|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ho hai everyone !
Please find here some tweaks around fighters and archery rules we've been toying with in our group:
- the Heroic Fighter, a variant of the fighter class compatible with all existing class options. It is intended to provide a more heroic feel to the fighter by cutting his dependency to spellcasters and granting him "exploits", a feature similar to talents and deeds.
It comes complete with a list of 34 possible exploits to choose from depending on your style, weapon and character !
- the rules for Archery revisited, reducing the sheer potency of archery while making it fit better in the whole "agile, mobile and precise damage dealer" theme, including an analysis of the reasoning behind the changes. It comes complete with 2 simple conversion rules to introduce these new rules in your game, and 3 famous feats for ranged combat rewritten to reflect this change of orientation !
You’ll note these options are intended to interact with each other (notably the heroic fighter, the archery mechanics nerf and the upcoming revision for magic items crafting rules), so please consider possible interactions.
I hope you'll like them ! :)
I like the exploits, I'm going to blatantly rip them off and use them in my campaign. Good work on these.
Dotted will check this out, looks good at a glance. Feels a little like book of nine swords mechanically if not flavorwise.
I'm not sure what Efficient Healing means by "twice your amount of current exploits". Is that the number of exploits you know, or that you have performed that day?
|
|
That's the current amount of exploits unused in your pool. Thanks for pointing it, I made it clearer in the document.
So at 4th level, if you spend two days training and perform no exploit, you would have 2 exploits remaining in your pool. With Efficient Healing, any healing effect (potion, cure spell, Heal check, night of sleep, etc.) would cure you an additional 2x your exploits remaining in hp, so a cure light wounds potion would for example heal 1d8+1+4 per use.
This exploit is especially thought for gritty campaigns where you have few but difficult battles and healing abilities are scarce (or if you possess no real healer in the party).
Note that some exploits may replace similar but really poor rage powers if you wish to play a barbarian, in which case I suggest a "once per rage at the cost of 3 rounds of rage" instead of "once per rage"; for example the Endure exploit and the Renewed Vigor rage power !
Why the archery hate? Granted I probably will be shot for 'not doing the research' but you lose ammo, so it costs more, so DR penetration costs more... so they made a feat to fix that.
Actually, I think Durable Arrows are the real problem. When I played an archer recently, I had an efficient quiver stuffed with Durable Adamantine, Durable Cold Iron, and Durable Mithral arrows in both regular and blunt. Not to mention that Ghost Salt blanch works for 10 arrows, rather than a single hit with a melee weapon.
Even before Clustered Shots, I was better at dealing with DR than anyone else in the party. Actually, I was so ridiculously strong, I offered to change characters before I ever even got Clustered Shots.
Bows typically do 1d8 or 1d6 while melee weapons I see in use do 2d6 or 1d10 and benefit from strength and a half as well without having to buy it that way.
An Adaptive Bow costs 1k and adjusts to any strength level. The difference between the average damage of 1d8 vs. 2d6 is 2.5 (4.5 vs. 7). If you have a 22 Strength, your two-handed weapon is dealing 3 more damage from strength than my bow, and say, at level 8, your power attack is dealing 3 more damage than my deadly aim. That's a difference of 8.5 per hit. Oh, except you attack twice (at best) and I shoot 4 arrows a turn, three of them at full BAB.
I also make Full Attacks more because I almost never have to move. And anything I add to attacks (weapon training, smite, favored enemy, weapon spec, weapon enhancement, even pointblank shot) adds to 4 hits instead of 2.
In other words, Archery really is better in every way than melee. I don't really know how I feel about the changes the original poster proposes, though. Personally, I'd rather just remove some or all of: durable arrows, Clustered Shots, Rapid Shot, Many Shot.
Comparing it to two weapon fighting is disingenuous because two weapon fighting has always been a poor option unless you have some sort of supplemental damage, like sneak attack, to make it worthwhile.
Sneak Attack does not make it worth while because Sneak Attack is weak, situational bonus damage on a class with accuracy problems (unless you're a Vivisectionist Alchemist focusing on Natural Attacks). It's actually pretty strong if you've got Favored Enemy, Smite, or Weapon Training/Weapon Spec to buff it up--but only if you can reliably make full attacks, which is the real issue with Archery:
Archers just about always can Full Attack. Playing an archer for 7 levels, I think I was unable to make full attacks for three rounds ever, and that was against a creature living in a tunnel underground that had grappled an ally and then kept retreating backwards around corners.
|
|
Because I've had someone tell me something similar recently, if you want grit or ki, why don't you just play a class that gets it?
Because melee fighters need a little more candy to counterbalance their inherent weakness and some poor feats, and I personally love having an array of balanced and unique choices begging to be chosen.
Ki and Grit work well for their own classes, but do not allow for shield, swords, mauls exploits, nor do they do anything to help the fighter class itself. It does not mean the fighter deserves to receive powerful abilities to counterbalance; only nifty, relevant, limited tricks.Glad you like them though :)
As for a few individual exploits, the Strong Impression exploit... why not the Intimidating Prowess feat so you can do that all the time, or did you mean that to help fighters who dump charisma?
Because this feat sucks and does something that I think shouldn't even be a feat, hence the exploit mechanic.
Same thing for Reach Breaker: readying an attack to touch the enemy's hand should not be a feat (or even the feat allowing you to bull rush a rider out of his mount with a braced weapon).Note that these exploits are "circumstancial", meaning any fighter knows and may perform these abilities. They are only suggestions and are opened to imagination. In game, it would reflect as:
"DM: - The weasely thug refuses to let you pass, and keeps asking for some money while touching his dagger. He seems to be unimpressed by your looks.
Player: - Oh well. I have two exploits remaining for the day. I try to spend one to bulge my muscles so they appear much more menacing, and I use this opportunity to tell him "Move, shrimp." Come on, I have 22 Str and he looks like I can kill him in one round ! *Rolls 14 on d20, +6*
DM: - The thug reacts: "Woah woah easy there, I was just joking ! See ? I'm out of your way, no need to draw your sword." As you move, still looking him in the eyes, he whispers "Coward.""
An Improved Break Reach would be too powerful for an ability usable several times a day. You may already daze the guy with the Dazing Assault feat with a high BAB, or by using a sunder/trip/disarm combat maneuver instead of a normal readied attack.
Why the archery hate? Granted I probably will be shot for 'not doing the research' but you lose ammo, so it costs more, so DR penetration costs more... so they made a feat to fix that. Bows typically do 1d8 or 1d6 while melee weapons I see in use do 2d6 or 1d10 and benefit from strength and a half as well without...
I'm not here to belittle other people's opinions, nor is there "hate" toward archery - merely frustration from all people of our group and a lot of people online, including from players who played archers (mplindustries' testimony, one among a thousand). The nerf does not neuter archery, it actually makes archers potent instead of game-breaking. Archers still have the advantage of range, many others included in the document's analysis.
Here are some answers to your concerns:
- the price of arrows is not an issue if the price of bullets is not problematic to a gunslinger (and it isn't after 2nd level);
- dealing "only" 1d8 damage is not an issue when you actually roll a handful of them per round and there is a +XX behind each arrow, not even accounting for Gravity Bow spells or effects;
- TH combat may deal 1.5 times Strength bonus to damage, but dealing this damage regularly is totally another thing that is not an issue with an archer who will deal damage way more often for the difference between composite and TH melee to actually matter. With Point Blank Shot and Manyshot, you are actually dealing a base 2d8+4+(Str bonusx2) against enemies within 10 feet, so damage equal or higher to a same level TH fighter;
- the comparison to TWFing is there to show than Rapid Shot is basically TWFing on steroids, on a style that -does not need- so much love;
- the rock/paper style of D&D is kept with these alternate rules, especially since I'm a great fan of the Fire Emblem series and this probably reflects in how I visualize each role or style: archery deals damage often with precise strikes from afar and gets in trouble when engaged in melee, big weapons deal big damage at the cost of AC and vulnerability to ranged attacks, shields improve your AC and group utility at the cost of damage and feats, one-handed weapons can be wielded in more situations and are easier to wield and protect, etc.
EDIT: Not even including the fact that if we want to go the "weapons replaced others because they were more efficient" way, then all D&D characters should use firearms, bows should be exotic weapons wielded by guys who are already dead if you ever get within 10 feet of them, and crossbows would pierce anyone with a full-plate.
This variant to archery even gives some more incentive to use crossbows at close range - which cannot be a bad thing for these poor weapons.
|
|
This is where I should back up and apologize. I understand that this is the homebrew section. And when I asked for help or suggestions brewing for one class recently, someone suggested I play another class. I suppose I was being petty.
If you are refering to your mind-reading bard archetype thread where I answered you would spare yourself the headache by playing an inquisitor, I apologize if you took it badly. When I design characters or rules I tend to see beforehand if what I write can already be done efficiently within the system, and it probably reflected in my answer.
By the way, about this specific point, I guess you could replace Inspire Competence with a performance made and maintained as a standard action reproducing the effect of Detect Thoughts centered on a single creature within 30 feet each round, targeting up to 1 more creature every 3 levels later.And I think Dazing Assaut is a crap feat. Maybe you get one round in which they don't act. Give me a real debuff. Is it even clear if it's full round non action?
You may activate it on an attack of opportunity, meaning that if you have reach or even are able to land AoO regularly (Greater Trip, Broken Wing Gambit, Paired Opportunist, barbarian's Come and Get Me), you may lock for 1 round any character failing a saving throw, which they'll have to roll so often they will eventually fail. This feat is awesome.
|
|
No worries, I myself didn't have a better answer to your question since I had a lot of things to write on my own and admittedly, I don't know the 3.5 class your were referring to or psionics enough to be of good advice. My suggestion for a replacement to Inspire Competence + the pathfinderdb archetype could still fit the mechanics and flavor you want to get out of your character though.
Concerning Dazing Assault, if you've got any weapon with reach, trip and lots of attacks of opportunity (say, a two-handed lance or a whip), at this level you'll be raining attacks upon enemies closing range to get you or trying to get up... and we're talking about a lot of free attack rolls at your full BAB (even at -5) when it's not even your turn to act.
We had a trip-and-teamwork-feats focused TWF ranger + animal companion duo using this feat, and it wasn't pretty for enemies. The average DC is not an issue when you know at least one guy in a fight is statistically going to fail it. The conditions do not stack though, it's always "dazed for 1 round max", not that it's really an issue.
Why the archery hate? Granted I probably will be shot for 'not doing the research' but you lose ammo, so it costs more, so DR penetration costs more... so they made a feat to fix that.Actually, I think Durable Arrows are the real problem. When I played an archer recently, I had an efficient quiver stuffed with Durable Adamantine, Durable Cold Iron, and Durable Mithral arrows in both regular and blunt. Not to mention that Ghost Salt blanch works for 10 arrows, rather than a single hit with a melee weapon.
Even before Clustered Shots, I was better at dealing with DR than anyone else in the party. Actually, I was so ridiculously strong, I offered to change characters before I ever even got Clustered Shots.
Bows typically do 1d8 or 1d6 while melee weapons I see in use do 2d6 or 1d10 and benefit from strength and a half as well without having to buy it that way.An Adaptive Bow costs 1k and adjusts to any strength level. The difference between the average damage of 1d8 vs. 2d6 is 2.5 (4.5 vs. 7). If you have a 22 Strength, your two-handed weapon is dealing 3 more damage from strength than my bow, and say, at level 8, your power attack is dealing 3 more damage than my deadly aim. That's a difference of 8.5 per hit. Oh, except you attack twice (at best) and I shoot 4 arrows a turn, three of them at full BAB.
I also make Full Attacks more because I almost never have to move. And anything I add to attacks (weapon training, smite, favored enemy, weapon spec, weapon enhancement, even pointblank shot) adds to 4 hits instead of 2.
In other words, Archery really is better in every way than melee. I don't really know how I feel about the changes the original poster proposes, though. Personally, I'd rather just remove some or all of: durable arrows, Clustered Shots, Rapid Shot, Many Shot.
Comparing it to two weapon fighting is disingenuous because two weapon fighting has always been a poor option unless you have some sort of...
Well geez man, in the real world archery beat the tar out of melee any day, except when it came to killing knights in mail. Durable arrows seems a bit silly, though. Dunno about the various archery feats.
Which makes the better archer, Fighter or Ranger?
Which makes the better archer, Fighter or Ranger?
Ranger--early access to Improved Precise Shot at 6th seals the deal for me, but I also think Favored Enemy (especially with Instant Enemy later one) and all the Ranger skill bonuses and spells put the Fighter's features to shame.
well, the fighter kinda makes up for that with getting a feat each and every level up. Since feats are the primary ability to amp up weapon abilities, wouldn't a Fighter make the better archer in the long run?
I never could figure out which. Yeah, the Ranger gets better skills easy, but when it comes to comparing how well each would do with arrows, I dunno.
well, the fighter kinda makes up for that with getting a feat each and every level up. Since feats are the primary ability to amp up weapon abilities, wouldn't a Fighter make the better archer in the long run?
No, because there is a finite limit to the number of archery feats that are helpful, and the Ranger can acquire all of them--plus, as I said, they can get Improved Precise Shot 5 levels early.
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Clustered Shots, and Improved Precise Shot. That's the archery feat tree. The Ranger and Fighter can both take all of them--the Ranger by 9th, the Fighter by 11th. Weapon Focus is a minor help, and the Fighter wants Weapon Spec while the Ranger wants Boon Companion. That's pretty much it. Having more feats won't help except maybe Iron Will.
I never could figure out which. Yeah, the Ranger gets better skills easy, but when it comes to comparing how well each would do with arrows, I dunno.
They do about the same with arrows overall, so the Ranger ends up better overall because they get other stuff (including better action economy with a pet, early feat access, spells, and significantly better skills).
well, the fighter kinda makes up for that with getting a feat each and every level up. Since feats are the primary ability to amp up weapon abilities, wouldn't a Fighter make the better archer in the long run?No, because there is a finite limit to the number of archery feats that are helpful, and the Ranger can acquire all of them--plus, as I said, they can get Improved Precise Shot 5 levels early.
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Clustered Shots, and Improved Precise Shot. That's the archery feat tree. The Ranger and Fighter can both take all of them--the Ranger by 9th, the Fighter by 11th. Weapon Focus is a minor help, and the Fighter wants Weapon Spec while the Ranger wants Boon Companion. That's pretty much it. Having more feats won't help except maybe Iron Will.
I never could figure out which. Yeah, the Ranger gets better skills easy, but when it comes to comparing how well each would do with arrows, I dunno.They do about the same with arrows overall, so the Ranger ends up better overall because they get other stuff (including better action economy with a pet, early feat access, spells, and significantly better skills).
don't forget the ranger can ride a roc, and flying archery is pretty ballin.
Just an FYI, but "expanded" should be "expended" in several places in the google doc.
|
|
As an aside, for sheer dps I think an archer fighter becomes better at early 10's levels (snap shot tree, weapon specialization/training and ranged combat maneuvers are nothing to sleeze at); but low level rangers indeed remains better for a long time.
@gherrik: Thanks for pointing these out, I'll correct them later. Sincre english is not my main language I still tend to do these kinds of mistakes. :)
Yes, see that's the problem. Fighters get access to further levels of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization than Rangers ever could. Plus, there's more to archery than just the tree. For example, it's very handy for an archer to have Imp Init and Alertness, just for starters.
Still seems like a nearly even match so far, with the Fighter just ahead of a Ranger when it comes to archery. Especially since there are specialized Fighter archery archetypes in the APG.
Yes, see that's the problem. Fighters get access to further levels of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization than Rangers ever could.
Level 20 Ranger has a +10 favored enemy, which, with the Instant Enemy Spell, grants a +10 to hit and damage to any enemy type (and select one specific enemy to be a Quarry and get a +4 to hit on top of that).
A level 20 Fighter has Weapon Training 4, Gloves of Dueling, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Spec, which ends up +8 to hit and +10 damage, so uh, that's not as good as the Ranger.
And I only used one third level spell. If I really cared, I could dig through all of them and come up with even more buffs.
Oh, yeah, and the Ranger has a pet that also gets +10 to hit and damage...
Plus, there's more to archery than just the tree. For example, it's very handy for an archer to have Imp Init and Alertness, just for starters.
Everyone benefits from Improved Initiative, true, but Alertness is pretty worthless--why would you mention that lousy feat?
Still seems like a nearly even match so far, with the Fighter just ahead of a Ranger when it comes to archery. Especially since there are specialized Fighter archery archetypes in the APG.
The specialized archer is pretty lame--I'd rather be a core fighter, honestly, since they give up Armor Training for the lame ability to use Combat Maneuvers at range. Combat Maneuvers are pretty crappy in general (except for Dirty Trick and Grapple), so I do not consider this to be a worthwhile trade.
I would say that the Ranger is equal to the Fighter in archery (it's initially identical, then the Ranger gets early access to Improved Precise Shot while the Fighter gets more raw bonuses to hit and damage) until they get the Instant Enemy Spell--then the Ranger passes the Fighter for good.
And that's in combat with archery. The Ranger is always 1585481976 miles ahead of the fighter out of combat.
That favored enemy thing is nice, but it doesn't often apply. Therefore, it cannot be considered in comparing the two.
I mentioned Alertness simply because most of the time, an archer wants lots of distance between himself and his opponent, and that won't happen unless he SEES the opponent first.
I gotta more serious question for you personally. Why are you so combative and generally hostile? What is your beef?
That favored enemy thing is nice, but it doesn't often apply. Therefore, it cannot be considered in comparing the two.
Instant Enemy makes it apply all the time.
I mentioned Alertness simply because most of the time, an archer wants lots of distance between himself and his opponent, and that won't happen unless he SEES the opponent first.
A +2 or +4 to perception is not worth a feat.
I gotta more serious question for you personally. Why are you so combative and generally hostile? What is your beef?
I think you read a hostile and combative tone into my words that is not intended. I generally have fun when I debate and I type everything with a light-hearted smirk.
Also note that I actually think a great deal of RAW is ridiculous and I houserule constantly to fix how stupid it can get. I mostly argue RAW positions with my tongue in cheek, specifically to show the folly of slavishly sticking to RAW, and maybe to encourage writers to be a little more careful about the implications of what they write.
@Piccolo: Peace dude, personally I didn't see any hostility in mplindustries's posts.
I have, this is not the first time I read him simply snapping at people on a pin drop. Makes a man feel like he's walking on eggshells just to say hello!
If this is not what you intend, you MUST start watching your language and learning how to express your emotions and intent better via typeface. I have found that it's easy for one's emotions to creep into what we type, and overly color what we write. You must recall that online naturally involves much more drama, simply because the littlest things get exaggerated via typeface and misunderstandings abound.
I kinda like doing ranged combat maneuvers, and there's more to the archetype than that.
Eh, your mileage may vary, but I am not a hardcore munchkin/power gamer/optimizer. I actually want to make the game stats reflect what I want to accomplish, and that's generally having fun.
For example, I told a player of mine to take the extra skill point instead of the hp, because to be perfectly honest skills are so much more fun to play.
I have, this is not the first time I read him simply snapping at people on a pin drop.
???? Uh, what?
For example, I told a player of mine to take the extra skill point instead of the hp, because to be perfectly honest skills are so much more fun to play.
I don't see why this would go against optimization in any way. Skills are more fun, but they're also generally more useful than a single hit point anyway (yet another reason Ranger > Fighter).
That favored enemy thing is nice, but it doesn't often apply. Therefore, it cannot be considered in comparing the two.Instant Enemy makes it apply all the time.
While IE is awesome and IMHO overpowered and badly designed, how often it applies depend heavily on gaming style. First of until 10th level it's very expensive to use at all (a wand costs a whole 7th level characters WBL and a scroll costs 750 for one use), and even at 10th level it's just once per day. And that's like 3/4th of the way through an AP. And even over 10th level, those wands are pretty expensive and are activated as standard actions.
So if you generally have just a few enemies to fight each day, and you're at high levels, it may apply more or less all the time. But until very high levels, any encounter with 5+ enemies will mean three or four of those will never be Instant Enemies.
I also think instant enemy has some weird effect where it doesn't work if you're already designated someone as a favored enemy. So you basically need to pick your favorite enemy at 1st level to be your true FE, and then you have to choose rare enemies you WON'T fight for all your other FE's.
Because if you pick Human as your main choice, rising to +10, and you pick Undead as your second choice and Dragon as your third, those will never rise beyond +2 and undeads and dragons will be immune to instant enemy.
So yeah, at level 20 if you managed to go the first 10 levels with just a single useful favored enemy (the others being like humanoid (merfolk) and similar) it'll be up every time you meet single enemies, but even then if you meet something like three mariliths you'll have to either waste most of your instant enemies for the day on that single encounter (and that's including using level 4 spell slots for it).
Rangers are simply not as good as Fighters are at being archers. It's the truth, in a system where feats dictate one's weapon abilities for the most part. Even moreso when you add in the archer archetype. As Ilja mentions, that Ranger spell isn't as wonderful as some here think.
Me, I rather like the idea of disarming someone at long distance. Pretty handy when encountering a wand user!
All of this said, I can't imagine personally enjoying a Fighter much, unless I had a really enjoyable personality in mind, like the time I made a Fighter Troll back in 3.5. He was totally cowardly when it regarded fire and acid, but oblivious to everything else. His idea of quelling a riot was basically murdering everyone who seemed to be participating... and frequently argued with fae over very silly things.
Granted, I don't much personally enjoy Rangers using archetypes, as I feel the class is inherently pragmatic and thus wouldn't want to specialize for fear of being hosed over like Ilja wrote about. Classic Rangers tend to be more than a mite cautious, even paranoid, overprepare if possible, etc. They're used to Murphy's Law being in force.
Of course, that's just fluff.
Fighters strike me as more of a war archer, and Rangers as more of scouting archer. Fighters dish out damage much more easily with a bow than a Ranger does, but Rangers are more skill heavy and thus scouting.