| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I would do a couple of threads dedicated to the classes most in need of an update....
First up... kudos to Paizo for making a concerted effort in the last year to getting the fighter (least we forget one of the original 3..) to a reasonable level.
Second, as has been seen,"unchaining" cant involve anything too radical. More like 'wide spread minor modifications'!
I genuinely think that the fighter isnt that far away from being where they should be. There are 2 areas where I do think changes need to be made:
1) Action economy
2) Ability to hurt casters in a way that hinders future casting
The second one in particular has always made complete sense to me and could in theory be incorporated into PF 2.0.
Think about it....
If you're a (relatively) physically frail full caster at 10th level and you get walloped for 50% of your HP, realistically (even in the world of fantasy!) your casting should be significantly hampered. Getting your guts opened up should be detrimental!
Maybe a fighter ability where if you make a critical hit for example, the casters casting time goes up a notch.... standard action becomes full action, swift action becomes standard.... etc
Or maybe that the caster loses the ability to cast their top level of spell? More powerful spells = more concentration needed...
As the fighter scales, and becomes more potent, the effects become more severe..... eg) caster cannot cast spells with somatic component?
The logic being that the blood loss, shock.. etc makes the very act of spellcasting that much more difficult. The effects last until a certain amount of HP is healed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, the way you are describing it it would make sense for it to be a universal effect based on remaining HP, rather than a fighter only mechanic (not like the pain is much less when you are being blindsided by an assassin or mauled by an owlbear). Unchained had rules about debuffs tied to HP thresholds, but I do not remember if casting was affected. I would say that it should, so perhaps build on that.
By the way, the whole way 3.x and PF treats actions and turns gave casters a huge buff in that now turns are taken separately and in order. It is very difficult to interrupt casting, even if it takes several seconds, since you need to dedicate your turn in advance to do just that. One thing I was considering as a (potentially) fighter-only mechanic was allowing the fighter to spend a lot of stamina to mimic hero point effects a few times per day, which would include on the spot "prepared actions".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, the way you are describing it it would make sense for it to be a universal effect based on remaining HP, rather than a fighter only mechanic (not like the pain is much less when you are being blindsided by an assassin or mauled by an owlbear). Unchained had rules about debuffs tied to HP thresholds, but I do not remember if casting was affected. I would say that it should, so perhaps build on that.
It does indeed hit caster levels, and casters who have taken damage can lose access to higher spell levels. I haven't tried it yet, but I like the idea. I sort of like the gritty one where the penalties double, so every time you lose 25% of your hp you lose a level of spells.
Called shots came to mind when you said some of those things. You can do a lot by readying an action to make a called shot to a caster's arm as they try to cast a spell. Combine with spellbreaker and they're going to have to deal with a pretty nasty concentration check (19 + damage taken + spell level). Neck shots can crumple casters too, if you're a crit fisher, although they're hard to pull off.
That said, it's very much like counterspelling, even if it's more likely to work. You need some kind of way to be able to do that as an immediate action for it to ever be practical. Some kind of mechanic/feat that would let you exchange Attacks of Opportunity for Readied Actions would be just the thing (a 2 for 1 trade? Start at 1 but increase costs per readied action?). The spell contingent action is sort of okay for that, but it's impractical.
Ah, pools of X. There's no getting around them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ideas that I had would be a mix of fighter only feats and abilities that they automatically got as they went up levels.
For example:
Effortless Assault
Fighters due to their years of training and battle become fluid, instinctive creatures of war. Movement and attack become inseparable. At 4th level the fighter may move 10 feet as well as launch a full attack; this distance increases by 5 feet every 3 levels after. This total amount cannot exceed the fighter's natural move distance.
I think regarding the anti-caster element I would make it a feat chain. It makes thematic sense that certain fighters would know and train in certain ways to attack casters so as to hinder them.
I think I would make the base requirement - Fighter class, BAB +5. The fighter would need to have built up a certain amount of familiarity with magic users before he chose this specialisation path. The ability would only apply to a specific weapon group chosen from Weapon Training.
I think regarding the anti-caster element I would make it a feat chain. It makes thematic sense that certain fighters would know and train in certain ways to attack casters so as to hinder them.
I think I would make the base requirement - Fighter class, BAB +5. The fighter would need to have built up a certain amount of familiarity with magic users before he chose this specialisation path. The ability would only apply to a specific weapon group chosen from Weapon Training.
Not a bad idea. We could call it something like "Disruptive" and "Spellbreaker"...and then we can give it to the inquisitor first level because why not. (Okay done being snarky)
My thoughts for the fighter, at least my current iteration:
1) 4 or 6 skills per level (not sure on this. Leaning 6, but not sure)
2) Stamina & Weapon Training at level 1 instead of a bonus feat. However I'm thinking of keeping stamina based on fighter level, and as such not having it interact with feats (that seems like a needlessly complex behavior for a single class). However you can spend up to 5 stamina points to increase a climb, swim or acrobatics skill check by double the number of points you spent. At level 8, for the cost of 5 stamina points & only once per round, a fighter may take a swift or immediate action even if he otherwise would not be able to
3) Armor training grants a bonus to AC in addition to normal bonuses.
4) A fighter can replace acquiring a new weapon group from weapon training with a weapon related feat (critical focus, weapon focus, etc). The bonuses for weapon training keep scaling regardless of choice, and every weapon group a fighter gains weapon training with receives full bonuses from the feature (none of this scaling absurdity)
5)Fighters can train allies in the use of combat feats. Basically with daily upkeep (like 15 min of training) after some initial train time, a fighter can give 1-3 (based on his level) combat feats that he possesses to a number of people equal to his fighter level. Trainees must meet all prerequisites, and cannot use these trained feats as prerequisites (except for other trained feats). Fighter can train different people in the use of different feats at the same time (so power attack for one, two weapon fighting for another).
6)Bravery reduces power of fear effects in addition to granting a bonus to the save. At level 16, the fighter becomes immune to fear effects, & all allies near him gain his bravery bonus to fear effects (including the reduction, but not immunity; ie panicked becomes frightened becomes shaken becomes nill)
7) Armor mastery doubles energy resistances & DR from armor / shields (and armor training increases at this level as well instead of stopping)
8) Weapon Mastery applies to every weapon a fighter has weapon training with
This is in addition to feat changes I've not actually done yet, including that weapon related feats (weapon focus, critical focus, etc) apply to fighter weapon groups instead of individual weapons. In the case of the fighter, they apply to every weapon the fighter has weapon training in. Other changes would be making combat maneuvers more approachable, adding maneuverability to combatants by improving vital strike / two weapon fighting / double slice, and other things.
Of course this is all a first draft, and since my experience playing the game is...uh...limited, this is mostly from theorycrafting & things I'd like to see. Perhaps also a little heavy handed for an unchained, especially with the expectation that core feats change. Of course unchained rogues worked with an entire new skill subsystem, got a new scaling feature and a few one offs, and had talents tweaked. But actually I'd be more or less happy as is with condensed / scaling feats & more base skills per level so we didn't have the progression breaking versatile training.
I'm not at all in favour of giving fighters 4+ skill points per level. I would give them perception as a class skill though. Part of a fighter's training involves being able to sense danger in any given scenario.
My rationale for skill points being that fighters mostly spend their time getting better at fighting. Undeniable logic!
Yes being physical types they should have a basic level of competency in physical stuff skills, but thematically I dont see why they should be viewed as being inherently a 'skill filled' class.
Fighters that want to be great at swimming or climbing can absolutely do that, if they want to sacrifice spending time hitting things! A fighter can use his FCB for +1 skill point, or use feats, or boost INT at the expense of something else.
To me this makes perfect thematic sense. A rogue for example is different, in order to be a good rogue you need to be 'skillful', 'sneaky', 'adaptable'.... hence the +8 skill points per level.
Good rogues do not spend their time learning how to wear full plate and power-crit with a 2H battleaxe!
4 + Int skills is pretty standard and usually reserved for classes that either get 9-level spellcasting or really powerful class features. The fighter doesn't really have any of that.
I honestly don't think your ideas have much merit or substance to them. There's plenty of ways to screw over a spellcaster. The best way for a martial to do that is use readied actions and combat maneuvers. If you want to make a change so it's easier for fighters to do that, then either change the concentration check formula, offer a feat that increases concentration check DCs for enemies that the fighter threatens, or make combat maneuvers more easily available.
None of these ideas of yours really address what I feel are the biggest problems with the fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not at all in favour of giving fighters 4+ skill points per level. I would give them perception as a class skill though. Part of a fighter's training involves being able to sense danger in any given scenario.
My rationale for skill points being that fighters mostly spend their time getting better at fighting. Undeniable logic!
Yes being physical types they should have a basic level of competency in physical stuff skills, but thematically I dont see why they should be viewed as being inherently a 'skill filled' class.
Fighters that want to be great at swimming or climbing can absolutely do that, if they want to sacrifice spending time hitting things! A fighter can use his FCB for +1 skill point, or use feats, or boost INT at the expense of something else.To me this makes perfect thematic sense. A rogue for example is different, in order to be a good rogue you need to be 'skillful', 'sneaky', 'adaptable'.... hence the +8 skill points per level.
Good rogues do not spend their time learning how to wear full plate and power-crit with a 2H battleaxe!
This doesn't really hold up. I mean, an inquisitor spends all their time getting better at fighting, and casting, and still gets 6 skills per level. The ranger is the same, and again 6 per level. Slayers get 6. Barbarians arguably spend the same time, and get 4 per level. And rangers / slayers get virtually the same number of feats as fighters as is, while barbarians get feat equivalents as rage powers every time the fighter gets a bonus feat. But despite other classes getting all these features, fighters are the only one held back by "but they spend all their time training, how do they have skills?"
Even so, a good rogue doesn't mean lots of skill points on its own. A good rogue means lots of skills they are good at. Skill points are the first step of that, yes, but then add in specific rogue talents to grant extra behavior to skills, and now the rogue is still your shining skill monkey. Giving the fighter skills won't take that away (assuming rogue talents that do their job...).
I also don't think the fighter really needs anti-spellcaster features or feats. Assuming he gets them, he's further driven into a niche, except now instead of "general combat" it's "combat against casters." He doesn't need more specialization, he needs to be able to tackle a variety of situations like every single other class in the game (seriously, give a class from core that has no form of versatility in their kit other than the fighter. Barbarians have options for flight & to improve climb / swim plus 4 skills per level; Monks get bonuses to movement, jumping & falling as well as dimension door, though I'd like to see more ki powers for this kind of behavior; Rogues have skill points and should have rogue talents; everyone else has spells to call on, or skills, or both)
4 + Int skills is pretty standard and usually reserved for classes that either get 9-level spellcasting or really powerful class features. The fighter doesn't really have any of that.
I honestly don't think your ideas have much merit or substance to them. There's plenty of ways to screw over a spellcaster. The best way for a martial to do that is use readied actions and combat maneuvers. If you want to make a change so it's easier for fighters to do that, then either change the concentration check formula, offer a feat that increases concentration check DCs for enemies that the fighter threatens, or make combat maneuvers more easily available.
None of these ideas of yours really address what I feel are the biggest problems with the fighter.
Fair enough... each to their own
I do however think youre slightly missing the point, this isnt about "screwing over casters" per se.... its about the reality of having a large sword stuck in your guts when its not something that you're accustomed to!!
Its about joining 2 completely logical concepts....
1) Fighters being the best at fighting
2) The detrimental effects to casting that should occur when you are in extreme pain/have restricted movements/are leaking bodily fluids/are missing chunks of flesh!!
And like I said, there's already constructs in the game for screwing over spellcasters. If this isn't about screwing over spellcasters, then all of your arguments would also apply to any combatant, not just spellcasters. We're talking about a game where lost hit points have no effect over your combat performance. You're suggesting houserules to change that. It doesn't make sense for it to affect spellcasting but not other activities that require more precision and physical strain.
And like I said, there's already constructs in the game for screwing over spellcasters. If this isn't about screwing over spellcasters, then all of your arguments would also apply to any combatant, not just spellcasters. We're talking about a game where lost hit points have no effect over your combat performance. You're suggesting houserules to change that. It doesn't make sense for it to affect spellcasting but not other activities that require more precision and physical strain.
But my point is that a martial who has dedicated his life to hacking (and getting hacked) would be entirely more accustomed to physical pain, hardship and recovery. Losing bodily fluids is really nothing unusual for a fighter!
A caster (especially a full caster) not only will be far less trained and inclined to all of the above but also in order to cast spells has to go through the full verbal and somatic process that casting entails. This requires full concentration. Losing a large % of your HP in a matter of seconds absolutely should have a negative impact on this.
Ergo... we have the fighter (aka expert at fighting) who has the option to specialise in delivering damage in a way that hinders casting.
What I'm suggesting is hardly revolutionary... in fact I would say its entirely logical and based on reality.
Bookish, academic types, generally dont spend ages in the gym or engaging in martial arts and hence REALLY arent that good at either fighting or getting punched in the face!
My suggestions are first and foremost geared towards introducing some real life relevance to the fighter... the fact that they also act as a caster-martial balancer are entirely coincedental side effects and secondary.
Bookish, academic types, generally dont spend ages in the gym or engaging in martial arts and hence REALLY arent that good at either fighting or getting punched in the face!
Is that not sufficiently handled by casters having a lower hit die & half bab? They did used to have d4 I suppose...
I hesitate to insert realism into pathfinder, at least not in a specifically detailed way. Otherwise you end up with things like Neckbreaker, where you need to break a commoner's neck an average of 8 times to kill them, or Bloody Fist where, while you tear a vital organ out of your target, you need to do so an average of 3 times before that behavior kills them.
Pathfinder (and ttrpgs) are an abstraction. They have to be. Putting in specific behavior with specific fluff text as part of the rules just leads to absurd and non-sensical situations. Hit points have to be an abstraction of toughness. Wounds can't be detailed outside of called shots (which have their own specific behavior) because riding effects you'd expect don't appear (why does me running through the caster with a longsword a) not kill them and b) not do bleed damage?, especially when someone with bleeding attack deals bleed with unarmed strikes).
Is that not sufficiently handled by casters having a lower hit die & half bab? They did used to have d4 I suppose...I hesitate to insert realism into pathfinder, at least not in a specifically detailed way. Otherwise you end up with things like Neckbreaker, where you need to break a commoner's neck an average of 8 times to kill them, or Bloody Fist where, while you tear a vital organ out of your target, you need to do so an average of 3 times before that behavior kills them.
Pathfinder (and ttrpgs) are an abstraction. They have to be. Putting in specific behavior with specific fluff text as part of the rules just leads to absurd and non-sensical situations. Hit points have to be an abstraction of toughness. Wounds can't be detailed outside of called shots (which have their own specific behavior) because riding effects you'd expect don't appear (why does me running through the caster with a longsword a) not kill them and b) not do bleed damage?, especially when someone with bleeding attack deals bleed with unarmed strikes).
I agree completely.... I'm not trying to be absolutely realistic but I do think a dollop of realism would go down very well with the fighter!
In a similar way to how some people argue that AC should serve more towards damage reduction rather than complete avoidance.
It's not "rocket surgery." It's game design.
Your suggestion changes combat so it becomes a downward spiral where getting hit once renders you unable to contribute much to the fight. In additional, this idea kind of screws over gishes. Only a small fraction of the spellcasters in the game are the "bookish types," so even your arguments for flavor don't make any sense.
All this does is create a lot of problems while solving hardly anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters spend all their time TRAINING. Skills are an aspect of training. Ask any soldier.
If it's all about fighting, then explain to me why:
Rangers get 6 skill points.
Rangers have to train a pet.
Rangers can wear any armor and use all the weapons a fighter can, with full BAB.
Rangers get a fighting style and get to entirely skip actually learning some fighting skills as they do!
They research a ton of enemies to learn how they fight and think, and gain massive skill bonuses on terrains they like.
AND They learn how to cast spells so, like, they don't need to have skills as high.
And then justify to me why a fighter, who:
Does not have a pet.
Does not have to learn spellcasting, and can't use spells, so NEEDS skills more...
Focuses on mundane use of TOOLS (arms and armor are tools, remember) and use of his own hands
and doesn't get to ignore feat pre-reqs
has the lowest amount of skills in the game.
It makes NO logical sense whatsoever.
You can't even justify why they have less then a barbarian. A barb just needs some survival skills...they don't train, they RAGE.
Fighters train. They have masters, they go to fighter schools. They TRAIN.
Rangers only have 6 skill points because people whined that they couldn't do all the things a ranger needed to do, so it go increased from 4 to 6 in 3.5 from 3e. Obviously, every Ranger needs Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Survival, Knowledge (Nature), Handle Animal, Spot and Listen, or they just aren't a ranger! And you can't do that with just 4 skill points, and you're MAKING them bump Int!
Unfair!
A skill tax!
And then Paizo consolidates Spot and Listen to Perception, consolidates HS and MS to Stealth, gives them Concentration for free, and they still have 6 skill points per level.
Unreal.
It's not "rocket surgery." It's game design.
Your suggestion changes combat so it becomes a downward spiral where getting hit once renders you unable to contribute much to the fight. In additional, this idea kind of screws over gishes. Only a small fraction of the spellcasters in the game are the "bookish types," so even your arguments for flavor don't make any sense.
All this does is create a lot of problems while solving hardly anything.
Well being that I havent actually laid out how the feat chain would actually work... dont you think you're being a wee tad quick in condemning it?!?!?
And like I said, there's already constructs in the game for screwing over spellcasters. If this isn't about screwing over spellcasters, then all of your arguments would also apply to any combatant, not just spellcasters. We're talking about a game where lost hit points have no effect over your combat performance. You're suggesting houserules to change that. It doesn't make sense for it to affect spellcasting but not other activities that require more precision and physical strain.But my point is that a martial who has dedicated his life to hacking (and getting hacked) would be entirely more accustomed to physical pain, hardship and recovery. Losing bodily fluids is really nothing unusual for a fighter!
A caster (especially a full caster) not only will be far less trained and inclined to all of the above but also in order to cast spells has to go through the full verbal and somatic process that casting entails. This requires full concentration. Losing a large % of your HP in a matter of seconds absolutely should have a negative impact on this.
Ergo... we have the fighter (aka expert at fighting) who has the option to specialise in delivering damage in a way that hinders casting.
What I'm suggesting is hardly revolutionary... in fact I would say its entirely logical and based on reality.
Bookish, academic types, generally dont spend ages in the gym or engaging in martial arts and hence REALLY arent that good at either fighting or getting punched in the face!
My suggestions are first and foremost geared towards introducing some real life relevance to the fighter... the fact that they also act as a caster-martial balancer are entirely coincedental side effects and secondary.
My casters get their HP by magical reinforcement of the flesh and fields of energy that soak up the punishment around them, substituting raw magic and willpower for physical grit. It's not quite as efficient as the melee way of doing things, but they do get a bit anxious when their magic starts falling down. But in the meantime, they coast along feeling no pain because, well, they've got magic to take care of minor things.
Bleeding all over is for mundanes. ANd hey, I've got this class skill called Concentration, which means I specifically work on keeping my mental focus when exposed to great harm. Fighters don't even have that skill...how come they aren't penalized when they take a huge hit?!?
Fighters spend all their time TRAINING. Skills are an aspect of training. Ask any soldier.
If it's all about fighting, then explain to me why:
Rangers get 6 skill points.
Rangers have to train a pet.
Rangers can wear any armor and use all the weapons a fighter can, with full BAB.
Rangers get a fighting style and get to entirely skip actually learning some fighting skills as they do!
They research a ton of enemies to learn how they fight and think, and gain massive skill bonuses on terrains they like.
AND They learn how to cast spells so, like, they don't need to have skills as high.
You have to be careful about what it is we're trying to achieve and the subject of the thread.
What you're discussing is essentially about Rangers having stuff they shouldn't do which is something I can entirely get behind. For example, a Ranger walking around in full plate is something that I have an issue with thematically. But that isnt the subject of thread.....
This thread is about the fighter and making him appropriate NOT making direct comparisons with other martials. A subtle but key difference.
If you want to do a "Ranger needs to be nerfed" thread.... I'll be there sir! :))
But the Fighter has to stand up in strength / versatility to other classes in the game, so comparing to other classes should be valid, lest we say "nerf everyone except the fighter & rogue." As I pointed out, plenty of classes, even those that would be spending more time on their core class training (slayer, ranger, inquisitor, etc), still get 6 skill points (or at least 4). But the fighter doesn't because there's some bias forcing him to only be one thing.
Honestly it might be better to rename the fighter to something else, so people stop seeing it as a combat only class (since such a thing should not exist in ttrpgs, as every other class having versatility shows).
I do get what youre saying.... but 2 wrongs dont make a right!
Overamping the fighter just to make up for other classes poor design isnt the way Id like to go.... lets 'Unchain' the fighter appropriately and leave it to stand as.
The best advice I can give you - as this is your thread - when someone drops in telling you how 'your ideas' don't have merit, since this doesn't solve 'their' problem, is just ignore the post. Ripping your ideas (or others who posted ideas to discuss with you), while providing no ideas of value for discussion themselves is a sign they're not actually responding to your thread to dialogue, just to tell you you're wrongbadfun.
Move on to the forum members who are helping collaborate with you to flesh out the ideas you have for your game.
There are lots of people willing to help, which is what you were looking for.
I know, its easier said than done, but its less stressful then trying to convince someone of something they must not see in their game (which they probably don't see, so they're at least being honest in that regard)....or having to listen to them tell you how you're not actually seeing it in your game (which is where the trouble starts because they have no clue about you or your group, but post like they do.)
THANK YOU!! :))
Here is my idea for the feat chain.... as always feedback appreciated!
Disruptor (minor)
You have carefully observed the practices of magic users and understand how best to wound them and cause pain, in order to hinder their concentration.
Prerequisites: Fighter class, BAB +5, weapon training
Benefit: If you confirm a critical hit on a creature with levels in a magic using class, instead of causing additional damage, you may force them to make a concentration check each time they wish to cast a spell. The duration for the effect is equivalent to the fighter’s strength modifier. The DC is equivalent to 15 + fighters strength modifier + spell level.
Disruptor (lesser)
Such is the ferocity and supernatural precision of your attacks, you can cause a magic user to lose connection with spells currently in effect.
Prerequisites: Fighter class, BAB + 7, Disruptor (minor)
Benefit: If you confirm a critical hit on a creature with levels in a magic using class, instead of causing additional damage, existing spells or SLA in operation from the caster are immediately subject to the equivalent casting of dispel magic. Each spell is addressed separately; the fighter uses his class level instead of caster level and applies a bonus matching that of his dexterity modifier.
Disruptor (major)
You have studied how magic users move whilst summoning the energies required for their spells; you see anatomical weak points and how to strike at them.
Prerequisites: Fighter class, BAB + 10, Disruptor (lesser), advanced weapon training
Benefit: If you confirm a critical hit on a creature with levels in a magic using class, instead of causing additional damage, you may cause the caster to be unable to use spells that have a somatic component. The duration for the effect is equivalent to 1/2 the fighter’s level. The save against it is Fortitude based and equivalent to DC 10 + ½ fighter level + strength modifier.
Disruptor (master)
The journey along the path is complete - power and precision combine in perfect harmony.
Prerequisites: Fighter class, BAB + 15, Disruptor (major), Dexterity 16
Benefit: If you confirm a critical hit on a creature with levels in a magic using class, you may apply additional damage as well as all relevant disruption effects. The fighter receives a +1 bonus to his effective class level when determining effects.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We will have to disagree, then.
Rangers are considered the most balanced of the martial classes..not overpowered, versatile, able to nova a bit, tailor daily a bit, grab a pet, fight well, but not win the DPR race.
Barbs are less versatile, but tend to make better tankers and damage soakers.
Paladins can also tank, and heal themselves and others much better.
None of these classes is overpowered.
The fighter should be raised up to the power of these classes. Those classes have to compete with spellcasters...they are NOT overpowered.
The idea that a ranger should be nerfed...is quite foreign to me. The fighter should be raised up to where the ranger is now. And your build just isn't doing that for me.
I comment on a lot of fighter threads, and I'm just not seeing a holistic view of the fighter here.
Seriously, you're adding FEAT CHAINS. Ugh. Feats are already underpowered, and you're adding niche chains, instead of working on the base class itself. Feats need to be consolidated and scale well for the fighter, not made more numerous via more chains and feats.
So, no, I don't agree on the direction you are heading.
Seriously, you're adding FEAT CHAINS. Ugh. Feats are already underpowered, and you're adding niche chains, instead of working on the base class itself. Feats need to be consolidated and scale well for the fighter, not made more numerous via more chains and feats.
Actually, I've been looking through the barbarian rage powers today and noticed something annoying. The vast majority of them scale in effect. That is you get a +2 morale bonus on saves vs all spell effects, increasing by 1 per 4 barbarian levels and so on. You know what feats don't do? Scale.....Other than a select few. Even the hive totem which gives a bonus to combat maneuver defense (similar to the improved combat maneuver feats) scales with barbarian levels.
As for the feat chain, I don't like crit riders. They're a random chance as is. Random chances for things are boring outside of success / failure. Better to have a special attack that the fighter could make to accomplish what you're looking for. Also why does the disruptor master require Dex 16 when none of the rest of the chain has a dex requirement?
I feel like to make this work you have to be a dex fighter with a high crit range weapon (may as well do a dex to damage build at this point, although options for that were limited, dervish dance maybe? Except this is a 4 feat chain and dex to damage is more feats). Even then you're still crit fishing, which isn't much of a choice. Really this just ends up as riders on things you're already doing, which is boring (but nice) when it's on all of an ability (weapon focus / specialization) because then at least it's reliable. But crit riders are relatively unreliable outside of specific builds (and even then, 25% shot or so, plus chance for foe to pass the save).
Also as written these only work against creatures that have class levels. What about foes with innate spell-like abilities?
Seriously, you're adding FEAT CHAINS. Ugh. Feats are already underpowered, and you're adding niche chains, instead of working on the base class itself. Feats need to be consolidated and scale well for the fighter, not made more numerous via more chains and feats.
My rationale was that:
1) I had already introduced an auto class ability aspect, another I think would be unbalanced
2) Fighters get bucketloads of feats
3) I wanted the chain to represent a kind of in built pseudo-archetype that a fighter might choose....he's a specialist in something... not something that all fighters should automatically get, but a pretty great return for a small investment.
4) The feat chain represented the fact that it was a training path with the effects cumulative. If you crit a caster as a Disruptor(master)... you are completely ruining that guys day!
5) As for it riding crits well.... equations need constants! I had to have the feats fundamentally tied to something and have it be the same thing throughout the chain... otherwise the equation fails to balance! I welcome any alternative ideas?
6) The Disruption effects are all supposed to apply to SLA as well as spells...will change
Seriously, you're adding FEAT CHAINS. Ugh. Feats are already underpowered, and you're adding niche chains, instead of working on the base class itself. Feats need to be consolidated and scale well for the fighter, not made more numerous via more chains and feats.
My rationale was that:
1) I had already introduced an auto class ability aspect, another I think would be unbalanced
2) Fighters get bucketloads of feats
3) I wanted the chain to represent a kind of in built pseudo-archetype that a fighter might choose....he's a specialist in something... not something that all fighters should automatically get, but a pretty great return for a small investment.
4) The feat chain represented the fact that it was a training path with the effects cumulative. If you crit a caster as a Disruptor(master)... you are completely ruining that guys day!
5) As for it riding crits well.... equations need constants! I had to have the feats fundamentally tied to something and have it be the same thing throughout the chain... otherwise the equation fails to balance! I welcome any alternative ideas?
6) The Disruption effects are all supposed to apply to SLA as well as spells...will change
7) I put the DEX requirement in for the master feat because:
a) DEX does represent movement and precision, something that the chain represents..... triply so for a 'master'!
b) It again emphasises the 'training path'
c) DEX 16 is hardly difficult to achieve by 15th level!
As an aside.... if you were looking at a more extreme 'Unchaining' then the concept of 'Training Paths' could be applied to all fighters from Level 1. There are 6-7 core training paths and their abilities come in at various levels... but then this would require re-writing some of the fighters existing class abilities.
Most crits will kill or cripple a spellcaster anyway. This is more of a buff to ranged combatants, too. In addition, throwing everything to random chance isn't too great against spellcasting foes who blow their spells fast and early. Not all that great of a solution here.
Also, the language "magic using class" is very vague. What constitutes a "magic-using" class? There's several classes that use magic but don't have any spells or spell-like abilities. The alchemist is a good example. Even a spell-less ranger or paladin uses magic.
There's a bit of metagaming problem here too. How would this work if the fighter doesn't know he's dealing with a spellcaster?
Crit activated stuff also blatantly favors crit-fishing weapons. Another ugh.
The fighter gets tons of feats. Unfortunately, unlike a caster, he Cannot Change His Feats Daily.
So, introducing more feat chains is just adding stuff he can't take, because there are hundreds of feats, and he gets 11.
If you took that feat chain down and made it ONE FEAT that scaled...then you have a feat that's the equal of a Rage Power. You know, a class feature.
The rationale of making a feat chain because fighters have feats is like making sucky spells for spellcasters because they have tons of spells. The casters aren't going to take the sucky spells, and fighters aren't going to take sucky feats that eat up their precious class features, ESPECIALLY for some niche function.
What are you talking about.....Fighters get a total of 21 feats!!
And I would in no way call these 'sucky' feats.....
And TBH if all you are going to do is moan and say 'UGH' when people are trying to be constructive and solve a genuine problem... please do it elsewhere!
For your next post, maybe you should put up your solution?? I assume you have one? :))
Most crits will kill or cripple a spellcaster anyway. This is more of a buff to ranged combatants, too. In addition, throwing everything to random chance isn't too great against spellcasting foes who blow their spells fast and early. Not all that great of a solution here.
Also, the language "magic using class" is very vague. What constitutes a "magic-using" class? There's several classes that use magic but don't have any spells or spell-like abilities. The alchemist is a good example. Even a spell-less ranger or paladin uses magic.
There's a bit of metagaming problem here too. How would this work if the fighter doesn't know he's dealing with a spellcaster?
Yes some good points... food for thought!
What do you mean by a spell less Ranger/Paladin... they have level 4 casting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Characters get 10 GENERAL feats.
Fighters get 11 COMBAT feats.
Rangers get 6 feats + skip pre reqs.
Barbs get 10 Rage Powers. Note: Rage Powers scale. Combat feats don't. Rage powers are like feats, squared.
Even Wizards get 5 feats.
Those 11 Combat feats of a fighter are meant to compare to the class features of every other class.
Your character's general feats compare to the general feats of every other class, so are excluded from this comparison.
And feats do NOT measure up. Just look at the closest equivalent...rage powers. Rage powers scale. Scaling Nat AC. Scaling Damage bonuses. Scaling AC vs missiles. Scaling dodge AC. Scaling Skill bonuses. Scale, scale, scale.
For combat feats to scale...you have to take ANOTHER FEAT? right.
The advanced training and x Mastery feats basically blatantly made up what fighters should have had all along...powerful feats that required fighter class abilities as pre reqs. Many of them scale, and also start out powerfully.
That's what you should be aiming for. Not more niche superspecialized feats in feat trees that fighters do NOT have the feats to spare to take.
Most crits will kill or cripple a spellcaster anyway. This is more of a buff to ranged combatants, too. In addition, throwing everything to random chance isn't too great against spellcasting foes who blow their spells fast and early. Not all that great of a solution here.
Also, the language "magic using class" is very vague. What constitutes a "magic-using" class? There's several classes that use magic but don't have any spells or spell-like abilities. The alchemist is a good example. Even a spell-less ranger or paladin uses magic.
There's a bit of metagaming problem here too. How would this work if the fighter doesn't know he's dealing with a spellcaster?
Yes some good points... food for thought!
What do you mean by a spell less Ranger/Paladin... they have level 4 casting?
There's popular Ranger and Paladin archetypes that replace spellcasting. Even these would be considered "magic using classes" because even without spells, rangers and paladins have supernatural abilities, which are magical by definition.
Characters get 10 GENERAL feats.
Fighters get 11 COMBAT feats.
Rangers get 6 feats + skip pre reqs.
Barbs get 10 Rage Powers. Note: Rage Powers scale. Combat feats don't. Rage powers are like feats, squared.
Even Wizards get 5 feats.Those 11 Combat feats of a fighter are meant to compare to the class features of every other class.
Your character's general feats compare to the general feats of every other class, so are excluded from this comparison.And feats do NOT measure up. Just look at the closest equivalent...rage powers. Rage powers scale. Scaling Nat AC. Scaling Damage bonuses. Scaling AC vs missiles. Scaling dodge AC. Scaling Skill bonuses. Scale, scale, scale.
For combat feats to scale...you have to take ANOTHER FEAT? right.The advanced training and x Mastery feats basically blatantly made up what fighters should have had all along...powerful feats that required fighter class abilities as pre reqs. Many of them scale, and also start out powerfully.
That's what you should be aiming for. Not more niche superspecialized feats in feat trees that fighters do NOT have the feats to spare to take.
Are you thinking something like turning the feat chain she proposed into 1 or 2 advanced armor/weapon training options that scale as they gain levels or scale off of the AWT bonus? Something that would allow the same flavor of fighter, w/o using up the feats.
I wouldn't use the AWT 'mechanic', because replacing WT options or 'only 1/5 levels' is a STUPID mechanic, thank you, for a feat. Rage Powers are 1/2 levels, at least as strong as AWT, and there's a General Feat so you can take MORE of them.
Just, ugh.
Just make them combat feats that have pre-reqs of WT, AT, or Bravery. Then make them scale and be strong, like Rage Powers. That's ALL you have to do. If you want to call them 'Technique' feats, or 'Martial' feats, or somesuch, that's fine, too.
Was looking at it again and the issue of metagaming is a tricky one - the only options I can think of are:
1) Some sort of trait - eg) 'Aether sense' or 'Spell spore'..... enables you to detect within 40 ft radius the residual magical energies that all casters have? Again you would have to tie it to the fighter class.
I kind of like the idea but it is a trait cost....
2) Making it a reactive only ability ie) you have to see abilities being used before you can apply it... thematically accurate but maybe too late to have as much impact!
Was looking at it again and the issue of metagaming is a tricky one - the only options I can think of are:
This has a far lower metagaming issue than the Barbarian's Witch Hunter, because this ability could work on non-casting classes, it just doesn't do anything. So one option is to always let the player use it, even if it won't accomplish anything (or give it a more general effect). Or, who cares? What are the odds that the party will 1) face a spell caster who they don't know is a spell caster, 2) knowledge that the target is a spell caster will meaningfully change their strategy and 3) they won't be made aware that this character is a spellcaster more or less immediately after the fighter has pulled off this maneuver (especially as it's a crit rider)? It's a non-issue.
Its my opinion that caster classes are already facing deep hindrances after getting hit.
Different time. Such a concentration check only applies if they're hit during the cast. Since most everything is a standard action this means hit as part of a readied action (someone sacrificed their turn) or hit as an attack of opportunity (the caster didn't cast defensively & was threatened). As far as I'm aware, these such concentration checks are rare. Casting defensively is the most common.