: ones that give a full move and full attack; ones that allow immediate-action intercepts; ones that interrupt enemy spellcasting... well, if you're stuck with existing feats, at least make them scale by BAB. For example:
Combat Expertise: -1/2 BAB to attack, +1 AC/2 points of BAB (AC bonus equal to BAB if using a non-animated shield).
Dodge: +1 AC, +1/4 points of BAB.
Mobility: +1 to AC vs. AoO per 2 points of BAB.
Power Attack: Eliminate Str limit, use BAB instead (up to +20).
Weapon Specialization: +1 damage/2 points of BAB.
Combine Greater Trip with Improved Trip, etc. and just make the Greater component automatically available at BAB 10+.
(etc.)
Pretty cool ideas, there.
Static feats like Dodge, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are pretty lame at mid-level, and having to buy feats like 'Greater Weapon Focus' and whatnot just exponentially increase the lamitude.
Same sort of concept for non-Fighter feats, really. Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, etc. get fairly uninteresting in the mid-levels as well, when you have to start pumping feats into Greater Spell Focus and Greater Spell Penetration, and then Epic Spell Focus, etc...
The fighter is the basic battle tank.
He's the "weapon guy", the "armor guy" and the "hit point guy"
I think allowing both barbarians and rangers full access to ALL martial weapons is a diservice to the fighter.
Bring back a more agressive weapon specialization program, maybe make it just for fighters like a class ability instead of a feat, like the old 2nd edition rules, allow rangers, duelists, assasins and rgues to only take specilization in one thing (rangers for example with the bow, duelists with the rapier, asassins and rogues the dagger)
Only allow fighters and paladins to wear "extra heavy" armor ( half plate and full plate) bring back platemail as a heavy for clerics, and boost the protection of the extra heavy armors.
With the boosted hit die for rogues and wizards, fighters loose their HP edge they had at one time.
Let them get 1.5 bonus from constitution bonus (example a fighter with an 18 con would get 6 extra hit points instead of 4)
Let the fighter BAB progression increase slightly , say +6/+1 at 5th level keep the other melee classes at what they are.
The heavy armors are too restrictive, making a elven chain wearing character with an 18 dex the same or better than the heavily armored warrior.
Point blank a fighter with platemail, shield and longsword should not be touched by any other charater in the following categories:
Hit point pool
armor class
BAB
Melee damage
The exception being the barbarian that can exceed some of those points while raging, but isnt as good when not raging.
The fighter in the group should be able to hit the heavily armored dragon with his long sword when other characters cannot (the rogue may be able to sneak attack the dragon, the archer can get the dragon with a bow, but if the picked up a melee weapon and did a frontal attack ,not where near as good as the fighter)
Another though,
Extra hit dice for the fighter.
plus one HD at first level,
Plus one hd at 5th lvl and every 4 levels after
so essentially 2d10 at first level
and 7d10 by 5th level.
I like that better than the 1.5 con bonus conversion.
Paladins are essentially fighters with less feats and better special class abilites, the Pally needs to be weakened a little so he's not as good as a fighter in the battle tank category, maybe slow his BAB a tad.
I'm with Bagpuss, but barring that, and barring time and effort to design new feats that are actually worthwhile: ones that give a full move and full attack; ones that allow immediate-action intercepts; ones that interrupt enemy spellcasting... well, if you're stuck with existing feats, at least make them scale by BAB. For example:
Combat Expertise: -1/2 BAB to attack, +1 AC/2 points of BAB (AC bonus equal to BAB if using a non-animated shield).
Dodge: +1 AC, +1/4 points of BAB.
Mobility: +1 to AC vs. AoO per 2 points of BAB.
Power Attack: Eliminate Str limit, use BAB instead (up to +20).
Weapon Specialization: +1 damage/2 points of BAB.
Combine Greater Trip with Improved Trip, etc. and just make the Greater component automatically available at BAB 10+.
(etc.)
Just a note but this would make a 20th level warrior better then a 20th level monk in unarmed combat.
20th level monk 2d10 damage for an avg of 11.
20th level warrior with specialization unarmed 1d3 +10 for an avg of 12.
how does he get the plus 10 damage?
Playtesting of the monk indicates that he's nigh-useless without a full BAB anyway. But warriors don't get weapon specialization; it's a fighter-only feat as I recall.
HATE!!!!
SNARK
HATE!!!!
|
|
Point blank a fighter with platemail, shield and longsword should not be touched by any other charater in the following categories:
Hit point pool
armor class
BAB
Melee damage
Eh? Other than the Barbarian having a d12 hit die since 1e Unearthed Arcana, BAB for the fighter is going to be the same as for the other full-BAB classes and that's not going to change, either. As AC can depend on things other than armour (arguably casters can have the highest ACs, although with a time duration) and Melee Damage is going to be dominated by context (Sneak Attack!) and magic weapon properties and feats, that looks to me like a rather difficult prescription to meet, too.
In any case, I think that the fighter's advantage should be that he or she is most flexible, as they can take many different feats, wheras another meleer will have to have sacrificed breadth or depth. I have no interest in fighter-only feats and I certainly don't want any more of them; the biggest problems in the game, in my opinion, are about generic melee, not just the fighter's part of it.
The fact that you're focussing on sword and shield would also require a change or two, given the advantage of two-handed combat.
sword and shield is how you get the highest possible armor class.
The barbarian has always been way over stacked, he was mired in unearthed arcana by being a magic hating class, but that was taken away and he wasnt given enough penalties back to compensate, so basically he has become an uber fighter.
Fighter has long out existed barbarian. The fighter should never have been eclipsed by other add on classes.
on another note. the simplicity of the fighter used to mean the least expereinced members of the group played one.
What should we make "johnny new guy?" oh make him a fighter.
He didnt have lists of spells or skills to scroll through, he wasnt very complicated to play or understand for a new player, not a ton of extra die rolls like rogues.
Just simple. "what do you do mr fighter" ummmm "I kill it"
Used to be a group of characters with out a fighter (or two or three) would get wiped out before they could advance in level.
Parties used to depend on eachothers class.
Couldnt get into chests without the rogue, couldnt heal without the cleric, the magic user had tons of useful spells and when getting hoarded by gobs of orcs, fireball was the only way out.
Now there is so much focus on the all round HERO, the team work for survival (which is where the fighter came in) is mostly lost.
If played correctly, the fighter gave the rogue time to hide, and move around to make a back attack, gave the spellcaster time to cast and basically kept the enemy infront of everyoe, rather than ragin through the middle of the party.
Also I wonder why the twohanded sword 3d6 damage got traded in for the greatsword 2d6 damage.
A two handed dragon slaying sword in 1e certainly made for a better dragonslayer than the greatsword version today.
Fighters with heavier weapons and the old AC system dealt more damage and got hit less.
Thats not the case any more.
Some of those basic "invisible rules" are things that were taken away from the fighter.
Now everyone is trying to find ways to put his edge back (it should never have been taken away to begin with)
all I have to say is dont add too much to the fighter, hes already a very busy character class these days, any more and he'll loose his generic simpleness.
Also even though the barb technically can get more hit points, his raging behavior and less armor typically means he will hold onto to those hit points less frequently than the more heavily armored and reserved fighter.
also polearm weilding fighters are probably overlooked (nobody like polearms) but the reach of the polearms if included correctly in the game can make the character quite useful, especially when fighting and and around door ways.
Even tho barbs and rangers CAN use polearms, youll never see them use them (otherwise they would never have been a ranger or a barb to begin with)
|
|
I don't think that the game you're looking for is very much like 3.5. I agree that the fighter needs more goodies, but it seems to me that the natural way to do that in 3.5 is with feats* and some changes to the combat rules, because they also help the other meleers, who are also afflicted by many of the same changes from 1/2e that affect the fighter.
As for pole arms, the problem is that they don't threaten adjacent squares using the core rules (although they're useful for mounted combat with ride-by attack).
*And not fighter-only feats, which are blessedly not that common in the base game.
I don't think that the game you're looking for is very much like 3.5. I agree that the fighter needs more goodies, but it seems to me that the natural way to do that in 3.5 is with feats* and some changes to the combat rules, because they also help the other meleers, who are also afflicted by many of the same changes from 1/2e that affect the fighter.
As for pole arms, the problem is that they don't threaten adjacent squares using the core rules (although they're useful for mounted combat with ride-by attack).
*And not fighter-only feats, which are blessedly not that common in the base game.
Personally I think the fighter is fine, he works as a member of a team, more useful at lower levels.
Im just looking for ways to answer other peoples gripes about the fighter.
think about the old old 1e game. Man, fighters were just sword, shield, armor. period.
you know the more I think about this, the less I like the idea about mages and rogues getting a hit die bump.
Weak classes get more hp, fighters say the same.
Lame. Fighters loose another edge they once had.
1e/2e fighter had 3 attacks per 2 rounds starting at 7th level (8th for subclasses), 2 attacks at 13th (15th) and 5 attacks per 2 rounds at 19th (22nd). Give them back, at full BAB, and in any round with 2+ attacks that last attack can be made iterative (against a single opponent) without declaring full attack.
1e/2e fighter had 3 attacks per 2 rounds starting at 7th level (8th for subclasses), 2 attacks at 13th (15th) and 5 attacks per 2 rounds at 19th (22nd). Give them back, at full BAB, and in any round with 2+ attacks that last attack can be made iterative (against a single opponent) without declaring full attack.
I agree.
The other meleers can stick to the current iterives. (although i still think they should get all their attacks even if they move, or at the very least attack traded for some move)
THEN there is a REASON to be a FIGHTER
you know the more I think about this, the less I like the idea about mages and rogues getting a hit die bump.
That was the first thing I ignored in PF. One of the things I like is differentiation between the classes, and sorry, but for me, base hit dice are kinda sacred cows. Wizards have d4 hp... rogues d6... that's just the way it is. My player's didn't even bat an eye.
I mean hell, its why there are d4's, d6's, d8's, d12's etc in a dice set. For me, I want to use all my dice, for various things. Its why I bought all those funny shaped things with numbers on them, don't take away the things that use them, I want MORE things that use funny dice! I want some spells that use d12's, some that use d4's, etc. I get a kick out of using all those dice and don't WANT it standardized on one type of die.
rant rant rant and stay offa my lawn!
|
|
1e/2e fighter had 3 attacks per 2 rounds starting at 7th level (8th for subclasses), 2 attacks at 13th (15th) and 5 attacks per 2 rounds at 19th (22nd). Give them back, at full BAB, and in any round with 2+ attacks that last attack can be made iterative (against a single opponent) without declaring full attack.I agree.
The other meleers can stick to the current iterives. (although i still think they should get all their attacks even if they move, or at the very least attack traded for some move)
THEN there is a REASON to be a FIGHTER
And no reason to be one of the other meleers. I don't see the point in trying to fix the fighter without fixing melee; the fighter's problems are just an example of the main problem.
True true, but the fighter used to be better at swinging a sword than the ranger and paladin. Now they are equal, and the line between cleric and the full bab-ers is even blurred (with rogue being just as good as a cleric in tow to toe fighting)
Thats got to get changed too. It used to be a class feature of fighters that they had more attacks and better saving throws than others. IT was removed.
If the old features (basically passive features) of the fighter were brought back AND combat was fixed. It'd all be good.
I'll echo suggestions I've made before, some of which Max has reiterated:
id support what kirth said as a suitable fighter fix (alongwith general combat fixes)
but rangers and paladins (and anyone else in melee for that matter
) should be able tomove and use multi attacks as well, so I dont think this should go just to fighter, but rather should be part of fixing broken combat sequence.
|
I'll echo suggestions I've made before, some of which Max has reiterated:
Give fighters all good saves again;
Make their full attack a standard action (counts for BAB from fighter class levels only, to discourage dipping: so that a 6th level fighter makes 2 attacks as a standard action, regardless of total BAB);
Let armor training apply to shields as well, and stack with armor training bonuses from armor, if they're actively using a light or heavy shield (not just an animated one);
Give them a damage bonus with all weapons equal to half class level; this would supercede the weapon training damage bonus;
Add a feat to allow them to "save up" movement/attacks for use as immediate actions on the enemy's turn.
Cool!
|
|
id support what kirth said as a suitable fighter fix (alongwith general combat fixes)
but rangers and paladins (and anyone else in melee for that matter
) should be able tomove and use multi attacks as well, so I dont think this should go just to fighter, but rather should be part of fixing broken combat sequence.
As Kirth's "co-conspirator" in houseruling our home game, allow me to say that when you read "fighter" in his posts, you can assume that melee characters in general will benefit from much of what he is discussing.
We were discussing the strengths and weaknesses of 1e AD&D vs. 3x during our game break today, and I think we agreed that much of 3x is superior (character options and build potential, the skill and feat concept, monsters built using the same paradigm as characters), but that the underlying combat mechanic in AD&D had more going for it as a "balance" between the classes. In spite of 3x being more movement and position "aware" than AD&D, AD&D was more "dynamic" in what a characters (particularly melee types) could do with their actions. Melee types were much more mobile in AD&D than their 3x counterparts, and could do more with their actions each round (yes, I know AD&D rounds were a full minute, but with the switch, 3x casters were made considerably "faster", and melee classes were stuck in molasses, so to speak).
So, we are working on ways to make the round dynamic play more "old school", without "nerfing" the spellcasters.
;)
|
|
Derek, a thought occured to me. Currently, if you move 10ft, that's your move action. When you move 35ft, that's two move actions. Don't you think we could come up with some rules for what you can do with that extra wasted movement?
Wow, that is an arbitrary waste in both cases. I think that making full iterative attacks (-5/-10/-15) a standard action solves the first instance, and maybe a feat that allows a double move with one attack would solve the second (dodge, mobility, +6 AB prereq, perhaps?).
I think it is something worth looking into, at any rate.
I'm fairly certain that full round attack, all attacks at full AB and standard attack with a move action (-5/-10/-15) are a lock as houserules in our game, sans feats, just as standard combat rules for all classes.
|
I'm not sure of the viability of standard action full attacks yet. Need time to play with it. But I'm thinking with all the talk of 'saving' movement or attacks to perform interrupts and the like, why not work with the movement speeds? If you don't move your full speed in an action, you have that unused movement left to spend later in the round as an interrupt. It bears consideration I think.
Also, I'm fed up with the talk of making these feats. I want it in the combat rules themselves, so every melee character has access from the get go.
|
|
I'm not sure of the viability of standard action full attacks yet. Need time to play with it. But I'm thinking with all the talk of 'saving' movement or attacks to perform interrupts and the like, why not work with the movement speeds? If you don't move your full speed in an action, you have that unused movement left to spend later in the round as an interrupt. It bears consideration I think.
Also, I'm fed up with the talk of making these feats. I want it in the combat rules themselves, so every melee character has access from the get go.
The only thing that would require a feat would be the "double move/attack" thingy, as that seems kind of "special" to me. Everything else would just be normal combat rules for anyone who can swing something at something else hoping to hurt it...
As far as saving movement for use later (like a partial, unspecified-until-the-situation-dictates-action readied action type thing), yeah, I think something like that is in the works as well, as a standard combat option.
You want to give 3.X an old-school feel:
- give full-BAB classes iterative attacks as allowed currently.
- remove iterative attacks from the other classes with the exception of the Monk, but only when using Unarmed Strike. Make then take Two Weapon Fighting for multiple attacks in a round. This would also restrict them to only being able to take TWF and not the Improved or Greater versions.
- allow full-BAB classes (and the Monk) to take multiple 5-foot steps during a full attack action round to a maximum of their speed.
Ya know this is close to what i was thinking of trying . I was gonna leave the other classes extra attack but allow melee classes movement with full attack
|
|
I don't want to return to 1e-style mechanics with class-specifics. I just want people choosing to melee to be able to do so without becoming irrelevant, and not just fighters.
Rigid class properties are one of the big reasons I abandoned AD&D for Runequest (no classes) and Rolemaster (classes as aptitude templates), both of which are skill-based. Skills and feats brought me back to D&D; although I'm still uneasy about class features, they are 'traditional' in D&D, so I can live with it if they don't become more important.
Also, unless you add some other stuff, at most this means taking a one-level dip into a full-BAB class. Or would you insist on multiclass characters only having full-BAB components? That's nasty and you'd add exclusions for the Eldritch Knight, etc, so it'd become a patchwork of additional rules like monk and paladin multiclassing restrictions in 3.5 splats were (and thank God Jason ditched those).
|
|
I don't want to return to 1e-style mechanics with class-specifics. I just want people choosing to melee to be able to do so without becoming irrelevant, and not just fighters.
If we wanted a return to 1st and 2nd edition style fighter vs. wizard balance, all 'standard action' casting time spells would have to be increased to full-round action castings (with some exceptions*), so that melee attacks would have a much better chance of interrupting spellcasters. That's the big difference between 1st and 3rd edition for melee vs. caster balance, the vastly increased difficulty involved in interrupting a caster's spell.
*I'd except any spell that's already faster than a standard action, like Close Wounds or Feather Fall, and any Touch spell, like Shocking Grasp or Inflict Light Wounds, making them Move Actions instead. Spellcasters would be slow when casting most of the save or dies or terrain effecting spells or AoE damaging spells, but be able to cast and attack with the much more personally risky touch spells like Shocking Grasp.