I said best AC in heavy armor, or at least I meant to.And that 'Fighter gets the best AC' is a complete lie. That honor goes to Barbarians, who can get stacking dodge and nat AC bonuses, while armor exists that allows them a dex bonus to AC as high as the fighter will acheive.
And then they get Superstitious with +7 to all saves vs Magic by 20th, pounce, energy resistance, spell cleaving, Robilar's Gambit/Come and Get me, etc.
And they can function perfectly well with any weapon in hand, they don't need to specialize.
==Aelryinth
Which is the worst way to have AC.
The verisimilitude issue is that you're giving 'powers' to a charecter that really aren't about him, but rather are dictating how the world works around him just because he gained a level. That's a really big lump to swallow.
Much better to give the fighter the skills and flexibility to EARN those kinds of social influence rather than have them be handed to him. You do this by giving them more skills, making feats scale rather than requiring deep chains, using some of the freed up feat slots as designated non-combat bonus feats with interesting and relevant social or utility abilities to choose from, and finally telling casters they can't have everything all the time.
there's no such thing as verosimilitude in a game that has iniyative an allow people to do six full seconds of things before the guy next him blinks just because he reacted 0.01 seconds slower.
POint in case: to fighters with bows. They are 30' apart. Someone says "fight" and they both roll initiative. Fighter one rolls 23. Fighter B rolls 23 too, but has dex 17 instead of 18, so player a goes half split second before. He can:
A) start launching a full set of arrows in katyuska mode, before tge other guy even blinks.
B) drops his bow as a free action, move 30', draw a scissor as part of his movement, and cut the other guy bow string.
C) turns around and do a 4× run to find cover.
ANy of that in 0.01 seconds. Yet nobody complains about the huge pink elephant in the roon of yhe lack of verosimilitudes. They somehow consider more astonishing a fighter who jumps over a mpnster or that has followers
You don't get it
Get it =/= agree with it.
You've rejected a viable solution because it doesn't "feel right," and offered up nothing in its place, except the usual "casters are supposed to be better" status quo -- which by extension means that you're rejecting the whole idea of "character level" as a measure of anything.
The issue with a Fighter that auto has followers that forces the GAME WORLD too act a certain way:
That's exactly what spells do, but you're OK with it. Also, "too" =/= "to."
What if Im in a desert setting? A Survival Horror setting?
Then Fremen come out of the desert, having heard of your prowess, and flock to your banner. Or in the latter case, even the near-mindless freaking post-apocalypse zombie mutants are so impressed with your ability to lop their limbs off that they'd serve you.
Balancing the Fighter around the assumption that there will be any followers AT ALL, is just wrong in my opinion.
With my proposal, it's no longer an "assumption" -- it becomes a default condition instead. Just like "wizards can use magic" is a rules-set default, not an "assumption."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've rejected a viable solution because it doesn't "feel right," and offered up nothing in its place, except the usual "casters are supposed to be better" status quo -- which by extension means that you're rejecting the whole idea of "character level" as a measure of anything.
I don't like it because of a couple reasons I'll list below, but I do think it's a step in the right direction. You're right about giving fighters a way to impact the game world, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
1) It forces a change on the game world as a result of a meta-game construct.
Levels don't exist in the game world. However, as a result of reaching an arbitrary level of experience and power, every fighter is capable of spontaneously becoming lord and leader to a number of people, regardless of their previous status or the state of the world (isolated PCs, post-apocalyptic setting, certain setting elements could make it odd).
2) There's no choice involved.
Every fighter of a certain level of experience becomes a leader. What if you want to play a fighter that isn't a leader? Do you just not gain the powers expected of your class?
There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea (it can work for some fighters and worlds), but the existence of one or more alternate choices that fulfill the same goal (powers that can be used to impact the game world as much as 5th level and above spells) would solve both of these problems for me.
Let me explain:
The D&D world assumes that the world works similarly too our world, yet it has more variables (AKA Magic) that our world doesn't have.
Your idea FORCES a certain kind of play. And your making an uneven comparison:
Wizards Having magic is not how it works:
Its assumed in the average D&D game that magic exists, therefore there is a guy that can manipulate that force. If magic didn't exist, or was not manipulatable, then there would be no wizards.
Your rule is a meta construct. By Desert settings and Horror settings I meant that its supposed to make you feel ISOLATED.
"Oh no we are trapped in Ravenloft!...Ah well. Still got my army with me WEEEEEEEE"
Its assumed in the average D&D game that magic exists, therefore there is a guy that can manipulate that force. If magic didn't exist, or was not manipulatable, then there would be no wizards.
It is assumed in the average D&D game that other people exist, therefore there is a guy who can lead those people. If people didn't exist, or were not manipulatable, there would be no war leaders.
Your rule is a meta construct. By Desert settings and Horror settings I meant that its supposed to make you feel ISOLATED.
ALL rules are meta-constructs. And totally uninhabited desert and horror settings are extremely niche; they do not in any way, shape, or form represent "the average D&D game." I can equally counter by saying "your rule is a meta construct. By Antimagic settings I mean it's supposed to make you feel like MAGIC DOESN'T WORK."
There's no choice involved. Every fighter of a certain level of experience becomes a leader. What if you want to play a fighter that isn't a leader? Do you just not gain the powers expected of your class? There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea (it can work for some fighters and worlds), but the existence of one or more alternate choices that fulfill the same goal (powers that can be used to impact the game world as much as 5th level and above spells) would solve both of these problems for me.
Give me some alternate choices (real choices, not traps), and I'm 100% with you, without any hesitation!
But the average D&D world assumes that your heroes are plucky adventurers.
Not army leaders. What if my Fighter has a Charisma, Wisdom, and Intelligence scores of 4, he hates people and doesn't trust many other too work with him.
Do they follow him anyway? If they follow an idiot like that why wouldn't the Follow the Paladin or a Wizard?
And the worst reason for balance is because it can just get replicated with some roleplaying:
What if my Wizard becomes the King of an Empire? Then he essentially can have the fighters class ability easily.
Unless NOW your rules would prevent anybody from getting an army except a fighter?
Its assumed in the average D&D game that magic exists, therefore there is a guy that can manipulate that force. If magic didn't exist, or was not manipulatable, then there would be no wizards.Your rule is a meta construct. By Desert settings and Horror settings I meant that its supposed to make you feel ISOLATED.
"Oh no we are trapped in Ravenloft!...Ah well. Still got my army with me WEEEEEEEE"
Yeah, it's assumed there are people in the average D&D game. Which variation do people make more topics about, survival horror or low magic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me explain:
The D&D world assumes that the world works similarly too our world, yet it has more variables (AKA Magic) that our world doesn't have.
Your idea FORCES a certain kind of play.
yeah. You know, like every other edition of D&D did, until 3e came and broke any resemblace of fairness by giving casters all the goodies and stripping martials of theirs
But the average D&D world assumes that your heroes are plucky adventurers.
Not army leaders. What if my Fighter has a Charisma, Wisdom, and Intelligence scores of 4, he hates people and doesn't trust many other too work with him.
Do they follow him anyway? If they follow an idiot like that why wouldn't the Follow the Paladin or a Wizard?
And the worst reason for balance is because it can just get replicated with some roleplaying:
What if my Wizard becomes the King of an Empire? Then he essentially can have the fighters class ability easily.
Unless NOW your rules would prevent anybody from getting an army except a fighter?
*ahem*
Give me some alternate choices (real choices, not traps), and I'm 100% with you, without any hesitation!
If all you're doing is belittling other people's contributions, and offer none yourself, you are adding nothing to conversation. Personally I am not a fan of the army thing either, that's why I am mulling over alternatives. heck I applaud the effort in the first place, it does technically work, even if the flavor feels wrong.
Unless NOW your rules would prevent anybody from getting an army except a fighter?
Not my rules; Gygax's. Fighters getting the title "lord" at 9th level, and an army of followers, is part of the 1st edition rules. The fighter automatically had an army -- he could leave them at home or take him along with thim and use them as cannon fodder, or whatever he wanted to do with them. The wizard, at 10th level, got a single 1st level apprentice or something; he was allowed to have hirelings (a staff of paid mundane NPCs with no particular loyalty), but could not have actual followers past the apprentice. So, yeah, the wizard could totally hire an army, but they'd desert at the first taste of battle.
As far as a low-Cha fighter, the usual Cha penalties applied.
There is only one kind of game where armies feel decent:
Games with Also Kingdom management. Thats it.
Edit:
OK Kirth. I VERY much disagree with you and all your forms of evidence. Lets leave it at that.
I don't have the energy to hash this out longer.
Soooo...
The two main things most agree on are:
1) +2 skill points and adding a few skills to the list
2) upgrading Combat Feats, normally by scaling them and accelerated exchange systems
I lift this from Frank and K:
Base Blind Fighting: reroll misses due to concealment.
1 BAB: "While impaired visually, you may move your normal speed without difficulty". I like this as a starting boost
6 BAB: Blindsight to 60'. This might be a bit strong, I scale this s 5 feet per BAB
11 BAB: Tremorsense to 120'. Very nice, but might be a bit too powerful
16 BAB: Cannot be caught flat footed. Also nice, but I don't see this as a Blindsight thing. Also think it should be modified if being zapped by a high end Sneak Attack
sooooooooo kirth since scaling feats are brought up...maybe some copy pasty from kirthfinder...y?
I lift this from Frank and K:
Base Blind Fighting
For what it's worth, here's mine:
BLIND-FIGHT (COMBAT)
Prerequisite: Perception 1 rank.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment, you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don’t lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn’t get the usual +2 circumstance bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker’s bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
If your effective base attack bonus is at least +6 (including the benefits of the rogue’s Opportune Strike ability, if applicable), you can deal precision damage (such as from a sneak attack, Focused Shot, etc.), against targets with concealment (but not total concealment). You can also make attacks of opportunity against opponents with total concealment.
If your effective base attack bonus is at least +11, you gain blindsense with a radius of 5 ft. per 2 ranks in Perception you have, and the effects of your Blind-Fight feat extend to ranged attacks up to point blank range. Also, your melee attacks and attacks within point blank range ignore the miss chance for less than total concealment (you may still reroll your miss chance percentile roll for total concealment), and you can deal precision damage against opponents with total concealment.
If your effective base attack bonus is at least +16, you gain blindsight with a radius equal to 5 ft. per 2 ranks in Perception you have.
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Normal: Regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. The speed reduction for darkness and poor visibility also applies.
Source: This feat now subsumes the Improved Blind Fight, Greater Blind Fight, and Shadow Strike feats, from the Pathfinder Advanced Player’s Guide.
There are lots more where that came from.
EDIT: Ninja'd by the Toaster!
There is only one kind of game where armies feel decent:
Games with Also Kingdom management. Thats it.
Edit:
OK Kirth. I VERY much disagree with you and all your forms of evidence. Lets leave it at that.
I don't have the energy to hash this out longer.
or... every otger single edition of D&D since it's conception, except for 3e and its versions
|
Insinuating that any NPC would do anything automatically by virtue of someone's CLASS is actually ridiculous.
But if it's a feat it's A-OK?
Unless NOW your rules would prevent anybody from getting an army except a fighter?Not my rules; Gygax's. Fighters getting the title "lord" at 9th level, and an army of followers, is part of the 1st edition rules. The fighter automatically had an army -- he could leave them at home or take him along with thim and use them as cannon fodder, or whatever he wanted to do with them. The wizard, at 10th level, got a single 1st level apprentice or something; he was allowed to have hirelings (a staff of paid mundane NPCs with no particular loyalty), but could not have actual followers past the apprentice. So, yeah, the wizard could totally hire an army, but they'd desert at the first taste of battle.
As far as a low-Cha fighter, the usual Cha penalties applied.
Trying to reinstate most rules from that far back in nonsensical, given today's format. They're fine for flavor, but mechanics-wise simply do not work.
Insinuating that any NPC would do anything automatically by virtue of someone's CLASS is actually ridiculous.
Also, there's a clear difference between "people revere you, and are more likely to aid your cause" / "you gain a bonus to leadership" and "you gain an army" just because of your level. Trying to correlate this de facto condition to wizards casting magic does not make any sense to me. The wizards are outwardly changing things, and the fighter is being forced-upon by NPCs.
so getting an army couse you are a high level fighter = nonsensical. But getting an army because of you spent a feat is ok, couse leadership is 3e.
MAkes a lot more sense now
You know. Leadership. One of the feats that first banned off the table.
For what it's worth, here's mine:
I like yours much better. I had better get you to send me a copy: ragoftag1955@gmail.com
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know. Leadership. One of the feats that first banned off the table.
Yeah. Go figure, a martial player who could get the help of low level mundanes. How could they dare to do that in a game where wizards can bind outsiders, animate zombie dragons, make armies of simulacrums of pit fiends and call solars through gates.
But if it's a feat it's A-OK?so getting an army couse you are a high level fighter = nonsensical. But getting an army because of you spent a feat is okCorrect, because taking a feat means you are expending time and effort into gaining said army. You don't become an army magnet just because you dinged a level. I would hope you could follow that logic...
So make it a bonus feat and now it's kosher?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because when such an outside influence-dependent feature is forced on a base class, it hurts the class and the game in terms of freedom. Make it optional, like an archetype or something similar.
So what other option are going to give the fighter than gives him equal narrative power to the wizard?
Saying 'you can't do that' without saying 'this might work instead' is singularly unhelpful.
Based on the comments, what I'm now seeing as the disconnect is this:
Camp 1: What's in the rules right now is law -- except of course anything the DM doesn't happen to like. And the DM should balance everything else arbitrarily, as he or she sees fit. (In fact, rules are an impediment to the DM just telling everyone what happens, the way it should be.) I think that's why there haven't been any alternative suggestions -- because many people don't WANT the fighter to have any narrative power at all, preferring to keep it all in the DM's hands (presumably many of those DMs arbitraily overrule a lot of the wizard's ability to do the same with spells -- or maybe not).
Camp 2: What's in the rules is how the game runs, and the DM should be able to serve as an impartial arbitrator of said rules. If the rules don't allow that, let's adjust them up front, so that each DM need not do so individually. After that, if individual DMs are determined to ignore them, so be it, but at least there's an equitable framework in place.
And I don't think there's any way to bridge that gap. The GM-is-GOD crowd absolutely loves the fact that the classes are massively imbalanced, because it forces the players to cede still more authority to him to fix those problems. The DM-is-referee crowd doesn't mind stripping some things from "DM purview only" to "player's choice," if it means a more balanced game for everyone -- in my case, that applies even if it tramples all over certain DMs' senses of what they think is "realistic."
is there a way of measuring narrative power without having it be influenced to a large extent by the charisma, extroversion and outgoing nature of the actual player behind the character
just curious while I go sushi hunting
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your rule is a meta construct. By Desert settings and Horror settings I meant that its supposed to make you feel ISOLATED.ALL rules are meta-constructs. And totally uninhabited desert and horror settings are extremely niche;
Can I just add the following to what Kirth said? That even in Dark Sun the one thing Fighters could get (while everyone else was transforming into some megacritter) was a near-endless stream of followers?
So that can work in a desert setting, too, if you want it to. (And, of course, not, if you're determined to reject it. Which btw means you have other reasons to reject it, and "what about desert settings" is empty).
One thing I've noticed in all my years gaming and hanging out in forums is that people can come up with rationales to support anything, if they want to, and oppose anything, if they want to. It's one reason I tend to reject "realism"-type arguments, in-and-of-themselves (they must be combined with some other factor to be at all relevant/persuasive).
The one thing I agree with is that some people won't want to manage all that. Well some people don't like various classes, for whatever reason. In any case, as I mentioned earlier in response to Kirth's idea, there can be archetypes that trade these out for other interesting abilities.
just curious while I go sushi hunting
Oh, nom!
Do you use a rod & reel for that, or a net?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
is there a way of measuring narrative power without having it be influenced to a large extent by the charisma, extroversion and outgoing nature of the actual player behind the character
Yes, absolutely! Imagine the entire party in a dungeon, and they're fighting hordes of monsters the way they're supposed to, but getting the worst of it, and the cleric's player -- a mousy little guy who never speaks above a whisper -- when asked what he's doing on his turn, mumbles "I plane shift us to Olympus."
BAM! The entire dungeon is derailed. And maybe the wizard's player says, "Hey, we learned in there what was going on. Why finish the dungeon? Let's just blitz over to Location C and ruin Evil Plan 9 that's going down there!" And he asks the cleric to planar ally an angel for support, and they all go do that.
My suggestions are A way (not the only way) to allow the fighter to do the same thing. Except instead of transporting everyone to another universe, he co-opts control of the guys they're fighting, who say "This guy is AMAZING! Let's ditch this dungeon and go help him!" Yeah, it's goofy as hell, but that's the plot of pretty much every Barsoom book, so if you don't like it, blame ERB.
The net result, in either case, is that the party has been able to leave the dungeon and go elsewhere with reinforcements. ANY way they can do that is fine, as long as all classes have a similar opportunity to influence the narrative. Or you could nerf spells into the ground, to prevent ANYONE from being able to do so. But to have some classes able, and some unable, just isn't cricket.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters also don't really explore weapon styles faster than Ranger. They might switch-hit, exploring multiple styles, but there are only so many good weapons they can invest in. Usually they should do one melee and one ranged weapon (especially since they have no other way at getting at critters who can, say, fly, or otherwise stay out of their melee range). But it's hard for them to be better archers than some other classes, for example.
I would disagree here. The ranger is able to explore certain weapon styles with greater versatility (like being able to skip dex prereqs on TWF feats taken via their combat style feats) but they don't have the sheer number of feats a fighter does. One of my favorite low level examples of this is how a human fighter can complete the 4 feat Thunder and Fang chain at level 2, a feat chain Rangers won't be able to complete until level 3, and other classes can't complete until at least level 5. So a 2nd level fighter is keeping shield bonus to AC while TWF and wielding a Two handed weapon in one hand. At third level, when the ranger is just catching up, the fighter is either progressing his damage with Double Slice or branching off to pick up a ranged combat feat and enhance his versatility. He can hold this combat oriented edge fairly consistently throughout the next 8 levels of play.
One of the big things people point out is how much the barbarian can outdamage the fighter via Rage, but I've noticed (again especially at the lower half of play which is where the majority of play takes place) that barbarians frequently deal wasted damage. A Fighter who has progressed to Great Cleave while a Barbarian is still on Power Attack is going to be more useful to the party in most situations. Rise of the Runelords is a great example of an AP where I've seen this in effect. Throughout the entire first book, the Barbarian was dealing nearly twice as much damage per hit compared to the fighter. The fighter was still clearing 3 times as many kills though, as his damage was still plenty to deal with CR appropriate challenges and he was generating a larger number of attacks per round. I'm aware that this example does not reflect all levels of play, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe the game is balanced in its entirety, and that all classes experience certain variations in their potency.All of that being said, I do believe fighters deserve a a Good Reflex save in addition to their good fort, and built in Leadership is not a bad idea.
You know. Leadership. One of the feats that first banned off the table.Yeah. Go figure, a martial player who could get the help of low level mundanes. How could they dare to do that in a game where wizards can bind outsiders, animate zombie dragons, make armies of simulacrums of pit fiends and call solars through gates.Who martial cares for te low level mundanes? who fighter with leaership would not take a caster cohort who craft magic items for him (just as an example)?
then give up the cohort and make him gain an army. On the other hand, I find amusing that it's overpowered that a fighter could have a cohort that makes him magic items. Ypu know, like tge wizard is doing since level 5
|
|
Just because it's unhelpful to you doesn't make it irrelevant. I do not need to provide an answer in order to point out the wrongness of another posited answer.Then we have no reason to consider your response anything other than noise.Because THAT was helpful. >_>
Look, you can decide how you like for yourself. Stop acting like you speak for everyone, or that providing commentary on modifying an idea is somehow less worthy than creating brand-new ideas. It's arrogant and offensive. I've already provided helpful modifications to this idea.
Likewise sir. If you have, I didn't notice them.
I would disagree here. The ranger is able to explore certain weapon styles with greater versatility (like being able to skip dex prereqs on TWF feats taken via their combat style feats) but they don't have the sheer number of feats a fighter does.
The point was: Fighter may have "more feats" but they often have to take rubbish just to qualify for the good stuff or shore up deficiencies those other classes don't have, while other classes can ignore the rubbish and just get at the good stuff straight away. Or the Fighter uses their Feats just to get close(r) to what other Classes get as straight class-abilities, ones that frequently scale with level much better than most Feats do (some Feats do scale with level, but even those don't scale as well as class abilities).
Once you take all that into consideration, the Fighter's advantage in Feat quantity pales in comparison to the quality of what other classes get (something that has been demonstrated with examples only like half a dozen times in this thread alone).
to fix fighters use kirthfinder feats, done
stuff about rangers and barbarians...
I don't think people bashes fighters over rangers and barbarians becouse of damage. Fighter damage is ok. The problem is he does very little else in combat.
Rangers can cast Resist energy on their fellow bard to protect him from the fiery breath of the dragon. A Barbarian can Spell Sunder the mirror image that protect the bbeg from the paladin's smiting charge.Fighters don't provide any resource. They just drain them
If you have, I didn't notice them.For one, I suggested turning the army class feature idea into an optional feature, like creating an archetype out of it rather than forcing it upon the base class.
so you mean leaving it as it is now