Hi there!
So, Pathfinder has clarified the full round/standard/swift/immediate stuff. But there's an important issue: how many PF revised classes actually have powers and class features that ARE swift or immediate actions? Casters have, or MIGHT have (thanks to metamagic feats), but apparently there aren't (or there are FEW) CORE spells that require these types of actions, plenty of which appear in non core sources such as spell compendium and phb 2.
The matter is even worse for non caster dudes... Apart of the new barbarian rage abilities, many of which are actually swift/immediate actions, fighters and rogues have nothing. I strongly suggest the introduction of feats/abilities that hallow all classes to get advantage from these mechanics. Tome of battle is an example of what I'm stating. There's a whole range of maneuvers with very variable Initiating time, from immediate to full-round action.
If it's already implemented in the new spell/feat/class features system, don't mind this post.
Several feats require swift actions to use, e.g. Dodge.
The updated paladin (i.e. the one from the forums, which is a bit newer than the one from the Beta) can use lay on hands on himself as a swift action.
I don't think the concept should be force-fed to all classes - if it works better with other actions, use those actions!
Several feats require swift actions to use, e.g. Dodge.
Here are a couple more swift action Feats...
Arcane StrikeArcane Armor Training
Arcane Armor Mastery
A few of the ones I thought that might be swift actions are actually standard/full attack actions.
Almost ALL of the rage powers are swift or immediate actions.
A couple of Rogue Talents are Immediate or even Free Actions:
- Resiliency: Immediate Action
- Stand Up: Free Action
However, some other Rogue Talents should specify what kind of action they use:
- Defensive Roll: not clear if Free Action or (possibly) Immediate Action
- Slippery Mind: not clear what kind of Action is required to use it (Free Action or Swift Action), we only know that we use it 1 round later after failing a Save vs. Enchantments
Good! So you confirm that these mechanics will involve almost every class...
In that case, very well! It's annoying for a 3.5 fighter being useless in the others's turns while his TOB buddy shines with counters and similar stuff! :)
Good! So you confirm that these mechanics will involve almost every class...
In that case, very well! It's annoying for a 3.5 fighter being useless in the others's turns while his TOB buddy shines with counters and similar stuff! :)
Most games I am in have banned that book, so we don't have the problem.
I strongly suggest to use it, sir.
It finally gives fighters the love they always have needed, without making the system crumble. Definitely a must have, and one of the reason for which (being a definite fighter lover) I wont' switch to 4ed.
I strongly suggest to use it, sir.
It finally gives fighters the love they always have needed, without making the system crumble. Definitely a must have, and one of the reason for which (being a definite fighter lover) I wont' switch to 4ed.
Sadly, I think (IMHO) that it nails the coffin for Fighters instead, since it shows some better combatants (the Warblade among them all). Plus, I really don't like the 'per encounter' system of powers (it seems too much 4ed for me).
But if you like it, you are welcome to use it, of course.
Just my 2c, anyway.
Actually, since all of their maneuvers recharge, it's realy a "once every 2 to 3 rounds" thing.
I strongly suggest to use it, sir.
It finally gives fighters the love they always have needed, without making the system crumble. Definitely a must have, and one of the reason for which (being a definite fighter lover) I wont' switch to 4ed.
I think the PF fighter gives fighters the love they always have needed.
I don't have anything against warriors with mystical powers, but at the end of the day, I want my fighter to be a fighter, i.e. a guy who uses weapons, not mystics.
I have the book, too, and played both a swordsage and a warblade.
The mysticism is on so many levels: the manoeuvres' names, the descriptions, and often the execution as well.
The fighter has one advantage: If you want, you can play a straight up hitting-machine. No special powers, no abilities, just butt-kicking for goodness. They also work well with other classes.
|
A couple of Rogue Talents are Immediate or even Free Actions:
- Resiliency: Immediate Action
- Stand Up: Free ActionHowever, some other Rogue Talents should specify what kind of action they use:
- Defensive Roll: not clear if Free Action or (possibly) Immediate Action
- Slippery Mind: not clear what kind of Action is required to use it (Free Action or Swift Action), we only know that we use it 1 round later after failing a Save vs. Enchantments
Slippery mind: I think this was a free action in 3E, because it takes place one round later?
But, yes, I, too hope that PF RPG will clarify the action types in all such cases.
BTW, as I looked at the rules, I noticed that paladin's Smite does not specify which type of action it uses in Beta... does anyone if Jason already "tweaked" this with his "upgraded" paladin?
BTW, as I looked at the rules, I noticed that paladin's Smite does not specify which type of action it uses in Beta... does anyone if Jason already "tweaked" this with his "upgraded" paladin?
The Smite Evil of the 'Beta Plus' Paladin is activated as a swift action (you can check the whole upgraded Paladin here).
- Defensive Roll: not clear if Free Action or (possibly) Immediate Action
- Slippery Mind: not clear what kind of Action is required to use it (Free Action or Swift Action), we only know that we use it 1 round later after failing a Save vs. Enchantments
I guess those aren't actions at all, just like making a saving throw isn't an action.
I think the PF fighter gives fighters the love they always have needed.I don't have anything against warriors with mystical powers, but at the end of the day, I want my fighter to be a fighter, i.e. a guy who uses weapons, not mystics.
No it doesn't. As was discussed countless times, PBeta had nerfed melee and devalued feats, so there is less reason to play a fighter than ever. Also, every warrior in DnD uses mystical powers from the moment he can reliably kill an ogre. It is just that his mystical powers are weak, comparable to what melee characters in high-powered settings must be able to do if they want to compete. Sure, he can hit hard enough to punch out Cthulhu, if you optimize him enough, but lack of backup tricks, mobility, perception and counters against common "screw you" attacks makes him easy to neutralize.
No it doesn't. As was discussed countless times, PBeta had nerfed melee and devalued feats, so there is less reason to play a fighter than ever.
You can discuss it countless more times, but it doesn't it make more true.
Even with every character getting three (!!!) feats more than before, the fighter still gets about twice as many feats as other character. No matter whether a normal character gets 7 feats or 10, 11 bonus feats are a load.
And there's weapon training and, even better, armour training. Fighters get more out of armour than anyone else, they can use heavier armour and still use skills without much of a penalty, and they can put more Dex into it.
Fighters are now the masters of AC, which helps against every monster relying on regular physical attacks (and there's a lot of those!), and their damage output is also vry nice.
Also, every warrior in DnD uses mystical powers from the moment he can reliably kill an ogre.
No, he uses martial prowess. Nothing mystical about it. Get your weapon into the enemy while preventing the bastard to do the same with his weapon and you.
Sure, he can hit hard enough to punch out Cthulhu, if you optimize him enough
You don't really have to do that much optimising there.
, but lack of backup tricks, mobility, perception and counters against common "screw you" attacks makes him easy to neutralize.
Okay:
But no flying around under your own power and shooting laser beams out of your eyes and fireballs out of your butt. That's no fighter, that's superman.
To me, that shows that you don't have to go 4e in order to get more mobility into your fighter.
For more mystical perception, get magic items.
They won't get Mystical Eysesight Of The Five Masters or anything as class skill, because they're fighters, not mystical shaolin bushido warrior monks or something.
One more thing to mention: not everyone has to be good at everything or be able to solve every problem alone. D&D is not meant to be a lone swordsman PvP game or something, the players are supposed to work together as a team. So if the fighter cannot tackle the wyvern alone (because it flies), he can always ask the party spellcaster to cast fly on him.
The spellcaster can even claim a Kill Spellcasting Assist for his teamwork score ;-)
You can discuss it countless more times, but it doesn't it make more true.
And you can deny it countless times, but it doesn't it make less true.Even with every character getting three (!!!) feats more than before, the fighter still gets about twice as many feats as other character. No matter whether a normal character gets 7 feats or 10, 11 bonus feats are a load.
It does. In all-included 3.X. game, feats serve to complete builds and once your build starts to works, you don't need feats as much as class features. More feats for everyone=everyone gets to his build faster=there is less reason to dip fighter than ever. In pure PBeta game, there are very few, if any good feats for physical combatants and ability to craft magic items is a prerequisite for having place in the party (because it is pure power with no drawbacks now), so fighter doesn't even enter the calculations.
And there's weapon training and, even better, armour training. Fighters get more out of armour than anyone else, they can use heavier armour and still use skills without much of a penalty, and they can put more Dex into it.
This doesn't matter. Without stuff from 3.X supplements this is still woefully inadequate against mid-high CR monsters, particularly because your feats are weakened. With said stuff, these benefits are, probably, less important than losses from weakened feats. They also do not solve the problem of being one-trick pony that is easily neutralized by many, many opponents and scenarios. In fact, PBeta aggravates it, by stripping fighters of their last battlefield control trick.
Fighters are now the masters of AC, which helps against every monster relying on regular physical attacks (and there's a lot of those!), and their damage output is also vry nice.
Except their AC is still inadequate (there was a comparison a long time ago, and even the defense specialist from PBeta still was hit reliably by melee brutes from AoW adventure path - note that said brutes, like almost all things from published adventures are not really optimized); AC in general is still of little importance at high levels; and damage output does not matter when you cannot reach the enemy OR he have even better one and also better HPs.
No, he uses martial prowess. Nothing mystical about it. Get your weapon into the enemy while preventing the bastard to do the same with his weapon and you.
He does. Stop denying the obvious. Martial prowess that allows one to reliably kill an ogre (never mind a giant, and those aren't even high-end monsters) is a mystical ability. Or a superpower, if you like this word more.
You don't really have to do that much optimising there.
You do. Remember, the game expects you to be just as strong as a tarrasque by 20th level. Explain this by martial prowess, by the way.
Okay:
Backup tricks: Whatever combat feats give you, you got, if you want.
They give nothing in PBeta and even in 3.X all-included you must manage your feats and WBL veeeery carefully to get two workable tricks, particulalry if those tricks do not overlap at all (i.e., melee and ranged)
But no flying around under your own power and shooting laser beams out of your eyes and fireballs out of your butt. That's no fighter, that's superman.
And in DnD you must be Superman, not Clark Kent, if you want to do something against civilization-destroying monsters that you're expected to fight. Hyperbole aside, flight, short-range teleportation and several specific counters to "you lose" stuff, such as protection from mind-affecting attacks are absolutely mandatory to a high-level character just to avoid the common ways of shutting him down instantly.
Mobility: Seems like PF is working on this. There's several feats that help attacks done with standard actions now. You can move and do them.
Nothing new. You can attack and move in 3.X too. It is called "charge". And unlike said feats, charge feats in 3.X are actually good. This doesn't help. Humble difficult terrain still neutralizes a fighter. Never mind flying enemies, battlefield control and stuff.
Perception: What's so hard about that? Put ranks into perception.
In a cross-class skill that works off yout dump stat? Yeah, that sure will give you a great chance to notice something level-appropriate. Except, not.
For more mystical perception, get magic items.
You don't have unlimited WBL. In fact, you don't have enough for weapons and stat-boosters, to keep up with monsters.
They won't get Mystical Eysesight Of The Five Masters or anything as class skill, because they're fighters, not mystical shaolin bushido warrior monks or something.
I.e., because they are red-headed step-children, forever forbidden from having Nice Things?
|
|
The Smite Evil of the 'Beta Plus' Paladin is activated as a swift action (you can check the whole upgraded Paladin here).BTW, as I looked at the rules, I noticed that paladin's Smite does not specify which type of action it uses in Beta... does anyone if Jason already "tweaked" this with his "upgraded" paladin?
Thanks, Wraith! :) I hadn't paid much attention to the upgrade, as the players in my campaign chose not to use it (or the changes to barbarian rage).
It does. In all-included 3.X. game, feats serve to complete builds and once your build starts to works
There's your problem. "Builds". This is a roleplaying game. More to it than getting a properly skilled fighter to rule at PvP.
|
|
It does. In all-included 3.X. game, feats serve to complete builds and once your build starts to worksThere's your problem. "Builds". This is a roleplaying game. More to it than getting a properly skilled fighter to rule at PvP.
QFT. I couldn't agree more with this, and most of my comments regarding the Beta mechanics derive from my bad experiences at playing with (or running the game for) "powergamers" who only aimed for the "perfect" build who could "outshine" everyone.
There's your problem. "Builds". This is a roleplaying game. More to it than getting a properly skilled fighter to rule at PvP.
"Sucking" and "getting hauled to local temple for resurrection" are not the parts of a roleplaying game I enjoy. And these are the only things that playing a fighter (beyond a short dip in 3.X, at all in PBeta) can add to a game, compared to, say, warblade. PvP never ever entered the equation, so this a strawman.
"Sucking" and "getting hauled to local temple for resurrection" are not the parts of a roleplaying game I enjoy. And these are the only things that playing a fighter (beyond a short dip in 3.X, at all in PBeta) can add to a game, compared to, say, warblade. PvP never ever entered the equation, so this a strawman.
FatR I feel for you as I know you see the underlining balancing of the PF un-noticed by most. I also know that we share the common concept that combat performance is a significant part of the game. Combat breeds drama, and if you can't preform in that drama equally well as others, the game becomes a good deal less fun.
Also I would like to note that in all the games I have played sense, my DMs and GMs have baned ToB as even I could see that it was over powered even to a GM that knew well how it worked.
However at this point I think we are out of luck for the fighter. He is destined to be gimped by his armor he spent his feats on, and actual role is limited and not well defined beyond taking damage.
Powergamer? wtf? Do you call "powergaming" use save or suck spells and hit an enemy where it hurts (e.g in their low defenses)?
Nobody wants the equation fighter = flying superman with laser beams etc.
BUT A competent fighter in a magical world is supposed IMHO to have (apart of his kicking butts goodness) a bunch of tricks that help him to survive the basic magical/supernatural odds. Nope. A figher will always be magic-dependent.
So, pf fighter is better than 3.5 one, but (at least in my campaign standards) will always need HEAVY magical help from objects and party. Note that a good warblade ISN'T superman and STILL needs his party's help.
Nobody wants the equation fighter = flying superman with laser beams etc.
I get some very strong SUPERMAN! vibes from this thread.
BUT A competent fighter in a magical world is supposed IMHO to have (apart of his kicking butts goodness) a bunch of tricks that help him to survive the basic magical/supernatural odds. Nope. A figher will always be magic-dependent.
Magic items. Magic allies. Not magic powers. That ceases to be a fighter. And in Pathfinder, as the Inheritor of D&D, there will always be fighters. Fightery fighters.
Majik is impressive, but now Minsk leads! Swords for everyone!
So, pf fighter is better than 3.5 one, but (at least in my campaign standards) will always need HEAVY magical help from objects and party.
Just as the rogue, cleric, wizard (and all the others) will always need help from the party. That should never change.
QFT. I couldn't agree more with this, and most of my comments regarding the Beta mechanics derive from my bad experiences at playing with (or running the game for) "powergamers" who only aimed for the "perfect" build who could "outshine" everyone.
Got one like that in one of my groups. Aweful. Spends two weeks on a build, and when some overpowered feat or whatever he's using with it is banned by the exasperated GM, he's trashing the whole build and starts all over.
I also have one guy who tends to have quite powerful characters, but I don't mind that much there because he's not out to be untouchable (well, not always - you cannot expect too much in an epic gestalt game...) and actually roleplays as well.
I get some very strong SUPERMAN! vibes from this thread.
Nobody wants the equation fighter = flying superman with laser beams etc.
I get some very strong SUPERMAN! vibes from lots of threads around here.
Seems that nearly everyone arguing on behalf of fighters wants them to be exacly that - Superman. They want the fighter to be able to shrug off everything thrown at them. Hideous Laughter. Hold Person. Slow. Power Word Stun. Prismatic Wall. They want the fighter to be able to deal with invisible or flying or invisible flying opponents as easily as a mage. They want fighters to dish out as much or more damage every round as any other class.
And they want them to do all this without help from magic items or friends.
Essentially these proponents demand unlimited invicibility, mobility, and firepower for the fighter.
And judging by most threads I have read where these demands crop up, many of the fighters' advocates won't settle for any middle ground.
Superman or ban the class.
It's often very silly, and I'm eternally grateful that real game designers know better than to listen to these overreaching fighter advocates.
Majik is impressive, but now Minsk leads! Swords for everyone!
Minsc was a Ranger (although in 3E terms he'd be a Barbarian). Furthermore, he was a berserker from Rasheman, which is quite likely the MOST mystical country in the entirety of Forgotten Realms. He was a member of a Totem Lodge and was the protector of a Rashemi Witch (Dynaheir). He also had an animal companion.
What about all of that screams "completely nonmagical, normal fighter" to you?
It's often very silly, and I'm eternally grateful that real game designers know better than to listen to these overreaching fighter advocates.
I've never really understood how people could not see a problem with fighters in combat. It's really a simple matter: more versatility is better than less versatility. Whereas the many, many types of spellcasters all have options on how to deal with a problem, and to counter other spellcasters effects on themselves, fighters only have their saving throw and hit points.
The common response I read is "the fighters should use magic items to deal with X". This is a very strange idea to me, coming from a D&D background where magic items are relatively rare and you don't get to pick and choose what you buy. Should we expect fighters to all have at a certain point items which allow them to fly, teleport, or see invisible creatures?
The second response is, of course, just attacking other people as minmaxers who want the fighter to be less a party member and more "superman". This is probably just a matter of taste; some people really want to preserve the distinction between knights and wizards, and view each class in terms of what they do in the party. The problem I see with this viewpoint is that in traditional fantasy Gandolph or Merlin is always more powerful than Aragorn or Arthur, whereas D&D 3E has the pretense that the classes are relatively balanced. This only becomes worse when spells like divine might or tenser's transformation allow the spellcasters to simply supplant the fighter.
Anyways, I'm probably not saying anything people haven't heard and disregarded before, but it seems to me that people should at least consider how others view the game that leads them to see problems. It may be just a matter of different taste, but people should at least be able to recognize what the contrasting styles are.
valid points.
I guess my issue with it is... I've never had these problems while playing a fighter. I've always had something I could do, some means of still being useful, and contributing, more so in pathfinder than in 3.x with a fighter. Whether it was contributing with ranged combat, or going somewhere specific to set up a chain of events, closing doors, or working to move others around, I've always been able to find something to keep my fighter occupied.
I don't play a fighter to swing a sword... I play a fighter to find other solutions to problems beyond magic.
What I find interesting is how these "discussions" always have to come down to being "fighter centric" and about how the fighter stinks. I just don't have this experience when playing fighters.
I guess I don't see a "problem" so much with the fighter as I do the feats. Granted, I don't have that big of a gripe about the feats either. I for one agree that not everyone needs to be on a "as good as everyone else" basis, but there should at least be some semblance of it.
I also agree with Abraham Spaulding: I haven't really seen these "problems" with the fighter class, believe it or not. Yes, its pretty apparent that our spellcaster could do some pretty nifty things that our fighter might not be able to match, but he certainly didn't feel useless. He held back combatants, allowed the spellcasters to throw down their spells, etc. I find that the problem with the fighter can more or less be with the player in question as well. Some people want to be able to do as much as the spellcaster can and more, while others are content just to help in some way. I think fighters help, at least to some degree.
Of course, its also my job as a DM to make sure everyone has fun, and if there's a player who believes his fighter is moot (and it shows) then I would gladly help compromise to ensure its as good and enjoyable as he/she wants (obviously there can be a line drawn here; I don't want fighters shooting lasers out of their eyes just because "its cool.")
Though I know not everyone agrees, I personally believe in changing feats more than the class itself (though I'm relatively content with the class as is... and so are my players). Most casters generally rely on having pretty good spells, so fighters should rely on having pretty good feats (I found that Monte Cook has a good solution to that with his newest book... or at least, I think so personally).
In the end, I always find myself asking: "what sort of 'balanced' class do we compare the fighter to?" On that note, "what sort of 'average' D&D game do we compare our D&D games to?" My point here is that there's such a differing style of gaming around that how can we feasibly expect anything to be "balanced" unless we do it ourselves to match our own style? If *everyone* were complaining how bad the fighter was, then I'd be convinced something was wrong, but there's plenty of people who think otherwise. I'm just offering my two cents on the matter... I don't claim to be right or wrong or anything. This is just my opinion.
Magic items. Magic allies. Not magic powers. That ceases to be a fighter. And in Pathfinder, as the Inheritor of D&D, there will always be fighters. Fightery fighters.
Did I mention, that I hate the idea, that fighter should only ever have one superpower (their ability to hit things), while you, in fact, need many superpowers (as outlined above) to survive DnD without coddling? I hope, everyone is smart enough to understand, that ability to hit a purple worm with your sword hard enough to actually harm it, is, in fact, a superpower (or whatever you like to call a blatantly superhuman ability). Magic items won't cut it because you need to cover too much bases with your limited WBL. Magic allies can help a fighter, until about level 15+, except most people like their characters being useful on their own virtues.
Just as the rogue, cleric, wizard (and all the others) will always need help from the party. That should never change.
No, not really. Full casters can function without a party after about level 7, although not as efficiently. See BBEGs of various adventures, for example. Note, that when they aren't casters, they are powerful monsters, often with caster levels /SLAs. How often you can see a non-casting humanoid in a boss role? Very rarely and then usually in low-level adventures. Moreover, a party of four casters (three casters and a rogue if neither beguilers nor artificers are allowed) can fuction perfectly fine, while a party of four melees dies horribly past the first few levels. (And I've seen it in actual games. Even if you're a better melee character than a straight fighter, even if you use houserules that improve fighting characters in general, even if enemies use melee in 95% of cases, you fare poorly once you start facing Large and larger enemies who aren't gimped by deliberately giving them useless feats, like MM1 often does.)
Uh, can we please continue the discussion about Swift and Immediate Actions again?
This is going Off-topic in an increasing way...
Just my 2c.
The common response I read is "the fighters should use magic items to deal with X". This is a very strange idea to me, coming from a D&D background where magic items are relatively rare and you don't get to pick and choose what you buy. Should we expect fighters to all have at a certain point items which allow them to fly, teleport, or see invisible creatures?
How could I forget about this? DnD fighters, as they stand, need to visit Ye Olde Magick Shoppe for highly specific items, just to get counters to common mid-high level abilities. But gadget-based hero =/= warrior hero and is much, much rarer in fantasy, even if stretch the boundaries of "fantasy" quite a bit (even if we ignore, that other classes get as much gadgets).
As about the swift actions. If you want to make swift actions matter to fighting classes (and give to fighting classes a desperately-needed improvement), create, just for example, a feat, that allows them to move up to their normal speed as a swift action (with limitation of this movement being their only movement for the turn, if you're tired of chargers or don't want to make Travel Devotion obsolete). Give it BAB +11 as a prerequisite if you think that it is too cool for single-digit levels or partial-BAB classes. Voila - swift actions suddenly are precious commodity for most things melee; you aren't forced to choose between charging and sucking as much at high levels, if you didn't get pounce through a level of barbarian; and, unlike Travel Devotion, this feat actually benefits fighting dudes more than divine casters.
I've never really understood how people could not see a problem with fighters in combat.
Because they only see what's there.
This only becomes worse when spells like divine might or tenser's transformation allow the spellcasters to simply supplant the fighter.
Transformation won't really help, and even Divine Power isn't quite up to the task.
Spellcasters might have a lot of nice tricks, but in my experience, they cannot even get close to a fighter in terms of pure damage output - against a single foe.
What about all of that screams "completely nonmagical, normal fighter" to you?
Majik is impressive, but now Minsk leads! Swords for everyone!
The very quote. I don't give a damn about Minsk's class. In this instance, I only care about Minsk saying that Magic isn't always the answer for everything.
Well, that and the fact that the PF ranger doesn't yet have the choice of taking a miniature giant space hamster as animal companion.
Uh, can we please continue the discussion about Swift and Immediate Actions again?
This is going Off-topic in an increasing way...
Just my 2c.
You're right! This thread actually is about those.
I'm all for a full integration into the core rules. Feather Fall should be swift, and quicken spell should turn the spell into a swift action.
Those abilities, feats and skills that apply should be turned into swift and/or immediate actions as well, but since it can be a balancing factor, some abilities should still be free actions or even reactions/non-actions (making a saving throw is a reaction, not really any real type of action at all. It would certainly make no sense to turn it into an immediate action).
On quicken spell: I kind of feel it should be an immediate action. After all in 3.x you could use quicken spells on other people's turns, which is part of why they cost so much in spell level increase. If you can only use a quicken spell as a swift action (meaning only on your turn) it's not nearly as useful to the wizard. (EDIT: Still rather useful... just not as useful)
As a throw out to the melee types:
What about a feat that lets you take an attack against any foe in range as a swift action? Kind of like a AoO except the foe doesn't even have to provoke...
It could even be based on hitting the opponent in the first place:
Prerequisite: BAB + 6
Benefit: If you hit an opponent you may make another attack at the same attack bonus against that opponent as an immediate action. This attack can be after any attack, including an AoO.
I realise it's just another feat... but if it's added to the "improved standard attack" this means a meleeist could concievably move and attack three times in the same round. A fighter would of course be more likely to have this feat as he has more feats to spend.
(added bonus it's not all supermanish!)
I never thought immediate actions were a good addition to the game. They belonged in non-core and should remain there.
While swift actions provide an acceptable limit of available options on any given round, immediate actions are disruptive, slow the game and can easily steal the little amount of spotlight left for a player as another steals his round as an immediate action.
It multiplies the complexity and length of the round while also multiplying the number of options available to any player (and DM).
I'm all for swift actions. Defensive reactions are equivalent to saves and are not actions. Defensive actions should not be available to someone who is not the target of an effect. Some feats that have the "I cover him" format can be taken into account without the need for immediate actions.
DW
|
I've used Swift and Immediate actions since I picked up the Mini's Handbook a couple years ago. I like the idea of not quite taking a full action to complete something, but free actions were often too brief for some things.
I house ruled in that any character may take a 5-ft step (regardless of actions taken during the round) as their swift action. Only full round actions can stop that.
If you want to see what can be done with rules regarding swift and immediate actions then (and I seem to really beat this dead horse a lot around these parts) check out SAGA star wars. R. Thompson and gang really found a lot of good ways to incorporate these actions into the core mechanics of that game.
On quicken spell: I kind of feel it should be an immediate action. After all in 3.x you could use quicken spells on other people's turns
First time I ever heard that. Can you give me references to this?
It's often very silly, and I'm eternally grateful that real game designers know better than to listen to these overreaching fighter advocates.I've never really understood how people could not see a problem with fighters in combat. It's really a simple matter: more versatility is better than less versatility. Whereas the many, many types of spellcasters all have options on how to deal with a problem, and to counter other spellcasters effects on themselves, fighters only have their saving throw and hit points.
The common response I read is "the fighters should use magic items to deal with X". This is a very strange idea to me, coming from a D&D background where magic items are relatively rare and you don't get to pick and choose what you buy. Should we expect fighters to all have at a certain point items which allow them to fly, teleport, or see invisible creatures?
The second response is, of course, just attacking other people as minmaxers who want the fighter to be less a party member and more "superman". This is probably just a matter of taste; some people really want to preserve the distinction between knights and wizards, and view each class in terms of what they do in the party. The problem I see with this viewpoint is that in traditional fantasy Gandolph or Merlin is always more powerful than Aragorn or Arthur, whereas D&D 3E has the pretense that the classes are relatively balanced. This only becomes worse when spells like divine might or tenser's transformation allow the spellcasters to simply supplant the fighter.
Anyways, I'm probably not saying anything people haven't heard and disregarded before, but it seems to me that people should at least consider how others view the game that leads them to see problems. It may be just a matter of different taste, but people should at least be able to recognize what the contrasting styles are.
Valid points, and please don't mistake my "Anti-Superman" stance as a lack of support for solving some of the fighter problems.
And not just fighters.
The other melee classes share many of the weaknesses that plague the fighters.
I want a solution to these issues, but without turning fighters into Superman.
To this end I have supported more skills for fighters (they don't have to be morons), improved REF saves (just because rogues have to be quick on their feet doesn't mean fighters aren't - in fact, a slow fighter is a dead fighter), and more attacks after a move action.
I have also supported Action Points to help fighters with those SoD/SoS problems.
But I won't support letting them leap over towering prismatic walls, shrug off any and all SoD/SoS spells, charge across a battlefield in a single bound, and one-shot everything they confront.
Unfortunately, it seems that some people want fighters to do all that, and more.
Those are the opinions I find comical, and those are the design changes I oppose.
I'm all for a full integration into the core rules. Feather Fall should be swift, and quicken spell should turn the spell into a swift action.
Those abilities, feats and skills that apply should be turned into swift and/or immediate actions as well, but since it can be a balancing factor, some abilities should still be free actions or even reactions/non-actions (making a saving throw is a reaction, not really any real type of action at all. It would certainly make no sense to turn it into an immediate action).
But if you make Feather Fall a Swift action, you have to fall for two rounds to use it.
As an Immediate action, it allows you to pop the Feather Fall the instant you start falling, which is very helpful in those situations where the fall will only last one round.
Side note:
I prefer to pop Feather Fall at the end of the fall, right before hitting the ground. Nothing more embarrassing that jumping off a cliff, popping Feather Fall, slowly falling for a few rounds, then Feather Fall wears off and you plummet the remaining distance to your miserable painful death at the base of the cliff.
Also embarrassing is to spend round after round drifting down the cliffside like a lazy feather, while enemies fill you full of very painful crossbow bolts.
Give these examples, even if your fall lasts more than one round, it's a good idea to use Feather Fall as an Immediate action in the last round of the fall.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
On quicken spell: I kind of feel it should be an immediate action. After all in 3.x you could use quicken spells on other people's turns, which is part of why they cost so much in spell level increase. If you can only use a quicken spell as a swift action (meaning only on your turn) it's not nearly as useful to the wizard. (EDIT: Still rather useful... just not as useful)
Actually, quickened spells are swift actions, not immediate under 3.X. SRD