So, coming from the recent fighter thread I felt in the mood to throw this together and try to get some feedback.
If you think the fighter is fine as is and want to discuss that, this is not really the thread for that. If you think these changes break the fighter however, please point out that (and preferably how, too).
Basically, I don't think there's any _big_ flaws in the fighter class, and I like the basic design idea - someone so good at fighting it doesn't need no fancy spellcasting or supernatural powers, it can carve out a place for itself in a world of dragons with nothing but it's personal mundane awesomeness, shoring up any weaknesses with magic gadgets. I like that.
I do think that there are a few limitations that I dislike though. First of all, many of the cool, flavorful feats are locked away behind feats you don't want, or prohibiting ability scores and so on. This isn't itself a bad design, but it does lower the fighters ability to be good with many different styles and weapons; it doesn't prevent power as much as versatility, so the fighter has to limit itself to just a few techniques.
Second of all, I think that it, as all other melees, has a certain degree of MAD to it, which by design promotes dumping Int and Cha. Since it has no out-of-combat abilities like a paladin, and much lower skill points than a ranger, this means it has a hard time being decent at skills without sacrificing too much. That's easy to fix though.
My intent is that the changes should be quite simple, and easy to implement. I don't want to do major overhauls, but rather just give them a little more oomph that can be easily applied to existing characters.
Skill points per level is obvious. It needs a bit more. This way an int 7 non-human still gets 2-3 skill points per level, and with average intelligence they can get 4-5. An unusually intelligent fighter will gain about as many skill points as an unusually stupid ranger.
Class skills: Added acrobatics as a lot of it has to do with combat movement, and it also allows it to move at least decently in heavy armor. The "choose one extra" was because I felt a lot of typical fighter concepts still involve some skill(s) that are not class skills, such as stealth, knowledge (geography/history/nobility), heal, diplomacy, etc. Instead of adding all those to the class skill list and making it a skill-heavy class, I though that "add one of your choice" would be a good compromise.
Adept Learner: This is the biggest change, and the intent is to allow fighters to get feat chains without having to take _all_ the feat taxes and to reduce their MAD at least a bit. Now a fighter can take Rapid Shot if he has either 13 dex or point blank shot, and so can be a decent ranged attacker at lower level (and allow for more other styles to be added - versatility!). Note that certain feats work based on another feat, and as such you may not be able to ignore the prerequisites - you can take Dazzling Display without weapon focus, but it won't do anything since it only works for weapons in which you have focus. It does allow you to completely ignore some feats with no penalty for the greater version, such as great cleave. I feel most of those aren't too good feats anyway though, so I don't feel it matters that much.
Weapon Training change: Again, broadening versatility, allowing things like battleaxe/handaxe dual wielding, switching between a greatsword and a longsword etc. It also means if you take exotic weapon proficiency in one of the weapons in a group you become proficient with them all (in that group) - so that Katana/Falcata build isn't out of reach anymore! (although still highly inefficient due to twf with non-light offhand). I also feel it increases the pull towards more uncommon weapon groups, like close, monk and thrown since you'll get access to a lot of varying weapons with varying abilities and damage types.
So, what do you all think? Is it in the right direction?
|
Under Adept Learner, I wish you'd written somewhere that Fighters have this right from 1st level. As is, I half expected it to replace Bravery.
Actually, maybe Adept Learner should replace Bravery? As written, my gut tells me that the worst abuses of Adept Learner will be to get feats at 1st level that players aren't supposed to have right out of the gate. I'm also worried because the PFSRD has taken to listing prereqs' prereqs under each feat's own prereqs, implying that even if you get Combat Expertise as a bonus feat, you still can't get Improved Trip if you don't have 13 INT. If that's the way the rule now works, and cheating on feat prereqs doesn't let you use the bonus feat to qualify for later feats, than Adept Learner won't fix nearly as much as you suspect it will.
I like the expansion to Weapon Training, especially the part where it gives you extra proficiencies. It really makes the fighter feel like the master of arms we all imagine him to be, and it would really open up fighters to TWF the way it is for rogues, cavaliers, etc. I almost wish there were more feats that made you pick a weapon!
You're correct on Adept Learner, it's gained at 1st level. Have incorporated that in the text (though I somewhat feel it should be added to the bonus feat ability as it's kind of a meta-ability, but it looks ugly then).
Do you have any feat examples for feats that would break it? It's kind of my fear as well, but as far as I've seen most dangerous feats have a BAB, fighter level, or sheer amount of feat requirements that can't be bypassed. I also feel at 1st level, there are really powerful feats that don't have high prereqs that you want first (power attack, TWF, combat reflexes etc).
Pfsrd is a good source for info, but it's not part of the rules but a 3rd party application. Improved trip requires combat expertise and 13 int according to the book , and you can only skip one - so if you don't have 13 int, you have to take combat expertise first. If you have 13 int you can skip the feat.
here's the prd on imp. trip
As it stands it would allow a fighter to get a full combat style feat chain from level 1.
How? All have either skill rank requirements higher than 1 or BAB requirements higher than 1. You can get the first feat from panther style or/and the first from snapping turtly style but that's it as far as I can see. Have I worded it badly?
Disclaimer: I haven't played a fighter because they look rather boring (which perhaps this fixes). Just to note that my opinions are not based on actually playing any, so certain problem areas might not be obvious to me.
Skill points per Level: In my opinion, seems like a good change. 2 + Int is horrible for fluffing out skills, especially on a class that doesn't otherwise rely on it, except occasionally to qualify for feats. Doesn't seem unbalancing, and definitely helps with some out of combat utility.
Class skills: I like the added perception. Not entirely sure on acrobatics, as someone who tends to use heavy armor and such(though I know they aren't restricted to it), doesn't strike me as someone who will be tumbling around in combat. I understand the change was to actually make that more viable though, and for the fighters who don't use heavy, it could be pretty fitting, so seems fine to me.
Not sure I really like picking any other one. Most classes seem to get by with their alloted class skills pretty well, or can handle not having a certain class skill. If a fighter is highly invested in something, like stealth, that +3 becomes less of a big deal if they are keeping it fairly high, and they can skill focus if they really want a boost. Also, imo, traits help a lot for getting things that otherwise seem unusual for a class.
Adept Learner: I do like this. A lot of feat chains seem like they need a lot more requirements to get something worthwhile than they should. This seems like it would allow for, and encourage, a lot more variation in builds, and doesn't seem like it would cause much of a balance issue.
Weapon Training: Honestly, I don't know too much about what the changes mean for a fighter, so I'll hold off on commenting on this one.
Overall, I like it though. Lets fighters actually start getting a bit more unique, from the looks of things.
I'm also worried because the PFSRD has taken to listing prereqs' prereqs under each feat's own prereqs, implying that even if you get Combat Expertise as a bonus feat, you still can't get Improved Trip if you don't have 13 INT.
I actually thought that was intended, and seemed like a fitting balance. For example, a fighter looking down a long feat chain still needs to grab at least one or two of the earlier ones if the last one has multiple requirements. Seems fine to me, but I admit I'm not so sure. As I said, I'm not terribly familiar with fighters.
Thanks all for your input!
Class skills: I like the added perception. Not entirely sure on acrobatics, as someone who tends to use heavy armor and such(though I know they aren't restricted to it), doesn't strike me as someone who will be tumbling around in combat. I understand the change was to actually make that more viable though, and for the fighters who don't use heavy, it could be pretty fitting, so seems fine to me.
The idea behind acrobatics is that it involves balance (which is central to combat really), jumping (which the fighter has previously had and isn't that powerful) and tumbling (which can't be used in heavy armor, so is useful for those that choose light but not others).
A part of the issue is that at early levels, being in heavy armor without acrobatics is hell.
Examples: Your enemies are up a 15ft flight of stairs? To move up and attack in the same round, you need to succeed at a DC10 check. At say level 5, with masterwork full-plate, armor training 1 and a 14 dex, even if you maxed out acrobatics, that's a 40% chance of failure just to move to them for your single attack! Add class bonus and that drops to 25%. The same DC is to move at full speed across a meter wide bridge, or at a common cavern floor. In an ice cave you can't move even at half speed unless you succed at a DC10 check, or DC15 for full speed.
Not sure I really like picking any other one. Most classes seem to get by with their alloted class skills pretty well, or can handle not having a certain class skill. If a fighter is highly invested in something, like stealth, that +3 becomes less of a big deal if they are keeping it fairly high, and they can skill focus if they really want a boost. Also, imo, traits help a lot for getting things that otherwise seem unusual for a class.
This you might very well be correct with. There were just so many skills I didn't know if to add or not, like heal (any veteran mercenary, soldier or similar should know that), knowledge (nobility/history) (any noble knight in armor, and her squire, should know that) and so on, and with ability score penalties it might be hard to be even decent at it.
I was thinking dragon style but I forgot you would have to multiclass into monk anyway for stunning fist so may as well go two levels of MOMS if that's what you want and get evasion as well.
Dragon style requires acrobatics 3, so 3rd level earliest. It doesn't need stunning fist, only IUS, so either that or the ranks (or the str, but why?) could be ignored. The later feats require 5 and 8 ranks respectively so no getting in before 5th and 8th level.
how about allowing the fighter to switch out root feats (at 4/8/12/16/20 as normal) without losing the branch?
example:
the fighter takes Combat Expertise at level 3, then picks up Improved Disarm at level 4 while also dropping Combat Expertise for Quickdraw.
I've been thinking about that, but I think it solves less than adept learner does and adding it on top isn't really needed. It can also lead to some weird results due to how feat works, and a lot of extra rules text (even if you can switch out a prerequisite you need the prerequisite to use the feat unless otherwise noted).
|
|
You're probably right that at 1st level there isn't too much to worry about. I was worried about getting four feats deep into a tree at 1st level, but of course the feature doesn't apply to the human bonus feat, so at 1st level you're only cheating one requirement on one feat.
My first fear was that there was something in the Dodge tree that you could abuse, but everything good there has BAB prereqs. The most abusive thing I can think of is having Deadly Aim, Rapid Reload (firearms) and Precise Shot, then because you have Precise Shot you now qualify for Imp. Precise and so forth once you get the BAB for it. Then all the rest of your levels are Gunslinger.
Actually, that's the biggest problem-- it encourages other martial classes to dip a level or two in fighter to pick up some feats they need while cheating the prereqs. I mean, two levels of fighter has always been a popular dip, but this just makes it moreso.
@ Ilja: Fair point about it helping out with moving in heavy armor. It is probably worth keeping.
Actually, that's the biggest problem-- it encourages other martial classes to dip a level or two in fighter to pick up some feats they need while cheating the prereqs. I mean, two levels of fighter has always been a popular dip, but this just makes it moreso.
That... might actually be a rather valid concern.
Just as a thought, what if adept learner was partially built into a fighter's bonus feats? There should still be plenty of feats they can grab regularly, such as power attack for example, and this keeps other classes from being able to take a tiny dip and then always having the ability to ignore some prereqs as they go.
Of course, splitting it half and half might mess with what it was supposed to fix in the first place, so some numbers adjustment might be in order.
Actually, that's the biggest problem-- it encourages other martial classes to dip a level or two in fighter to pick up some feats they need while cheating the prereqs. I mean, two levels of fighter has always been a popular dip, but this just makes it moreso.
Yeah, that's a good point. Dipping has been kinda nerfed in PF compared to 3.5, but it's nevertheless still important. Hard to see how to limit it though. I'm gonna have to think about that for a while. (However, I think many that dip might still prefer monk dips which give same amount of feats as well as other benefits, but that depends on build)
Note though that imp precise shot requires point blank and precise shot, so you'd have to take it as a fighter bonus feat. So for the gunslinger it's at least fighter3/gunslingerX, and you can't take the last fighter level until 11th earliest.
Just as a thought, what if adept learner was partially built into a fighter's bonus feats? There should still be plenty of feats they can grab regularly, such as power attack for example, and this keeps other classes from being able to take a tiny dip and then always having the ability to ignore some prereqs as they go.
It's already only for fighter bonus feats. That's why I chose that term and not combat feats. So a 3rd level human fighter has 5 feats, two standard, one human, and two fighter bonus feats. Only those two can skip a prerequisite.
Darkwolf117, Ilja, question:
at what level does combat feat madness become prohibitively restrictive?
right out of the gates at level 1?if the answer is later, then bumping the Adept Learner to later levels could solve the dip issue. and/or reskinning it to scale like Bravery or somesuch.
Part of it out the gates, mainly in the form of ability score requirements. You need a 15 Dexterity to dualwield as a fighter, which is a noticeable drawback compared to the ranger (though maybe not as huge as some would call it). And you need a 13 Int for combat expertise/improved trip/disarm line. Making a dual-wielder decent at disarming is more or less impossible.
Darkwolf117, Ilja, question:
at what level does combat feat madness become prohibitively restrictive?
right out of the gates at level 1?
Sorry, but I honestly haven't got a clue on that. Haven't tried fighters before.
It's already only for fighter bonus feats. That's why I chose that term and not combat feats. So a 3rd level human fighter has 5 feats, two standard, one human, and two fighter bonus feats. Only those two can skip a prerequisite.
Ah, I missed that part and thought it was a stand-alone ability. In that case, a two-level dip to ignore a prereq on one feat doesn't sound too unbalancing to me. Could be wrong though.
Edit: typo.
indeed, but are 15 and 13 entirely unreasonable? certainly 17 and 19 are. imagine being able to stat DEX at 15 and having access to the entire TWF or archery tree. not bad, eh?
On a 15 pt buy, it's hard to do either one of them and still be effective; doing both is extremely limiting. Even on a 20 pt buy doing both and still having decent primary stats is extremely limiting. There's examples of it in the other thread.
It's not impossible, but to make such a character effective for the standard difficulty you really have to know what you're doing, and have enough system mastery to make a character of other classes that just blast through equally difficult encounters. I want to lower that bar.The second sentence I don't really understand.
Ah, I missed that part and thought it was a stand-alone ability. In that case, a two-level dip to ignore a prereq on one feat doesn't sound too unbalancing to me. Could be wrong though.
A two-level dip is two fighter bonus feats, you get one each at 1st and 2nd level ;D
A two-level dip is two fighter bonus feats, you get one each at 1st and 2nd level ;D
*Facepalm*
Boy, is my lack of fighter knowledge showing anywhere else?
|
|
Does Improved Precise Shot actually require both Precise and Point Blank? Or does it just require Precise, and assume that since Precise requires Point Blank, you must have Point Blank if you're getting Improved Precise? This is what I mean about the PFSRD listing the prereqs of prereqs-- it makes it hard to gauge how good Adept Learner really is.
I think the real payoff is for the TWF tree. TWF itself requires 15 DEX, which you can now cheat. Improved TWF requires TWF and 17 DEX. You use Adept Learner to cheat the 17 DEX, and you already have TWF (from cheating the 15 DEX). Same with Greater TWF. Suddenly we've got fighters dual wielding with 7 DEX and 20 STR?
Anything in the Combat Expertise tree gets pretty nutty too. Do you cheat the 13 INT to get CE, or do you go straight for Improved Trip by cheating the CE requirement? Do you still need 13 INT to go straight for Improved Trip?
As for the class skills, I'd just go ahead and give them Knowledge: Nobility and History and Heal. Those skills get so little use that I don't see an issue with just giving it to them. Besides, the existence of Combat Expertise seems to imply somebody in a high place wants Fighters to care about Int. Giving them more Knowledge skills would help that.
Honestly, the only thing I have to disagree with is the last part of the Weapon Training.
Most feats that only apply to one weapon are already limited to Fighters. You also make feats like Martial Versatility useless without some form of drawback. Maybe limit it to where they can gain proficiency in an entire weapon group for only a single feat.
NOTE: My Weapon Group Proficiency Feat system makes Martial Versatility obsolete as well. It also carries the drawback of limiting the number of different Weapon types a Fighter can use.
The rest I like.
I will probably use those changes.
Azaelas,
Obsoleting some feats was viewed as a feature, rather than as a bug, when I've made those campaign specific changes. My general take is that if something is needed to make a class interesting or competitive, do it without charging taxes---make them class abilities not feats or grrrr---looking at you gloves of dueling---magic items that any fighter who has magic market access WILL buy.
What I am saying is there still should be limits to the feats made open or changes to those feats. Like it only applies to the First Weapon Group chosen and/or Weapon Proficiency feats.
Personally, the one-weapon-only feats for my campaigns already effect an entire weapon group. I am just saying it shouldn't be all the feats as it really upsets a lot of players that they can't take Weapon Spec and higher because they don't have an effective fighter level for it.
Most feats that only apply to one weapon are already limited to Fighters. You also make feats like Martial Versatility useless without some form of drawback. Maybe limit it to where they can gain proficiency in an entire weapon group for only a single feat.
I don't know if it's _most_. The ones I can think of are (greater) weapon spec, greater weapon focus and (greater) penetrating strike. Feats like standard WF, improved critical, close-quarter thrower, dazzling display, and snap shot are not fighter unique. So a paladin gets snap shot with long bows, a fighter gets it with all bows, is the idea.
Basically that part of martial versatility is given for free. Note however that martial versatility does something else too - it can grant weapon-specific feats to whole weapon groups. I think by RAW a feat like Serpent Lash will work with all flails, for example, if you have martial versatility. I do not know if that is intended or not (I really have no idea at all) but my change to weapon focus will not do that.
Personally, the one-weapon-only feats for my campaigns already effect an entire weapon group. I am just saying it shouldn't be all the feats as it really upsets a lot of players that they can't take Weapon Spec and higher because they don't have an effective fighter level for it.
I... don't get the connection between weapon spec and this house rule. Players getting upset over not getting other classes class features sound annoying, but how does that impact broadening weapon spec to work on a whole group?
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is bad design.
I think it depends on a case by case basis. I don't think it's bad design to require Dex 15 for TWF, and have certain classes get easier access (monk and rangers by RAW, and fighters in this thread). When it comes to Diehard requiring endurance and improved trip requiring combat expertise it's worse though. Not because those feats are necessarily bad - they're just so niche you don't want to have them as prerequisites for something so general.
Does Improved Precise Shot actually require both Precise and Point Blank? Or does it just require Precise, and assume that since Precise requires Point Blank, you must have Point Blank if you're getting Improved Precise? This is what I mean about the PFSRD listing the prereqs of prereqs-- it makes it hard to gauge how good Adept Learner really is.
Yes, it requires both, according to both the PRD and the physical book. I _think_ that pfsrd is just listing the requirements that are actually part of the game - adding all "lower" requirements to feat is standard practice (mobility requiring dex 13 and dodge, spring attack requiring dex 13 and dodge and mobility etc). This is because there are other ways the issue can come up, such as from ability drain.
I think the real payoff is for the TWF tree. TWF itself requires 15 DEX, which you can now cheat. Improved TWF requires TWF and 17 DEX. You use Adept Learner to cheat the 17 DEX, and you already have TWF (from cheating the 15 DEX). Same with Greater TWF. Suddenly we've got fighters dual wielding with 7 DEX and 20 STR?
Yes, much like Rangers and Monks already do. Note however that dumping dex to 7 for a non-shield twf build is a very bad idea - nerfing both ac, reflex, initiative and acrobatics to that degree is hurtful.
Anything in the Combat Expertise tree gets pretty nutty too. Do you cheat the 13 INT to get CE, or do you go straight for Improved Trip by cheating the CE requirement? Do you still need 13 INT to go straight for Improved Trip?
What do you mean by nutty? You can cheat either one, but just one, so if you want a stupid fighter he'll have to learn the hard way and start with the basics of combat expertise. If you have a smart fighter you can skip that and go straight to improved trip. Since all later feats require all earlier feats and their prerequisites, at most you can ignore a single thing from the whole feat tree (such as either int 13 or combat expertise).
As for the class skills, I'd just go ahead and give them Knowledge: Nobility and History and Heal. Those skills get so little use that I don't see an issue with just giving it to them. Besides, the existence of Combat Expertise seems to imply somebody in a high place wants Fighters to care about Int. Giving them more Knowledge skills would help that.
Alright, that sounds good. Drop the "any one skill of choice" and add those three. I'll do that as soon as I update.
I normally can get all my necessary skills with 5-6 Skill point on my Fighter.
And getting 5-6 skill points per level comes at a hefty price. As in, limited to one race, putting 4 point buy points less in str/dex/wis/con and dropping the fc bonus to hit points or an additional feat.
Would being able to skip one of those requirements break the fighter more than they would open up for more concepts (such as a skilled twfer, or a nonhuman)?
I think adding Acrobatics as a class skill is a good change, but the only feat related thing I think is needed is just having all characters have Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, and Power Attack as a given. It doesn't make much sense to have you waste a feat on something you should be able to do anyway, and the latter two are the only feats, to me, that lock away the ones I want.
Skill points I don't really think is needed but it depends on how stats are generated for your games. With the standard 4d6-take-the-three-highest rolls, we rarely get more than 1 stat below 10. I never apply negative modifiers to skill points so they'll always get at least 2, which is often enough for players that want to/don't care about being dumb.
Big Lemon, giving those feats for free doesn't really help with only smart fighters being good at disarming and/or tripping, or with TWF fighters being MAD etc. To some extent that might actually make the fighter compare worse to the other classes since the main thing fighters have is loads of feats, and giving out free feats decreases the percentual amount of feats that fighters have over others (a 5th level paladin has 3 feats, a 5th level fighter has 6 feats, 100% extra. if both gain three free feats, the paladin has 6 and the fighter 9, only 50% extra. it's not really as simple as not all characters will use all feats but you get the picture).
Actually with 4d6 take the highest there should be quite a large risk of getting several under 10, though I've lost the probability spreadsheet so can't find it. And not applying negative modifiers for negative Int makes Int even better to dump to hell (really there's no reason not to then) which is counter to my design goal.
Giving them 4 sp/level actually somewhat encourages you NOT to dump Int as much (and I recommend that boost to all 2+int classes that aren't heavily reliant on Int anyway).
If you have 2 sp/level, the difference between half-dumping int to 8 and full-dumping it to 7 is very, very minor. If you dump it at all, you might as well dump it to 7. If you play something like an Orc or Suli, there's no difference leaving it at standard 8 and dumping it to 5!
If you have 4 sp/level, you have the option to half-dump or full-dump (or of course let it stay at standard or even boost) and both have their pro's and cons. There's actually a reason to have 8 intelligence then! But regardless, unless you have a racial penalty, you'll come out ahead of the 2+ int variant. The difference between an orc leaving it at standard 8 and dumping it to 5 will be really felt though.
|
Interesting ideas here, and I agree with the problem statement, although I'm not sure all the solutions are the best solutions.
* Acrobatics as class skill: certainly. Not all fighters will take it, but it does give you a real alternative choice compared to the heavy armor lifestyle.
* Perception as a class skill: I dunno about this one. EVERYONE wants Perception; I'm happy to restrict it to "twitchy" classes like rogues, rangers and such that really make a point of being more focused on lightning reactions and superior senses than ordinary adventurers.
* Other additional class skills: yes. Also, Diplomacy should be in there; generals should be able to handle affairs of state.
Having more class skills without an overwhelming pool of skill points means that you get to choose a direction as a fighter, rather than being good at the same things all fighters are good at. I like that.
---
* Skill points: if you got 3sp per level, there'd be a functional difference between Int 7 and 8, which is good. But more than that, and you need to look at increasing skill points for other classes as well (clerics!), which could lead to a lot of trickle-down effects. Proceed carefully.
---
* Feat prerequisites: I'm worried about dipping if this is a level 1 ability. I also don't think that you should easily get a free pass on stuff like ability requirements; I think that some of them are a real choice you make between a powerful brute-force fighter, or a little less brute force and damage in exchange for more options.
* Instead, I would want feat chains to be shorter; right now you need to plan out feat chains long in advance, to make sure you satisfy the right prereqs per level to take something as soon as you qualify, and have a free feat for it; if you only start to consider options whenever you gain a level, you're at a huge disadvantage to the careful planner. Fighters have this particularly badly due to the long feat chains.
* I also don't want feat "groups" to stack with each other too much, because if you have two groups of feats that both boost activity X, and they stack, that's just a non-explicit feat chain again. I'd be happier with feat trees that branch out than with feat pyramids that converge on a single pinnacle. That way, you don't "fall behind" if you just use your bonus feats for combat stuff, and use your regular feats for noncombat stuff or for diverse combat styles.
* Get rid of "boring" feat tax feats that you rarely want to use if forced to take it; Combat Expertise is the worst offender here, because if you take it to get to Trip or Disarm, the whole point is probably to disable an enemy so that you don't need AC as badly. Also, stuff like CE and PA seem like things anyone should be able to try to do - sacrifice accuracy for aggression or defense. CE is basically Fighting Defensively wrapped in a feat; a conceptually redundant game feature.
* You could instead institute some non-required feats that reward you for not dumping "non-essential" attributes like Intelligence. Anyone can Fight Defensively, but with Combat Expertise, your grasp of tactics lets you use your Intelligence Modifier to offset the penalty for fighting defensively somewhat.
---
* Weapon Training: I love the idea of this broadening "One Weapon Only" things. I'm not a fan of OWO anyway; it leads to too many sour faces when a magic weapon is found that's not exactly tailored to a specialty.
I think Skill Points should be increased to 4+INT for most classes with only Wizards and such getting 2+INT.
A Fighter, Paladin, even a Cleric need skills for most of their functions.
Though one could use the Occupations rules from Tome of Secrets.
Now with these changes I am guessing the Lore Warden would be getting 6+INT Skill Points.
From what I can see most Arcane Casters and the Oracle are the only ones who should receive 2+INT simply for their theme and roles.
Ascapalus: I think I might agree with perception. I was one the fence of adding that one; while it fits for many fighter archetypes, it both enforces it's role as a dip class and doesn't generally follow the pattern of who gets it and who doesn't. When I had the "choose any one skill" I figured I had to add it because everyone would take it anyway, but now that that's gone I'm again on the fence on perception. Since fighters don't generally dump wisdom, they'll have a decent score even without class skill bonus (maybe even comparable to a lot of rogues).
You're probably right on diplomacy, but there are many skills I feel are of secondary relevance and only fit a limited amount of fighters. Diplomacy is one of them, as are each knowledge skill (especially local), stealth, sleight of hand, bluff, escape artist and perform. That's originally why I added a "pick any one skill to add to class skills".
With skill points/level, I mostly agree that it should apply to other classes as well - in particular cavaliers and paladins. Clerics and sorcerers could enjoy some extra skill points, but they aren't as limited in out-of-combat situations as fighters and cavaliers since they can rely on a lot of spells. I'd like to be careful with giving everyone more skill points not to devalue the the truly skilled classes (though, if they ever make a Pathfinder 2, I hope they put skill ranks at 4+Int for everyone and use class abilities to make the skilled classes get more out of their ranks instead).
On feats: Note that if you do a one-level dip, you get only a single feat that can bypass either a requirement of 1 rank in a skill, an ability score requirement no higher than 15, or a single feat. It only applies to fighter bonus feats. It makes it even more dip-friendly, but I don't think by that much - for a low-level char a dip is felt, for a high-level char the requirements you can ignore are fairly minor.
The idea of the adept learner is to make feat chains shorter, though (or to bypass ability score requirements - the skill one is mainly a bonus). It only shortens each chain by a single feat, but that means if an average feat chain is 4 feats long with one feat being undesirable, and you meet ability score requirements, by the time you'd normally have two chains now you can have almost three!
|
|
Maybe it's an idea to link additional class skills to fighter archetypes? For example, if you take an "officer" archetype, you get Diplomacy, while a "gladiator" might get Acrobatics.
However, I think it's reasonably safe to expand the list of fighter class skills even without archetypes; if you have sparse skill points, you still need to make hard decisions about what style of fighter you want to be, but you CAN do so without multiclassing.
The amount of skill points... I disagree with Azaleas about wizards. Just because a class will emphasize Intelligence doesn't strike me as a reason to give them the short end of the skill point budget. If you want to preserve the skill point distribution between classes, maybe just give all classes +50% skill points? It means that the 2+ classes have an incentive to keep Int at 8 instead of 7, and it widens the (too narrow?) gap between rogue and bard.
I remain hesitant about the Adept Learning thing because it's just a risky kind of game mechanic; when people start stacking classes that provide exceptions to prerequisites, you can get quite extreme results really quickly. Such open-ended exceptions can easily lead to unpredictable and excessive combinations. It's also complicated; I foresee a lot of players getting tripped up with feats that inherit all prerequisites of their own prerequisite feats. I think it'll be prone to player error.
More explicitly shortening feat chains seems more prudent to me; I also don't begrudge other classes the opportunity to adopt at least one sort of maneuver or tactic without spending most of their feats on it. For example, a peace-loving cleric should have access to Improved Disarm at level 1 without being forced to spend a Human bonus feat on it. Fighters get the opportunity to develop multiple styles while other classes can afford to delve into one style fully.
And I'm not too wild about dropping ability requirements for feats; I think it's good that you can't access everything and max Strength too. It means that other ability distributions remain competitive, like the high-mental fighter that can access more different feats.
Maybe it's an idea to link additional class skills to fighter archetypes? For example, if you take an "officer" archetype, you get Diplomacy, while a "gladiator" might get Acrobatics.
That works, but that means you'll have to make larger changes to the class, creating archetypes/focuses (I assume you don't mean actual mechancial archetypes?). So it's a bit of a bigger change to the class.
I remain hesitant about the Adept Learning thing because it's just a risky kind of game mechanic; when people start stacking classes that provide exceptions to prerequisites, you can get quite extreme results really quickly. Such open-ended exceptions can easily lead to unpredictable and excessive combinations.
It would be nice with examples. Since it only applies to fighter bonus feats, which only are combat feats, and a lot of combat feats have their prereqs set in BAB, skill ranks or similar it's hard to get early access to stuff. It's kind of why I started the thread though - these forums are known for people being able to break this kind of things so I hoped to have holes in the rule pointed out.
It's also complicated; I foresee a lot of players getting tripped up with feats that inherit all prerequisites of their own prerequisite feats. I think it'll be prone to player error.
That might be, though feats generally inherit all prerequisites (can't think of any exception at all ATM but might have missed something). But you're right that it's a bit complicated.
I've been thinking of another solution instead of Adept Learner though, that is far simple, more on that later...
And I'm not too wild about dropping ability requirements for feats; I think it's good that you can't access everything and max Strength too. It means that other ability distributions remain competitive, like the high-mental fighter that can access more different feats.
I think they pidgeon-hole builds rather than make them more open. Let's say you want to build a typical gladiator kind of guy, expert at disabling foes through disarming and tripping, dual-wielding a net and a trident to put up a show. You'll need at least 15 dex and 13 int. On a 15 pt buy that means you have 5 points left. That's really really tough. Being able to ignore one of the requirements will help a lot with still being able to do decent damage and still having a decent will save.
I'm thinking of changing Adept Learner though. What if we made it really simple - what if the ranger's combat styles where also part of the fighter class? Rangers still have a lot of stuff fighters don't (animal companion, spells, loads and loads of skill points etc) so I don't think it'll step too much on their toes. What if we dropped Adept Learner completely and instead had:
Combat Style Feat (Ex)
At 2nd level, a fighter must select one combat style to pursue. The choices available are archer, crossbow, mounted combat, natural weapon, two-handed weapon, two-weapon combat and weapon and shield.
At 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level, instead of gaining a standard fighter bonus feat, he can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites. He may choose to get any other combat feat, but then he has to meet the prerequisites.
For a description of the combat styles and their feat lists, see the ranger's ability with the same name.
|
|
I think the ranger's combat style is fairly robustly designed; it does everything it's supposed to do, but seems to be reasonably resistant to cheesy exploits.
However, it does classify your fighter into one theme from level 2, so if you pick Crossbow from then on you'll always be the Crossbow Fighter; the normal fighter could pursue several different paths without being "branded" as "belonging" to one of them. That's an aesthetic thing though.
If instead we went in the direction I'm proposing, you might start out with the following changes:
* Combat Expertise removed from the rules. Most follow-up feats lose the Intelligence 13 prerequisite, if that follow-up feat doesn't have a whole lot to do with fighting smart. For example, why would Trip/Disarm require Int?
* A new feat: Tactical Expertise. You may reduce the to-hit penalty from Fighting Defensively by Lowest_Of(BAB, IntModifier) - this feat is an interesting choice for the higher-intelligence fighter, but doesn't randomly hamper Trip/Disarm fighters. It doesn't stack with Crane Style chain.
Now, flowerpower-clerics can take Disarm at level 1, or rogues can start out with Gang Up instead of the otherwise inevitable choice of Finesse or Improved Initiative. Meanwhile, fighters can just add tripping or disarming to their arsenal without specializing their whole build in it.
Likewise, you could get rid of Power Attack; we already have a feat to "improve" PA (Furious Focus), so no need for a new feat. Now you can add bull rushing to the list of stuff you can do, and it gets easier to train animal companions in overrunnning.
PA was always a bit of a weird prerequisite for Bull Rush and Overrun; you'd never want to combine them. Alternatively, keep PA, but drop it as a prerequisite for maneuver feats; shorten the chain.
I don't think 4 skill points per level would be terrible, but I do think granting them so that the fighter can dump intelligence is a terrible reason.
Ascapalus:
I don't think it locks them into "the crossbow fighter" - it's only 5 feats out of 21. I think it's more going to be taken for secondary fighting styles - if you're an archer you're going to want good dex and then you can take archery feats as your normal feats, and you might want to use the combat style for sword&board. And if you have a big frakken sword two-handed you'll have excellent strength, and you'll probably want to use your combat style for something that you don't have as easy access to (getting rapid shot and precise shot for example).
What do you mean with removing CE/PA from the rules? That itself is a serious nerf to fighters (well, loss of PA - combat expertise is decent for some but nothing fighters in general rely on). If you meant give it for free to everyone, that might work but itself makes the fighter drop _less_ competitive compared to other classes; Currently at 3rd level, a fighter has 4 feats while most others have 2 feats (rangers and rogues can have 3, monks have 4 like the fighter). The fighter has double the number of feats as others. If everyone gets those two for free, the fighter has 6 while the others have 4 - the fighter gets 50% more feats, the others get doubled number of feats (less for some but you get the point).
Since it's not martials in general, but fighters specifically that I want to help, that's not really in my interest.
Tactical expertise doesn't sound like a bad feat but it'd be in addition to CE, not as replacement. And I don't see how it doesn't stack with crane style - as written, it seems to do (unless that comment was specifically a part of the houserule rather than an explanation of it).
Dropping the int requirement on CE and it's followers wouldn't be an issue though, that's probably a good idea. I don't see why clerics more than anyone else should be good at disarming - there are plenty of options if they don't want to hurt people; keeping to buffing and healing, saps, the bludgeoner feat etc.
I don't think 4 skill points per level would be terrible, but I do think granting them so that the fighter can dump intelligence is a terrible reason.
Actually in some ways it's the reverse - currently, there's no difference between dumping int to 9 and dumping it to 7. You only lose a single skill point per level by dumping it to 7 compared to the average 10.
Increasing it to four means you can dump int to 7 and still get at least 2 sp/level, which means even the not-very-smart fighter can learn a few skills of the trade, or you can drop it to 8 or let it stay at 10 and have a decent amount. Thing is, even if you don't dump intelligence currently you get so few skill points from being a fighter it doesn't really matter (you can get more from race but that's not really part of the class design, when it's limited to 2 of the core races).If I just have 2 sp/level from class, and nothing else important benefiting high intelligence, I'm going want to dump it to 7 from an optimization viewpoint every time as there is little reason not to (just a single sp/level). If it's at 4, I'll think twice about it. Of course, even with the current rules I don't always dump it since it may not make sense for my character, but it's a payoff that I think is a bit too heavy still.
My INT 7 Fighter is just a cliche Jock when it comes to his intelligence.
Ironically, I built him as a Football Player probably would be. So Jock is a good term for him.
Is the minimum Skill Points 2 or 1 per level?
Also, does a Fighter have Survival as a Class Skill? I am away from a Book and my laptop on a Phone so I don't have a resource to check.
Minimum i 1 sp per level from class. Race and FC are added after that. Survival is a class skill for fighters.
|
|
CE: the problem with CE is that it's a redundant mechanic. Conceptually, it lets you sacrifice accuracy for defense. Anyone should be able to try fighting carefully. And they can; that's what Fighting Defensively is for. That even gives the same type of bonus (Dodge), which illustrates that these two game elements really do the same thing. They both require you to actually make an attack to get the benefit, too.
CE is a feat tax on feats that actually want to avoid applying CE most of the time. If you disarm someone, you don't really need a small AC bonus. Making the maneuver check to disarm is important; you don't want the CE penalty to hit. The same goes for Trip; if you try to trip someone, you want to succeed. Then, if they stand up, you don't want CE penalty on the AoO.
So just get rid of CE entirely, and use Tactical Expertise instead; put in the description of TE that it doesn't stack with Crane Style, because that would make the penalty-reduction too generous.
---
PA: not nearly as bad game design as CE, but it can be argued that PA is also something everyone should be allowed to try; anyone can try to sacrifice accuracy for power.
But I think PA works mostly fine, it just shouldn't be a prerequisite for quite so many things; remove it from the requirements for Bull Rush, Drag, and Overrun, and we're going in the right direction. Maybe also remove it from the requirements for the Cleave line.
---
As a general goal: try to chop up feat chains to keep the length down to three or less, so that you don't have to decide your entire build at level 1.
This will benefit fighters and other classes; but in different ways. Rangers and monks now get to ignore some requirements because those feat chains are just too long due to feat taxes. That benefit shrinks a little bit if you for example remove CE, because that's one they were going to skip if possible anyway.
Clerics can actually take a combat maneuver before level 3; that's not something to be afraid of.
Rogues can actually get to Feint, Steal or Gang Up at level 1; no longer is any level 1 rogue basically forced to take the standard feats first (Finesse, Initiative, 2WF), they can actually be varied.
So are fighters keeping up? Yes! A level 1 fighter can have both Disarm and Trip at level 1. Whirlwind is more easily attainable too. While other classes get to actually have maneuvers, fighters can really aim to learn most or ALL maneuvers.
Again, when you say "get rid of", do you mean "give everyone it for free" or "remove it as if it just wasn't in the book"? There's a huge difference.
And again, remaking the feat chain and removing prereqs would be a much larger job than giving a few boons to the fighter; as said, I want to keep the house rules to a minimum.
I understand your approach and think it can make good houserules, it's just not the approach I prefer.
I have no interest in boosting clerics at all, actually. I'm fine with a cleric wanting to be good at disarming having to make a bit heavier of an investment, like waiting until 3rd level (unless they're human).
And it still boosts other classes more than the fighter. There's no getting away from that. The fighter gets to add two feats to their 2+level. The others get to add two feats to their 1+1/2 level. And unless you houserule away the int13 requirement from improved trip and improved disarm as well, the fighter still has to make a hefty investment; your house rule doesn't get around that, which means either more houserules or the fighter still has a hard time.
A fighter could normally have Improved Bull Rush and Whirlwind Attack by level 6. With your house rule they can have it by level 4. A paladin can normally have those feats by level 13. Now they can have it by level 9. Fighter gets his chains two levels early, paladin 4 levels early.
Giving PA for free to everyone also makes quite a few monsters quite a bit more dangerous, especially in encounters that are already quite dangerous. For example, a 4th level party vs a large air elemental will already have a difficult time - increasing it's damage from 2x1d8+4 to 2x1d8+10 when it can easily reach the least armored members of the party will mean it could quickly take out the mage and rogue and it becomes a high risk TPK. Even for a 5th level party, where the air elemental isn't even supposed to be challenging, it could quite easily kill of a party member or two.
I think giving PA for free is a very dangerous way to go that can really upset class balance and pc vs monster balance, much more than something like adept learner or combat style. Dropping the Int requirement on CE seems fine though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On feats: Note that if you do a one-level dip, you get only a single feat that can bypass either a requirement of 1 rank in a skill, an ability score requirement no higher than 15, or a single feat. It only applies to fighter bonus feats. It makes it even more dip-friendly, but I don't think by that much - for a low-level char a dip is felt, for a high-level char the requirements you can ignore are fairly minor.
There are a lot of people out there*, who object to what they see as cookie-cutter, Int-dumping, Fighter builds, who would object vociferously to low-Int Fighters getting access to the Int-based feats 'for free'.
Unfortunately, their resistance to changing the feat pre-requisites (whether that be Int for CE, or CE being a requirement for maneuvers), which is intended to punish the player who dumps Int to 7, causes just as much pain to the PC with Int 8, Int 9, Int 10, Int 11, and Int 12.
As it currently stands, any Int score less than 13, may as well be 7. The Int 12 PC is refused access to the same options as the one with Int 7, despite being more intelligent than the majority population, even despite being more intelligent than the majority of PCs.
A PC with Int 12 should not be treated as a moron; then again, neither should a PC with Int 7, but that's been the topic of other threads...
What's needed is a way to make incremental differences in Int (or any stat) actually make a difference. Currently, feat prereqs are an on/off switch, but they could be more like a variable dimmer, that delays access, rather than shuts it off for good.
Rather than granting the ability to completely ignore a stat prerequisite, how about a class abilty to 'treat one's stats as being slightly higher, for the purposes of qualifying for feat prerequisites'?
The justification being, that by virtue of experience, the Fighter becomes accustomed to witnessing these maneuvers performed, either against him, or by watching an ally, and experience counts for more than raw stats.
Even if he is not bright enough to invent a personal combat style of his own, he should be capable of copying one.
This could start out as a minor (+1) virtual increase, but rise with level, in a similar way to Weapon Training/Armor Training. Maybe begin at level 4, increasing every four levels?
This gradual increase acts as a compromise, to those who object to Fighters dumping their Int to subpar levels, by granting the earliest, and greatest rewards to those who were only a point or two short (whether that be from poor rolls or a low point-buy budget).
The lower a stat has been set at character creation, the longer it takes for this class feature to pay off, if ever. And is it really going to break the game, if an Int 8 Fighter finally qualifies for Combat Expertise at level 20?
*
Great post, snorter. I agree completely with your analysis of how Int is an on/off-switch, though I disagree a bit with the ability.
Treating an ability score as slightly higher for the purpose of feats was actually my first draft of adept learner, but I changed it for two main reasons, though they may be a bit vain:
1. Simplicity. Reducing the amount of math and making the rule simpler and easier to explain. When typing the ability in the more proper document I realized it was hard to articulate the rule in a concise manner.
2. Aesthetics. It just looks better in my opinion.
However, I'm not very good with English, so that may be why I couldn't make it simple and concise. If you have any suggestion on how to word it I'm idle ears.
I disagree with making the bonus/reduction in prereqs increase with level though - starting it as late as level 4 means they still can't have the style of their choice until late levels (for improved trip, if he had 12 intelligence, it's level 5; or if he has 10 intelligence it's level 13 at which point access has been gained through items long ago). The benefit will be so minor it might not even be there.
So someone who wants to trip or TWF won't get much benefit from it, assuming they want to get into their style at least at normal pace.
And it doesn't really need to increase with levels - items take care of that, generally. TWF feats increase in prereqs 2 per 5 levels, and getting a +2/+4 dex belt at 6th/11th level isn't that hard.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I just realized another thing. It might be possible, and fitting flavor-wise, to make Adept Learner intelligence-based in some way without making it more complex and without making it suck for low-int fighters. Just not sure how.
|
|
CE: get rid of it entirely, and purge the Intelligence requirement from feats that inherit the Int 13 requirement from CE.
PA: no longer require it as prerequisite to maneuvers and a couple of other feats. PS remains as a feat, because it's something you want to use on its own.
---
As for intelligence: if you increase skill points to 3/level, there's a difference between Int 7 and 8.
If there are more class skills with high value for fighters (Acrobatics!), skill points will also be more desirable.
Add to that a few (voluntary! not feat tax!) feats that become better if you have higher Intelligence, and you're all set. They could be focused on tactics or precise scientific fighting technique.
|
|
Giving the fighter free stuff helps the fighter, who among the martial classes, needs help with feats the least. Fixing the feat chains helps all the martials and semi-martials. Rogues, in particular, need the help. Fixing fighters in a way that leaves feats broken when you can fix every non-caster or combat oriented hybrid caster is a waste of an opportunity.
Yeah, that's basically what I meant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, the feats of Pathfinder are a house of cards and Combat Expertise (the one we all want to see changed the most) is at the bottom of the pile. Do you actually know how many feats use CE as a prereq? A LOT. Fixing the feats either means making the most minor of changes (and not really fixing all that much) or completely rewriting that chapter of the CRB, APG, and UC. (I don't know if UM has enough combat feats to be a problem.)
Making minor changes is easy, but doesn't really fix all that much. Rewriting the whole system is just too much work to expect someone on the forums to do, and you can hardly blame Paizo for not wanting to completely obsolete everything they've published when most of the time it works fine the way it is.