Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fractal 01-06-05, 04:22 AM	So, the Core PHB Fighter is largely regarded to have two primary flaws. One, it's front-loaded, and two, it's underpowered at mid/high levels. It also has almost nothing it can really call its own. So, with these in mind, and considering the main features of the Core Fighter (Unparalleled proficiency with weapons and armor, and bonus feats), here is my Alternate Fighter. I am leaving the skill list alone, although perhaps that deserves consideration too. Alternate Fighter: D10 HD Full BAB Good Fortitude Save, Poor Reflex and Will Saves 2+Int skill points/level Level Ability 1 Bonus Feat 2 Armored Efficiency +1 3 Bonus Feat 4 Weapon Specialization +2 5 Bonus Feat 6 Armored Defense +1 7 Bonus Feat 8 Improved Weapon Focus +2 9 Bonus Feat 10 Armored Efficiency +2 11 Bonus Feat 12 Weapon Specialization +4 13 Bonus Feat 14 Armored Defense +2 15 Bonus Feat 16 Improved Weapon Focus +3 17 Bonus Feat 18 Armored Efficiency +3 19 Bonus Feat 20 Weapon Specialization +6 Bonus Feat: The Fighter may pick a bonus feat from the list of Fighter feats. All requirements for the feat must still be met. The Fighter gains a new bonus feat at every odd Fighter level. Armored Efficiency: At level 2, a Fighter's experience moving while in armor allows him to accomplish physical tasks more easily. The total armor check penalty for a Fighter using armor and/or a shield is reduced by 1. At levels 10 and 18, the Fighter's armor check penalty is reduced by another point. Weapon Specialization: At level 4, a Fighter improves her mastery of the weapons she has focused upon. Whenever a Fighter makes an attack with a weapon for which she possesses the Weapon Focus feat, it deals an additional 2 points of damage. This bonus damage improves to +4 and then +6 at Fighter levels 12 and 20. Armored Defense: At level 6, a Fighter's combat training allows him to present a more active defense even when encumbered by armor. The maximum Dexterity bonus to AC of a Fighter's armor is improved by +1. At level 14, it improves by an additional +1. Improved Weapon Focus: At level 8, a Fighter's accuracy with her focused weapons improves further. The attack bonus granted by Weapon Focus feats improves from +1 to +2. At level 16, it improves again, to +3. Why the special armor abilities, you ask? Well, the Fighter class is unique in having the best armor and shield proficiencies of any class, while having no class features hurt by them (Cleric and Paladin are close). So, why not encourage a Fighter to actually use those abilities, by making heavier armor a little bit more appealing? I changed the mechanic for Weapon Focus and Specialization because I would like to see Fighters that know how to use more than one kind of weapon. One of my Alternate Fighters does have to invest several feats if he wants to use effective TWF with longsword/shortsword, while simultaneously being skilled with the bow, but at least WF/WS don't take everything. Anyway, I think I've managed to fix both the front-loaded issue (this Fighter is fairly uniform in class abilities), and the under-powered complaint (compared to other non-spellcasters) without making the Fighter broken. However, perhaps that's not for me to judge. What does everyone else think?
Rialto 01-06-05, 04:49 AM	I like it. It seems well thought and pretty much balanced. :) Yes, definitely a Fighter now.
Nyferto 01-06-05, 06:56 AM	How exactly did you reduce the front loading? No cost to armour improvemnts? Fighter has to take WF in a weapon to get most of those benefits. So basically we load up on Weapon Focus feats and get large benefits with those. Do the normal feats stack with the benefits of those class features? This seems to be just focusing the Fighter on what is was never a good idea to do in the first place - focus on weapons.
sarnlaugsson 01-06-05, 08:29 AM	I like it. Nyferto: If you want a fighter with 4 skill points per level, take a human fighter with int score of 12 or even 13. Or other races and int score of 14 or 15.
Bladesinger Boy 01-06-05, 09:53 AM	I say, a fighter's Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats bounses should be equal to 1/4 their Fighter level rounded down, with a min of 1 for Focus and 2 for specialization. This gives it's an extra +1 to hit and damage every 4 levels really helping those 16th and 20th lvl fighters, and eliminating the need to take Greater Focus or Greater Specialization and therefore freeing up those feats a Fighter should have. If these were implemented, it would be actually reasonable at higher levels for a Fighter to be well proficient in both a melee and a ranged weapon (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical for each one) instead of WF, WS, GrWF, GrWS, ImpCrit. That considered, I also think there should be new feats that a Fighter can only take after 10th, 14th, and 18th lvl (offset to the 1/4 level bonuses). Maybe something like... TWO WEAPON FLURRY: full strength bonus in off hand, reduce twf penalties by 2 SPEAR FIGHTING: attack adjacent targets with reach weapons, spears finesseable IRONWALL STYLE: when fighting tower shield and a light weapon, reduce tower shield to hit penalty by 2 (to zero), increased allowed dex by 1 (to 3) DUELING STANCE: when fighting one-handed finessable, extra attack at highest bab QUICKGUARD STYLE: only -2 to hit fighting defensively, +2AC for dodge, Combat Expertise with only bab cap
Nyferto 01-06-05, 12:15 PM	They'd be better off as expanded tactical feats. I changed the mechanic for Weapon Focus and Specialization because I would like to see Fighters that know how to use more than one kind of weapon. One of my Alternate Fighters does have to invest several feats if he wants to use effective TWF with longsword/shortsword, while simultaneously being skilled with the bow, but at least WF/WS don't take everything. It's called picking up a different weapon and taking different feats.
fractal 01-06-05, 02:08 PM	It's called picking up a different weapon and taking different feats. Yes, but spending 12 feats just to take advantage of the Fighter specialization ability in three different weapons seems ridiculous. That's even before you take the feats for each combat style! I think spending one feat (WF) to master a given weapon is plenty, and then the rest can be spent on combat styles (PBS, PA, TWF, etc). I realize I did not state it explicitly, but with my alternate Fighter, the feats of Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization no longer exist. They have been subsumed by the class features of the same names.
Arcane Guyver 01-06-05, 08:21 PM	This is better than most fighter fixes I've seen or come up with. I love Armored Efficiency; the heavy armor most fighters wear tend to screw over their skill checks, at least early on...making this a level 2 ability not only alieviates this a little, it also kills the irritating two level Fighter dip. I will be using this in my game, along with something to spruce up the skills: the fighter picks three out of a list of skills to be in-class. The list: Bluff, Concentration, Diplomacy, Heal, Knowledge (architecture and engineering, history, nobility and royalty), Perform, Profession, Sense Motive. Cheers
Zucrous 01-06-05, 08:47 PM	I kinda like where you are going with this. But I have a few questions. What about people that like the idea of a fighter but on more of a finessable level. next, I prefer fighter archers over ranger archers, what would they get. I love the ideas you are bring up but maybe making them more focused in later levels would a good idea, basically giving them kinda a prestige class feel at later levels. I personally didnt find much wrong with the fighter before, except that one; people complained about it, and two; that it was too foucused in combat. Possibly giving them something that allows for them to bring out the best in their party during combat. strategy stuff, or something like the paladins aura of courage or the bard's inspire courage (although not as powerful perhaps). I dont know but this really intrigued me
Arcane Guyver 01-06-05, 09:03 PM	Finesse fighters = Swashbuckler (another class that seriously needs touching up) As for archers...I think Armored Defense should be changed to something like Armored Mobility, and have it just increase the Max Dex of armor worn. Then archers could wear heavier armor. I honestly thought that's what Armored Defense did in my first read-through.
Nyferto 01-07-05, 03:45 AM	Yes, but spending 12 feats just to take advantage of the Fighter specialization ability in three different weapons seems ridiculous. That's even before you take the feats for each combat style! I think spending one feat (WF) to master a given weapon is plenty, and then the rest can be spent on combat styles (PBS, PA, TWF, etc). I realize I did not state it explicitly, but with my alternate Fighter, the feats of Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization no longer exist. They have been subsumed by the class features of the same names. Actually, if you only want to do that, then you can actually do that, but it's not what I was talking about. I was talking about taking feats other than WF and relying more on doing more damage continuously, like hitting them with a bow before they get into melee range, then hitting them with melee weapons and retreating to ranged range (?). I don't know where you get your assessments from, but you've got poorly constructed solution. Similar to what Zucros says, you're assuming things of Fighters, based on what people who don't like Fighters - and can't make good ones say. I suggest you run a few theoretical ones by, and see what they have in common. The best revision i've ever seen was actually very dull. It switched out versatility for pure mechanical (but generic) ability.
fractal 01-07-05, 03:56 AM	As for archers...I think Armored Defense should be changed to something like Armored Mobility, and have it just increase the Max Dex of armor worn. Then archers could wear heavier armor. I honestly thought that's what Armored Defense did in my first read-through. The maximum Dexterity bonus of armor only applies to AC anyway. If you have a 30 Dex and wear normal full plate, you'll only have an AC of 19. However, you will still have +10 to Initiative, +10 to Reflex Saves, and +10 to Ranged attack rolls.
fractal 01-07-05, 04:00 AM	I was talking about taking feats other than WF and relying more on doing more damage continuously, like hitting them with a bow before they get into melee range, then hitting them with melee weapons and retreating to ranged range (?). This is quite possible with my Alternate Fighter. You might choose to spend a feat for Weapon Focus to gain the benefits on your primary attack (and you can opt to use another feat to gain them on your secondary attack as well - not an option with the Core Fighter), but you certainly don't have to. In either case, there are plenty of other bonus feats remaining for appropriate ranged and melee abilities.
Arcane Guyver 01-07-05, 06:51 PM	The maximum Dexterity bonus of armor only applies to AC anyway. If you have a 30 Dex and wear normal full plate, you'll only have an AC of 19. However, you will still have +10 to Initiative, +10 to Reflex Saves, and +10 to Ranged attack rolls. :OMG! Wow. I've been playing wrong for long now.
DM Denubis 01-07-05, 09:50 PM	No offense, but in my opinion, you're forcing a very versatile class into one slot and calling it an improvement. The Fighter is one of the most versatile classes around, just because of its feats. Sure, he's never going to be great at stealth, but then again, he is a fighter. But honestly, no two level 20 fighters have to be the same. They could have completely different builds, completely different specialties. For example, you could have a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Spike Chain, and Improved Disarm at level one, granted he's a human. And, standing right next to him, you could have a fighter with Monkey Grip, which he uses in conjunction with EWP - Gythka and Two Weapon Fighting to deal 3d6/3d6 damage. There are heavy fighters, who take Power Attack and the like, and there are light fighters who take Spring Attack, and such. There are archers, and battlefield controllers. Basically, what you've done is taken away a feat, and stuck fighters with a feat they may or may not need, and reduced the versatility of the class. If you want a fighter to be excellent with more than one weapon, look at Weapon Group rulings in Unearthed Arcana. It's a great rule, really. Basically, if you take Weapon Focus (Axes) you get Weapon focus with just about every axe known to man. But this fix is a bad idea in my opinion. If you want nothing but damage, my advice to you is not to play a fighter. Barbarian gets that job done much better, expecially when coupled with the Frenzied Berserker. Anyhow, I'm done ranting. Just my opinion, DM Denubis
fractal 01-08-05, 01:23 AM	Basically, what you've done is taken away a feat, and stuck fighters with a feat they may or may not need, and reduced the versatility of the class. It's only half a feat. On odd levels you have exactly the same number, on even levels you're down one. Assuming, that is, that otherwise you would never spend any feats on Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Focus. No offense, but in my opinion, you're forcing a very versatile class into one slot and calling it an improvement. If you want nothing but damage, my advice to you is not to play a fighter. Barbarian gets that job done much better, expecially when coupled with the Frenzied Berserker. I appreciate the feedback, however, I don't think that I have forced the versatile Fighter into only one slot, nor that I have given nothing but damage. For one thing, my Alternate Fighter is only down half a feat from the core Fighter. That means all of the other feats are still available for customizing. There are heavy fighters, who take Power Attack and the like, and there are light fighters who take Spring Attack, and such. There are archers, and battlefield controllers. Heavy Fighters benefit from feats, of course. They almost always wear armor, which benefits from Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense. And, like all Fighters, they make attack rolls and try to deal damage, which benefit from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Light Fighters often wear armor, and benefit from higher max Dexterities. They also usually make attack rolls and try to deal damage. Archers often wear armor, and also benefit from higher max Dexterities. They also make attack rolls and try to deal damage, and with a fairly predictable collection of weapons. Battlefield controllers... wear armor and make attack rolls. See a pattern here? I think my Alternate Fighter makes it easier to play both versatile and specialized Fighters, as well as making the Fighter better at those abilities unique to the Fighter class (Weapon Specialization and Heavy Armor/Shield use). Still, I suppose if you were playing a character that didn't care about the unique abilities of Fighters, particularly just dipping two levels for the bonus feats, then this change isn't very beneficial.
Xeviat-DM 01-08-05, 01:46 AM	Zucrous and other people who don't think this change will help finesse fighters. Normally, at Dex 30, the fighter no longer wants to wear armor. Even padded armor (+1 AC, +8 Dex) will hurt the fighter at this point (reducing their AC to 19 instead of 20). This +2 to max dex will increase that cap to 34, when the new padded armor (+1 AC, +10 Dex) will hurt the fighter. And considering what it takes to get a 34 Dex (starting 18, +6 item, +5 wishes or manual, +5 from levels), no fighter will have to go armorless. Armored Efficiency is less of a benefit to most lightly armored characters, but that's a small price to pay for super Dex and unhindered movement.
Xeviat-DM 01-09-05, 11:39 PM	When I first saw your fighter, I wasn't sure I could use it in my games. But after taking the time to consider it more and more, I really, really, really like it. As you have pointed out, weapon specialization is fighter only and might as well be a fighter class ability. You also touched upon other aspects of the Fighter class that I haven't seen others consider in such a way as you did. What I am asking is if I can use this Fighter on my website. I intend on having it up this summer, complete with art and short stories and current campaign information. I would like your help adapting your Fighter to my setting, which uses an alternate Proficiency system (I had previously used the alternate Proficiency system to empower fighters). My sistem grants every class a number of proficiency feats at first level, and an additional proficiency feat every time their BAB reaches a multiple of 4. Proficiency feats include weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, shield proficiencies, and other feats which apply to a specific weapon (power critical, improved critical, weapon focus, excetra). Fighters get 8 proficiencies and all simple weapons. Barbarians and Knights get 6 proficiencies and all simple weapons. Rogues, Clerics, and Druids get 4 proficiencies. Savants and Sorcerers get 2 proficiencies. Wizards and Psions get 1 proficiency. I may have to change this quite a bit. Your system provides what my system tries to provide too. I'd like to incorperate your Fighter into my games, but I require some assistance from another designer. Are you interested? (I would have sent this via PM or Email, but your PMs are full and email is blocked)
fractal 01-15-05, 05:20 AM	When I first saw your fighter, I wasn't sure I could use it in my games. But after taking the time to consider it more and more, I really, really, really like it. Thanks! :) I'm still hoping for more feedback, but it seems like it should work pretty well, discouraging level dipping a bit, while solidifying the power of Fighters at mid-level and above. With luck, I'll be able to get it tested in a local campaign soon. (I would have sent this via PM or Email, but your PMs are full and email is blocked) Yeah, I fixed the PM's and sent you one.
Scarlet Knight 01-29-05, 03:14 PM	I really like this varient a lot. I especially like what you did with Weapon Specialization. This class solves a lot of the problems I have with the fighter class: too many "empty" levels, very few unique abilities, and over-reliance on a single weapon in which the player had invested many feats. I think that I may even replace the standard fighter with this varient in the next campaign I run. Armor Efficiency and Armor Defense seem like nice abilities, but I don't see either of them as particularly impressive. I think fighters need a better ability than Armor Efficiency at second level. I may even go as far as to combine Armor Efficiency and Armor Defense as a single ability, which fighters would gain at level 6 and improve by 1 at level 14. At levels 2, 10 and 18, I think I may simply give fighters a +1, +2 and +3 bonus to AC whenever they are wearing armor. This would increase the power of fighters considerably, but I think that compared to the abilities of barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues and spell-casters, it wouldn't do more than bring them to par.
Wargamer 01-29-05, 03:16 PM	As I am firmly in the camp of "There is nothing wrong with the Fighter", I don't like this one bit.
Kru 02-06-05, 09:15 PM	Although i personally don't think there is much wrong with the PHB fighter, i like this design a lot. IMO it allows the fighter to be more versatile in the long run, as per what fractal said Heavy Fighters benefit from feats, of course. They almost always wear armor, which benefits from Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense. And, like all Fighters, they make attack rolls and try to deal damage, which benefit from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Light Fighters often wear armor, and benefit from higher max Dexterities. They also usually make attack rolls and try to deal damage. Archers often wear armor, and also benefit from higher max Dexterities. They also make attack rolls and try to deal damage, and with a fairly predictable collection of weapons. Battlefield controllers... wear armor and make attack rolls. See a pattern here? This system makes a little more sense logically to me. The fighter learns how to use a particular weapon well (weapon focus). However, the fighter also knows how to cause the most damage or fight in a certain style (regardless of the weapon), thus a fighter can apply his fighting skills to all his trained-on weapons. This allows the fighter to focus more on specializing his combat strategies. He doesn't have to learn over and over again how to swing his bastard sword well while still not knowing how to use a longsword efficiently. I like it fractal
Arcane Guyver 02-06-05, 11:19 PM	I've been using this variant in my game for over a month now. The guys who like to play Fighters were a little hesitant, due to no bonus feat at level 2. But oh, once they realised how great the armor check penalty reduction is, they stopped complaining. I can't recommend this version of the Fighter enough.
fractal 02-07-05, 04:01 AM	Scarlet Knight and Kru, thank you for the compliments, I'm glad you like the class. Arcane Guyver, I'm delighted to hear that you've been using it. Any other observations to make? How many weapons have your players typically been focusing on? Wargamer, do you dislike my Alternate Fighter because you think it is overpowered, because you think the abilities are inappropriate, or just because "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?
Arhra 02-07-05, 04:15 AM	I like it too. I think the only problem might be that it doesn't fit certain builds. Then again, increased max dex is always nice. It can be just as advantageous for a high dex fighter who's wearing lighter armour as for the full plate clad guy.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-07-05, 10:39 AM	I think this is the single best re-design I've seen for the fighter class. I'll definitely run it by my gaming group for consideration. Just about the only adjustment I'd have to make is, because we don't use max dex for armor (we use the encumbrance rules instead), the Armored Defense ability would instead be an increase to the armor bonus. Great job!
Arcane Guyver 02-07-05, 11:27 AM	So far, the Fighters have been Focusing on one weapon (one Longbow, the other Dwarven Waraxe). Either this is because they don't realize that they get bonuses to all weapons they have WF for, or they're just more concerned about using their feats to be better fighters, not damage dealers with multiple weapons.
Nyferto 02-07-05, 12:14 PM	That's probably more like it. Assuming it is balanced to other classes, it practicaly forces people to take WF or fall behind, and if you take WF then you're crippling the ammount of tactics you can apply across your weapons. At least Armoured efficiency doesn't have the same limitation.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-09-05, 06:15 PM	Assuming it is balanced to other classes, it practicaly forces people to take WF or fall behind, and if you take WF then you're crippling the ammount of tactics you can apply across your weapons. Yes and no. The PHB.ftr class gives you 11 bonus feats to spend how you like. One of the nicer things about that class is that it is the only one with access to WS, GWF, and GWS. Many players dip into it for four levels just to acquire WS. This ALT.ftr forfeits exactly one bonus feat (of your choosing) and replaces it with 10 decent, yet hardly over-powered, class features. Five of them are previously unseen, three are PHB feats that would be feats no longer, and two are extrapolations of GWF and GWS. Yes, it'd be in your best interest to take WF at least once, to take advantage of those five class features. Heck, with this alt, it's actually worth it to take WF twice and be very good with two weapons (or weapon groups, if you use the UA variant). It'd be nice to start seeing longsword/dagger TWFighting styles again, instead of the ubiquitous two shortswords... or a melee specialization and a ranged specialization with the same character. This ALT.ftr makes it infinitely less painful to do so. Does forfeiting one bonus feat really cripple your tactical options? Keep in mind that it's forfeited at 2nd level, when the better feats aren't even available to a low-level character. I also applaud this class because it effectively cuts out the two-level dippers. Some would still dip for four levels, but you can't have everything...
Mirror, Mirror 02-09-05, 06:50 PM	First, as others know, I tend to think the class is fine as it is. Second, this does not have too many unbalancing aspects, but is a general power-up. Third, this makes dex more important to fighters, increasing the chances of MAD (not really, but slightly) Fourth, I have made characters with multiple specilizations, and that is feat intensive. This does make it easier to do so, and cheaper. It will help to actually diversify the fighter, allowing him direct bonuses to his fighting while freeing up feats for tactical feats. Fifth, is this fighter, hands down, better than the barbarian? With bonus class abilities at the cost of a single feat, and so many more to play with, and better AC and less AP, is this fighter a better option than the barbarian? If so, it's over-powered. Scaling up a weak class may help some balance, but making it better than the current king of damage-dealing, straight up combat is just adding to power creep. Think about it. The barb does one thing, and does it well. If the fighter did the same, why take a barb? If the fighter could do the same AND have more options open to him, the barb is toast (as a class). The fighter's strength is in versatility and tactics, the barb's in pure combat (att/dmg). If the fighter were forced to give up, say, heavy armor prof., at 1st level, that would help even things out a bit.
Arcane Guyver 02-09-05, 07:08 PM	From what I've seen in play and on paper, I still think the Barb can own this Fighter (with their stupidly powerful Rage), but it'll take more effort than it currently does. The built-in Specialization is almost as good as Rage, and the Barb will still shame the Fighter with their skills (Armored Efficiency lets them suck just a little less in that department). As for the Dex boost to AC...well, three things: 1) Attack bonuses tend to surpass defense bonuses in short order, 2) MAD will keep the bonus in check, and 3) Fighters really should be harder to hit than Clerics.
fractal 02-09-05, 09:30 PM	Second, this does not have too many unbalancing aspects, but is a general power-up. Yes, raising the power level of mid-upper level single classed Fighters was intentional. Third, this makes dex more important to fighters, increasing the chances of MAD (not really, but slightly) A little bit, but given the existence of stat boosting items at upper levels, I think it just gives Fighters a bit more options concerning how much armor they wear. I don't think it particularly places pressure on heavy armor Fighters to devote higher stats or stat improvements to Dex. Fourth, I have made characters with multiple specilizations, and that is feat intensive. This does make it easier to do so, and cheaper. It will help to actually diversify the fighter, allowing him direct bonuses to his fighting while freeing up feats for tactical feats. Yeah, that was one of the goals. Thank you. Fifth, is this fighter, hands down, better than the barbarian? With bonus class abilities at the cost of a single feat, and so many more to play with, and better AC and less AP, is this fighter a better option than the barbarian? If so, it's over-powered. Scaling up a weak class may help some balance, but making it better than the current king of damage-dealing, straight up combat is just adding to power creep. If my Alternate Fighter were better overall than the Barbarian at what the Barbarian does, then I would agree that that is a problem. Luckily, I don't think that he is. Let's look at a level 20 Fighter/level 20 Barbarian (I think lower levels would be similar), using two-handed weapons and the heaviest convenient armor. Who wins on... Damage? Tie, both have +6 dam. Attack? Barbarian (+4, option of +5 with WF, Fighter only has +3). AC? Fighter (up to about 4 points better if both wear Mithral Plate) DR? Barbarian (5/-, Fighter could get 3/- with Adamantine Plate) HP? Barbarian (+21, and 80 extra when Raging) Saves? Barbarian (+6 Trap Sense for Reflex, +4 Will (+8 vs Enchantment) and +4 Fortitude when Raging) Combat Tricks and Versatility? Fighter (16 available feats vs a Barbarian's 7 + Fast Movement and Improved Uncanny Dodge) Skills? Barbarian (More class skills and more points per level, Armored Mobility helps but cannot really compensate) Staying Power? Fighter (Rages (eventually) run out, although Barbarian does have more HP) I actually think these match up pretty well. Sure, the Fighter could do something else instead, but then he's not actually competing with the Barbarian any more. Think about it. The barb does one thing, and does it well. If the fighter did the same, why take a barb? If the fighter could do the same AND have more options open to him, the barb is toast (as a class). The fighter's strength is in versatility and tactics, the barb's in pure combat (att/dmg). I would really disagree with you. The Barbarian can do a lot of things well. It shouldn't be a problem if a Fighter can also do things well. If the fighter were forced to give up, say, heavy armor prof., at 1st level, that would help even things out a bit. I don't actually know how this would help anything. The primary effect would just be to shift more people into Mithral Full Plate instead of Adamantine Full Plate. I fail to see how that's really a benefit.
Scarlet Knight 02-09-05, 09:41 PM	I wouldn't even mind if Fighters were slightly superior to Barbarians in melee combat. Barbarians have more and better skills than Fighters, and Rage allows them to perform incredible feats of strength (so they are better at bending bars, busting locks, pushing boulders, ect.) Why shouldn't the Fighter be the best at fighting?
Nyferto 02-10-05, 10:09 AM	They are, they have a better all round base and are far more flexible when it comes to application. Barbarians pretty much have to Rage to match the effectiveness, and even then it's only a mild compensation for a spread of feats. As for the WF thing, WF is worse than Rage, because Rage can usually provide benefits inspite of the weapon you're using. With this version you're simply more hard hitting but less versatile, especially if you use a variety of weapons. As for the Sword and Dagger Fighting thing, does it really matter? You could use the combination without WS and simply play on the options of the Sword and the Dagger, well Sword doesn't have many options, but you get the idea. Flail and Dagger would be a better combination and you don't need the WF tree to get something out of those weapons. I'll try building a character with this version and compare it to a normal fighter. The real problem is that I am practically forced to take WF with at least one weapon.
Mirror, Mirror 02-10-05, 10:23 AM	Mithral full plate, despite counting as medium armor, is still heavy armor as far as feats are concerned. All negating the 1st level heavy armor prof does is stop front-loading the fighter so much and chewing up a feat along the way for the heavily armored fighter. In essence, it will encourage less mithral full plate and more adamantium breastplate. It's just an idea, though. I think it helps diversify the fighter, overall.
Nyferto 02-10-05, 10:31 AM	Armour Proficiency isnt' a bonus Fighter Feat. Also, what stops people still taking only 4 levels of Fighter and geting the WS tree for free and then some?
Krynus Ogrebane 02-10-05, 11:41 AM	Armour Proficiency isnt' a bonus Fighter Feat. True, because fighters currently get proficiency with all armors and shields (including tower shield). If the starting weapon/armor proficiencies didn't include everything, I have no doubt that those would be on a fighter's bonus list. Also, what stops people still taking only 4 levels of Fighter and geting the WS tree for free and then some? Taking only four levels of this fighter, and a WF feat, would only grant a +2 bonus to damage with that focused weapon. Full stop. Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization would cease to exist, as feats, if this ALT.ftr replaced the PHB.ftr (i.e.- there would no longer be a WF tree). They'd be exclusive class features of the fighter.
Arcane Guyver 02-10-05, 12:19 PM	Not sure what's so hard to understand about this fighter. You sacrifice two bonus feats (one for WF) and auto-gain the effects of three Specialization feats and two Greater Focus feats. A net gain of three supposed feat-quality bonuses. Make that eight if you Focus in a second weapon. Might seem powerful, but you can normally only wield two weapons at most, and the ability is ineffective without the right weapon in hand (balancing it out a bit). And here's the mindblowing bit - to enjoy fighter benefits, you actually have to be a fighter for more than a couple levels. Shocking! :P
Mirror, Mirror 02-10-05, 12:45 PM	Not sure what's so hard to understand about this fighter. You sacrifice two bonus feats (one for WF) and auto-gain the effects of three Specialization feats and two Greater Focus feats. A net gain of three supposed feat-quality bonuses. Make that eight if you Focus in a second weapon. Might seem powerful, but you can normally only wield two weapons at most, and the ability is ineffective without the right weapon in hand (balancing it out a bit). And here's the mindblowing bit - to enjoy fighter benefits, you actually have to be a fighter for more than a couple levels. Shocking! :P And I agree that is is currently very easy to just take a couple levels of fighter and PrC into something more powerful. This does provide an incentive to being a straight fighter. However, I'm afraid that this fighter will be better than the barbarian, which would be a bad thing. The damage output is the same, and while the fighter does have 2 less to-hit bonuses, the barb also have a -2AC when raging. In a vs situation, the odds even out. Barb's have more skills, but fighters still have better combat tricks. Barb's have more HP's, but an equally built fighter should have more AC (3 more, to be exact, before anything like shields are considered). Barb's have DR, which is great. Mabey this just makes the raw power equal, but I've seen fighters that could best barb's using current rules. This general power-up may be just a bit too much... I would love to see or personally playtest this varient to see how it stood up against equal CR encounters. If it survives, it might be too much... :thinks:
jaelis 02-10-05, 12:50 PM	I'll try building a character with this version and compare it to a normal fighter. The real problem is that I am practically forced to take WF with at least one weapon. What are these feat builds you like so much that you can't afford to give up two feats in exchange for nicely scaling bonuses to offense and defense? jaelis
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-10-05, 12:58 PM	Looking over it I think this is an excellent fix for the Fighter. It opens up many avenues which were previously unavailable to the fighter, which is true mastery of different weapons and mastery of different combat groups simultaniously. Now someone who wants to master the bow can afford to get all their bow feats, and master both the short and longbow. Or a throwing master can master their ranged feats, and also master their throwing axes, javelins, daggers, and shurikens (if they go overboard) and be decent. Also the mounted fighter can master his riding feats, and his lance, and then his longsword two (a lance is only really useful once a charge). I think it opens up avenues to allow the fighter to really be diverse and have it show, rather than his diversity meaning that if he wants to be good with multiple weapons he can't use them tactically. The next game I play I'll see if we can adjust it to use this variant.
Origin 02-10-05, 01:47 PM	I as many people in this board have stated, also see nothing wrong with the PHB's fighter, but this is a VERY nice alternative. I read the post about the deletion of the entire WF tree to everyone but the fighter, and that is absolutely perfect for the fighter. It's just like an entirely fighter class-only feat tree, and that evens things out a good deal. I've always, liked the fighter as it was, but this is a really good 'change', not fix. :) Anyways, this is a really good fighter variant. And Nyferto, why are you so negative about this fighter?? So you have 1 less feat. Boo hoo. :(
Kakerate 02-10-05, 02:01 PM	SPEAR FIGHTING: attack adjacent targets with reach weapons, spears finesseable Is that really a feat? I have gotta give that to some orcs that fight the PC's in my game. Brings back memories of Zhang Fei. from the battle of Yi Ling Zhang Bao: I am Zhang Bao, son of Zhang Fei! You shall not pass!
Origin 02-10-05, 02:05 PM	Is that really a feat? I have gotta give that to some orcs that fight the PC's in my game. Brings back memories of Zhang Fei. from the battle of Yi Ling Zhang Bao: I am Zhang Bao, son of Zhang Fei! You shall not pass! Actually, he was just making it up, like a fighter specific feat. Sorry :)
Nyferto 02-11-05, 03:50 AM	Taking only four levels of this fighter, and a WF feat, would only grant a +2 bonus to damage with that focused weapon. Full stop. 1 Bonus Feat 2 Armored Efficiency +1 3 Bonus Feat 4 Weapon Specialization +2 No you could take WF with any class, take 4 levels of this Fighter and get Weapon Specialisation for free, Armoured Efficiency +1 and 2 bonus feats (3 if you count WS). And then you could take WF any number of times and get the benefits for free. Whilst with a normal Fighter you'd get 3 bonus feats (without getting WS for free). Looking back, many of my 20th Fighters took WF at least once or twice, but when you consider the CW, other books and some other peoples Fighters, I pretty much have to drop some feats for WF because it's now such a powerful feat. What's worse is that the WF tree reduces the point and benefit of some other feats, it may actually become better to completely forget trying to do anything fancy because if it fails you might as well as just hit everyone (because WF is now so much more powerful). Going full Fighter is either something you want to do, or were never interested with in the first place. WS isn't that hot a feat, especially when you consider it's been dowplayed by the benefits of other clases and feats in the shift to 3.5. More powergamers will really only take 2 levels of the Fighter and other classes to get into some suped up PrC because the rush of feats is about all they need to compensate some other class. 12 Barb/8 was already circumstantially better than most 20th Barbs. Now it's practically garunteed, and that's just the Barbarian. Apply it to Monks and Rangers, EK and others beside.
fractal 02-11-05, 04:37 AM	No you could take WF with any class, take 4 levels of this Fighter and get Weapon Specialisation for free, Armoured Efficiency +1 and 2 bonus feats (3 if you count WS). And then you could take WF any number of times and get the benefits for free. Whilst with a normal Fighter you'd get 3 bonus feats (without getting WS for free). Sure, but why stop with 4 levels of Fighter? Why not take a 5th and get another bonus feat? A 6th level will increase your max Dex bonus. But then a 7th level gets you another bonus feat. If you have one or more WF feats, level 8 will improve all of those. Etc. Sure, multi-classing is still an option, as it should be. However, I think there is no longer an optimum number of levels to dip, as the class is very uniform (or possibly even slightly back-loaded, due to the WF and WS synergy). Looking back, many of my 20th Fighters took WF at least once or twice, but when you consider the CW, other books and some other peoples Fighters, I pretty much have to drop some feats for WF because it's now such a powerful feat. Not many, though. I think it's now much less costly to take advantage of the Fighter's only real unique class feature. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps you think that the WS, GWF, and GWS feats were just supposed to be traps for inexperienced Fighters anyway. Does that not bother you? What's worse is that the WF tree reduces the point and benefit of some other feats, it may actually become better to completely forget trying to do anything fancy because if it fails you might as well as just hit everyone (because WF is now so much more powerful). I don't think this is a major danger. Most Fighter feats synergize well with the ability to hit things and deal damage. Going full Fighter is either something you want to do, or were never interested with in the first place. I'm sorry, but this seems like a pretty meaningless statement. Either you want to do something or you don't? Physical characters have to decide whether to multi-class, PrC, or stay in the class they started with. Hopefully staying straight Fighter past level 2 or 4 or 12 is not as sub par an option now as it was before. WS isn't that hot a feat, especially when you consider it's been dowplayed by the benefits of other clases and feats in the shift to 3.5. More powergamers will really only take 2 levels of the Fighter and other classes to get into some suped up PrC because the rush of feats is about all they need to compensate some other class. Then I don't see a problem with making their choices a bit more challenging. If early levels are less tempting to dip, and later levels are more appealing, those are both effects I would like to have. Do you think those powergamers will still opt to take 2 levels of the Alternate Fighter? 12 Barb/8 was already circumstantially better than most 20th Barbs. Now it's practically garunteed, and that's just the Barbarian. Apply it to Monks and Rangers, EK and others beside. If the Alternate Fighter abilities are fairly uniform across levels (and I think they are), then the reason to take Brb 12/A.Ftr 8 rather than Brb 20 or A.Ftr 20 would be because the Barbarian is front-loaded. Perhaps it is, but my Fighter is not to blame for that. If some classes are front-loaded with abilities that synergize with those of other classes, then it is only natural for multi-classing to be the norm. Anyway, I see nothing worse with Brb 12/A.Ftr 8, than with Brb 12/Ftr 4/Rgr 4, or whatever else people might have chosen to play. I also can't see people leaving Monk, Ranger, or EK for Fighter levels, unless the goal was simply to focus more on fighting at the expense of the other strengths of those classes. If that was what a person wanted to do, isn't that what the ability to multi-class into Fighter is for?
Nyferto 02-11-05, 07:56 AM	Sure, but why stop with 4 levels of Fighter? Why not take a 5th and get another bonus feat? A 6th level will increase your max Dex bonus. But then a 7th level gets you another bonus feat. If you have one or more WF feats, level 8 will improve all of those. Etc. Sure, multi-classing is still an option, as it should be. However, I think there is no longer an optimum number of levels to dip, as the class is very uniform (or possibly even slightly back-loaded, due to the WF and WS synergy). Not many, though. I think it's now much less costly to take advantage of the Fighter's only real unique class feature. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps you think that the WS, GWF, and GWS feats were just supposed to be traps for inexperienced Fighters anyway. Does that not bother you? I don't think this is a major danger. Most Fighter feats synergize well with the ability to hit things and deal damage. I'm sorry, but this seems like a pretty meaningless statement. Either you want to do something or you don't? Physical characters have to decide whether to multi-class, PrC, or stay in the class they started with. Hopefully staying straight Fighter past level 2 or 4 or 12 is not as sub par an option now as it was before. Then I don't see a problem with making their choices a bit more challenging. If early levels are less tempting to dip, and later levels are more appealing, those are both effects I would like to have. Do you think those powergamers will still opt to take 2 levels of the Alternate Fighter? If the Alternate Fighter abilities are fairly uniform across levels (and I think they are), then the reason to take Brb 12/A.Ftr 8 rather than Brb 20 or A.Ftr 20 would be because the Barbarian is front-loaded. Perhaps it is, but my Fighter is not to blame for that. If some classes are front-loaded with abilities that synergize with those of other classes, then it is only natural for multi-classing to be the norm. Anyway, I see nothing worse with Brb 12/A.Ftr 8, than with Brb 12/Ftr 4/Rgr 4, or whatever else people might have chosen to play. I also can't see people leaving Monk, Ranger, or EK for Fighter levels, unless the goal was simply to focus more on fighting at the expense of the other strengths of those classes. If that was what a person wanted to do, isn't that what the ability to multi-class into Fighter is for? Right, first off, as I tried to say. There are people who take 20 levels of Fighter because it is the only way to get what they want. Then there are the other set who were never interested in being a 20th Fighter in the first place, it's just a part of a larger plan. This version doesn't really fix any of those issues, it only changes what you might try to achieve with the class, and you'd get more benefit out of it. To an extent they probably wouldn't like this class because it interferes with things. WS is not the unique class feature, the feats are the unique class feature. Whilst no other class gets the WS tree, they can usually navigate it. Worse yet you give it to them with even less effort. Then if they want the basic benefits of the Fighter - they still get most of that, depending on what they want. You are giving them more reason to take more levels, but that just means they'd get more out of what they would've done anyway. Barbarians (amidst other classes) being front loaded is your problem, because now you're just adding to power creep and you're doing nothing to absolve those issues. You're assuming everything can be handled within this one class, when the problems are more caused by other classes. Now with your class, people simply get more free bonuses when they multiclass with the Fighter - did those other multiclasses need a boost as well? Were they somehow sub-optimal because they took Fighter levels? The problem with the Fighter is more to do with how people value the class and it's abilities, it would be better to up what people can do with this combination of abilities, than to simply make the class more powerful in certain areas. When using this class I found myself leaning towards less flexible characters and more towards the more linear forms. One of the first 3.5 fighters (a very boring Sword and Shield and Bow Fighter) got a massive power boost, but many of the others got considerably less. Do you think making more linearly powerful Fighters is actually better? Or would you agree that the general idea of the class is where any form of improvement should lie?
Krynus Ogrebane 02-11-05, 11:37 AM	fractal did a pretty good job of summing up my thoughts, but I'd like to amplify a bit. No you could take WF with any class, take 4 levels of this Fighter and get Weapon Specialisation for free, Armoured Efficiency +1 and 2 bonus feats (3 if you count WS). And then you could take WF any number of times and get the benefits for free. Whilst with a normal Fighter you'd get 3 bonus feats (without getting WS for free). The usual method for 4-level dippers is to use the bonus feats from the fighter to get WF, WS, and a third feat of their choosing. 2-level dippers aren't interested in WS... they just want two free feats, and no empty levels. Going full Fighter is either something you want to do, or were never interested with in the first place. Almost exclusively, the only people interested in going Ftr20 are those whose games don't include PrC's, or rather, "good" PrC's (i.e.- cheap to qualify for, more powerful, or thematically suitable). Of course there are exceptions (like yourself, perhaps), but that's a rare thing indeed. WS isn't that hot a feat, especially when you consider it's been dowplayed by the benefits of other clases and feats in the shift to 3.5. More powergamers will really only take 2 levels of the Fighter and other classes to get into some suped up PrC because the rush of feats is about all they need to compensate some other class. With the PHB.ftr, that's exactly right. Not gonna happen nearly as much (if at all) if this alt.ftr is used, and that's a Good Thing. This version doesn't really fix any of those issues, it only changes what you might try to achieve with the class, and you'd get more benefit out of it. <snip> This class does address the front-loadedness of two bonus feats at the first two levels. Nobody's gonna grab two levels for Armor Efficiency. To an extent they probably wouldn't like this class because it interferes with things. Fine by me! 2-level dippers, g'bye! WS is not the unique class feature, the feats are the unique class feature. <snip> True, in and of itself. Whilst no other class gets the WS tree, they can usually navigate it. No they can't, without Ftr4 (WS), Ftr8 (for GWF) or Ftr12 (for GWS). Fighter levels are in the prerequisites. You are giving them more reason to take more levels, but that just means they'd get more out of what they would've done anyway. There are very few who take more than 4 levels of the PHB.ftr. From the posts on this forum, it's almost unheard of. In the games I've played in, it hasn't happened yet. Reasons to take more levels is what this class has needed all along. Now with your class, people simply get more free bonuses when they multiclass with the Fighter - did those other multiclasses need a boost as well? Were they somehow sub-optimal because they took Fighter levels? Using the PHB.ftr, yes, those multiclasses were sub-optimal and needed a boost! They wanted the two free feats provided by Ftr2! They can't do that anymore, and I'm glad of it. A player playing a core Bbn18/Ftr2 doesn't think of his character as a "fighter" (class) at all. He thinks of it as a barbarian through-and-through, with two free feats. He's not worried about that one point of DR he could have had, or that sixth daily rage, else he would never have taken two levels of fighter. He wanted the feats now, and cheap. Now he can't glom so cheaply anymore. It shouldn't be so painless, or a no-brainer, to dip in for a couple levels, in any class. This class is a power-up for the pure/mostly fighter (which certainly needs it), and a deterrent for the dippers (which were many, and rampant). Additional kudos to fractal for the simplicity and elegance if it.
Mirror, Mirror 02-11-05, 12:25 PM	It shouldn't be so painless, or a no-brainer, to dip in for a couple levels, in any class. This class is a power-up for the pure/mostly fighter (which certainly needs it), and a deterrent for the dippers (which were many, and rampant). Additional kudos to fractal for the simplicity and elegance if it. One problem. I want a ranger, want to PrC, and so decide to take 4 levels of fighter. Why? I fight with either my bastard sword or my longbow (archery route). 4 levels of the Alt.Ftr gets me armor bonuses, WS for any weapon I have WF in, and, oh look, 2 free feats. Well, I'll take WF Bastard Sword and WF Composite Longbow. While before I would be 1 feat short of that cheese, now I get it all. That barb takes 4 levels of fighter for WF/WS greatsword and javalin. The Pal for heavy flail and bastardsword. The rogue for rapier and shortsword. The monk for quarterstaff and unarmed strike. All these level dippers get exactly what they want (WS) with 4 level dips, but with 2 different weapons. However, if you limit the bonuses to only 1 weapon, you severly limit the Alt.Ftr20 builds and take away one of their greatest strengths: Versitility.
Nyferto 02-11-05, 12:35 PM	First off, I meant Navigate round - as in they get things that cover the gap. When WOTC reworked WS they did a bad job, I'll show you why later. With this revision the class is practically WF centric, WF is not a Fighter Exclusive feat, but with this build you get the WS (for those that bother) for free with 4 levels of Fighter and most of the past benefits that can now be played to other things (like PrC requirements, etc). Asside from the 2 level dip (which isn't an exclusive problem of the Fighter) this build only powers up what people would get from stealing Fighter levels. If I built a 2 Fighter/1barbarian and staple on whatever else I want I'd be loosing out slightly with this fighter - i never said that was a bad thing. But all those builds that use more than 2 fighters levels get even more back - they didn't need the power boost. There are a ton of builds on the COB that use 1 or 2 Fighter levels, but they could do most of the same things from levels of Barbarian, Ranger, Swashbucklers or whatever. If you use a straight 10/10 Fighter/PrC build (like many would) then this build simply powers that up no-end, are you really saying they weren't fine as they were? Now with us people (who aren't as rare as you think) that take 20th Fighters, our Fighters may be more inclined to just take some WF feats and take a more streamlined approach to combat - which is damn boring. I've ultimately lost what I actually liked about the original Fighter because of this supposedly balanced Fighter. I went over a basic Knight build I did ages ago, it was Core only and with this variation I am simply more powerful and have more feats to spare, problem is - I don't have any feats to invest in. Is this a problem? Well you have completely over powered WF. 2 level dips could've been warded against wihtout killing the overall feat set-up and limiting things to a focus on WF and it still doesn't address any of the other Multiclassing issues because it simply powers them up. If you used Fighters to make a good linear combatant (like an Archer or a Sword and Shield man) then this build will be fine because it will open you up a bit (and explain why you think everyone jumps into PrC quickly - they're built for you). If you, like me, used the Fighter to make characters with insane but damn profitable combinations of attacks and techniques to continue attacking foes and employing numerous counter tactics, then this variation is a pain. It is a lot better than most Fighter revisions, but with my taste for Full 20th Fighter, this Fighter just leaves a sour taste unless I commit myself to a selection of weapons - something I'd rarely do until I was fairly sure of what set of weapons I might be using. How powerful is the Chain Monkey with this Get-up?
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-11-05, 12:36 PM	I'm not sure I understand Nyferto. Are you saying this class is weaker? Or less capable of representing a fighter style? Or pidgeon holing the class? I honestly don't think any of those can be true. The PHB fighter gets 11 FBFs. This Alternate gets 10 FBFs. A net loss of 1 FBF. What that means is if you want to play a fighter who has absolutely, positively, 100% NO specialization with any weapon, you lose 1 feat that you normally would have had. But you gain a +2 Max Dex and a 3 point reduction in ASF in trade. So I don't think theres any way this class can be less powerful, or less capable of representing a character concept. Nor do I think its pidgeon-holing either. Example: Wizards and Sorcerers can summon a familiar, but many don't. Paladin's gain a special mount, but many don't focus on mounted combat. Rogues gain sneak attack every other level, but many don't focus on combat. Barbarians gain fast movement, but some wear heavy armor (costs them a feat and they loose fast movement.) This fighter gains weapon specializations and foci. But not all fighters are going to take Weapon Focus, simply because it doesn't fit their style. I've never taken Weapon focus or Weapon Specialization with a fighter, even though they are "class abilities" of a sort. There are people who take 20 levels of Fighter because it is the only way to get what they want. Then there are the other set who were never interested in being a 20th Fighter in the first place, it's just a part of a larger plan. What larger plan? This version doesn't really fix any of those issues, it only changes what you might try to achieve with the class, and you'd get more benefit out of it. To an extent they probably wouldn't like this class because it interferes with things. What issues is it supposed to be fixing? Making more people interested in being a 20th level fighter? I'm more interested in playing this 20th level fighter than I am the PHB fighter. With only losing one feat I don't see what this build would interfere with. The fighter with their 10 bonus feats an 8 normal feats can chase any two feat trees and have room for a weapon focus or two. Or they can chase one feat chain and have a couple weapon foci. You are giving them more reason to take more levels, but that just means they'd get more out of what they would've done anyway. So then is your arguement that this fighter is overpowered? I'd have to disagree there as well. After all, you can only use 2 weapons at a time, at most. (Unless you're a marilith or a Thri-keen or something with lots of arms). Maybe three if you allow them to count unarmed strikes and they have IUF. Essentially that nets them a +3 attack and +6 damage with a series of weapons. Also they suffer less Mex Dex penalty (dividing fighter intrest between 3 stats instead of 2) and less Armor Check Penalty (which isn't all that big a deal. The fighters I've seen either take their armor off to go climbing or just don't climb.) Other than that its your completely normal PHB fighter. Which is what I think makes it such a neat fix, is how similar it is. Obviously though, you don't think the PHB fighter is inadequate. So really theres no common ground to discuss this at all is there, without reverting to a thread about why the fighter is underpowered. So, tally-ho then.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-13-05, 01:13 PM	One problem. I want a ranger, want to PrC, and so decide to take 4 levels of fighter. Why? I fight with either my bastard sword or my longbow (archery route). 4 levels of the Alt.Ftr gets me armor bonuses, WS for any weapon I have WF in, and, oh look, 2 free feats. Well, I'll take WF Bastard Sword and WF Composite Longbow. While before I would be 1 feat short of that cheese, now I get it all. This may or may not be a valid objection. The thing that pops to mind is to limit the number of weapons WS applies to is something like FTR level/4, plus requiring WF in that weapon. But all those builds that use more than 2 fighters levels get even more back - they didn't need the power boost. There are a ton of builds on the COB that use 1 or 2 Fighter levels, but they could do most of the same things from levels of Barbarian, Ranger, Swashbucklers or whatever. Let's fix once class at a time... If you use a straight 10/10 Fighter/PrC build (like many would) then this build simply powers that up no-end, are you really saying they weren't fine as they were? Yes. Melee types, especially at higher levels, are most definitely not fine as they are. Now with us people (who aren't as rare as you think) that take 20th Fighters, our Fighters may be more inclined to just take some WF feats and take a more streamlined approach to combat - which is damn boring. I've ultimately lost what I actually liked about the original Fighter because of this supposedly balanced Fighter. I went over a basic Knight build I did ages ago, it was Core only and with this variation I am simply more powerful and have more feats to spare, problem is - I don't have any feats to invest in. Is this a problem? Well you have completely over powered WF. You'll have to explain this one, because you say you have feats to spare, and nothing to invest in, in the same sentence. Which is it? What do you mean? Would you post your knight build? It might be a good example to explain what you mean. 2 level dips could've been warded against wihtout killing the overall feat set-up and limiting things to a focus on WF and it still doesn't address any of the other Multiclassing issues because it simply powers them up. The overall feat set-up is neither killed nor limited. (and explain why you think everyone jumps into PrC quickly - they're built for you). Everyone jumps to PrC because they see empty fighter levels and they don't like it. That's the long and the short of it. If you, like me, used the Fighter to make characters with insane but damn profitable combinations of attacks and techniques to continue attacking foes and employing numerous counter tactics, then this variation is a pain. Let's see... the loss of one low-level feat for, most likely, a better chance at making physical skill checks in armor AND a higher AC. For skill checks, you won't have worry that you didn't invest enough skill points in skills like Ride, Jump, or Climb to compensate for the ACP. Cross-class skills aren't as painful (they still are painful, but not as much... which is another topic entirely). For AC, heavy armor isn't automatically discounted as viable because your DEX is above average. That's a pain? That's a boon! It is a lot better than most Fighter revisions, but with my taste for Full 20th Fighter, this Fighter just leaves a sour taste unless I commit myself to a selection of weapons - something I'd rarely do until I was fairly sure of what set of weapons I might be using. As a side note, UA's Weapon Group proficiency feats help a lot with that. How powerful is the Chain Monkey with this Get-up? This? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005) What's the worst that happens? He'll have a higher AC and lower ACP, plus he'll either give up TWO feats (one FBF, and one to get WF) and get an additional +3 on attack and +6 on damage rolls, or he'll lose one FBF. ~~~ ... from the beginning of your post... First off, I meant Navigate round - as in they get things that cover the gap. When WOTC reworked WS they did a bad job, I'll show you why later. Just pointing out that you didn't explain how the WS tree can be navigated around to cover this gap.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-13-05, 04:26 PM	I think one of the reasons this build appeals to me is that it downplays the "specialness" of weapon specialization and all that. Previously if I took Weapon Focus/ WS, IWF, IWS, GWF, GWS. Well, that was 6 feats and one weapon. In my mind that weapon had best be taking me out to dinner and promising to marry me before I invest 6 feats on one weapon type. If I invest all that in my spear and march into the skeleton's mansion, well its not going to do me a damn lot of good. Or if I invest that in my warhammer, and then bump into a cloaker, not a bunch of good thats going to do me either. Also, the fighter already has to deal with his golf bag. If he's willing to invest in a few feats, he'll be able to get by with some +2 weapons instead of +5s, leaving him more room for some neat things like flaming or ghost touch. I don't think this comes close to breaking the fighter. Nor does it pidgeon hole him. It actually is less of a forced direction. Now the fighter can focus on tactics, and if he wants "One favored weapon of all time." then he can just take Weapon focus once, and then use it dodging, riding, cleaving or sprinting.
Gunrock 02-13-05, 05:07 PM	Initially, I was upset by this fix. I like the PHB Fighter and think that it's as good a class as any other. I'm one of those that can build a 20th level Fighter that eats 20th level Barbarians for lunch. But as I thought about this I realized that it enhanced the thing I love about fighters, versatility. Now, I only need to spend two feats (weapon focus and Improved Critical) to master a weapon, letting me invest in Mounted Combat, Power Attacking (and the tree), Combat Expterise (and it's tree) and the Dodge tree. And that's if I want to play a "generic" melee fighter. This makes fighters just as intelligent and clever as before, and cuts back on the level dippers. I appreciate that. You've managed to make my favorite class look more exclusive and complete than before. Thank you. Addendum: And now Weapon Focus / Specialization is a class feature that gets meaner and meaner as one goes epic. Screw you epic Barbarian!
Black Warlock 02-13-05, 07:05 PM	Well done, fractal. You came up with a great solution to our fighter woes. Sure, the standard fighter gets some more feats, but all his special abilities RELY on using up ALL his feats to be of any use. Seems like every fighter is a one weapon wonder. The fighter can be a good choice, rather than a multiclass dip target. For those guys out there worried about balance issues, I think the idea of dropping heavy armour proficiency is an easy way to go. Not all fighters want or would be trained to be a future turtle (just one push!) I'm going to playtest this one. :)
aelryinth 02-13-05, 08:57 PM	This looks extremely similar to my Haxan fighter build. The main differences is I went to a d8 HD, 4 skill points, and a couple bonus abilities. I also differentiated between Primary Weapon Spec and Secondary. Your build here doesn't really convey the 'master swordsman' image, because he's specialized in ANYTHING he gets WF in. My build, I had them name a primary weapon, and it was effectively one 'stage' better then their other weapons as they went up in levels. So, they'd always be a master swordsman, or master archer, but could be good with another weapon...just not as good. I handled armor bonuses and AC bonuses very close to the same way too...competency bonus at 5,10,15, and 20, heavy armor proficency was restricted, and Dex and penalties went up/down at the same levels. ==Aelryinth
Mandarbgrim 02-14-05, 12:49 AM	I like it. A lot. It fixes a lot of my problems with the Fighter's speciality being overshadowed by everyone elses class abilities. I wrote up some stuff argueing that the improved Fighter had an advantage on the Barbarian now with extra free'd up feats..but I seem to have convinced myself otherwise during it. It seems to balance out about perfectly now. My only remark would be the Fighter can specialize into a specefic style a lot easier with feats cored toward that one style. The barbarian is forced into getting class abilities that he may not want..such as Trap Sense..that are equivalent to the feats the Fighter gets to optomize his character with. Fighters also beat the Barbarian in versatily because they can be more effective archers that barbarians with only the cost of 1 feat. <Weapon Focus.> I wouldn't suggest adding 4 skill points to the Fighter, though. It would make him overshadow the Barbarian instead of being about equal. I was going to suggest an armor ability allowing him to move farther in Medium or Heavy Armor..but that would be overpowered. The Barbarian still has a major advantage with a movement speed that is usually twice that of the Fighter.
Gunrock 02-14-05, 02:28 AM	Your build here doesn't really convey the 'master swordsman' image, because he's specialized in ANYTHING he gets WF in. I think that's the point. The PH Fighter is intended as a Master of ALL combat styles and forms, and this lets him do that even better than he did before. You don't have to spend a single feat on being good with a weapon and the class abilities are still worth taking. The Armored Defense alone is worth having, not to mention the Armored Efficiency. And if you do spend the two feats (Weapon Focus and Improved Critical) to master a weapon, you are the man with that weapon. Or any other you decide to change your style to. If you choose longswords, and later decide that you actually had a hammer character, you can make that change without penalty. That's versatility, and that's what this does even better than the PH fighter, sad as I am to admit that.
Nyferto 02-14-05, 03:52 AM	Haven't read all this, but let me try to explain. First off, you don't just get one less feat, you get them less quickly, one of the more annoying things about this build is the rate at which you gain new feats - it's slower. Not entirely a bad thing, but when you have a build that wants a lot of feats quickly then you start to fall behind. Then, not only do you loose a feat, but you loose out on 5 class abilities if you don't take WF. Worse still, you loose 5 class abilities when you aren't using a weapon you've taken WF for. This means you have to take more WF feats to stop yourself from loosing class features, I imagine WF Unarmed Strike and IUS will become quite popular if this class became a standard, and you'd loose those benefits when you used a weapon. So not only have you lost a feat, but you've lost more feats to trying to take WF than if you hadn't of bothered in the first place. Beside that, all you've got is a bunch of enhancements to your AC, I assume they stack with other benefits, but all in all - it's not that good an improvement. It's not even that nice of an improvement because it basically downplays some of the limitations of Heavy Armour - which many people who wore didn't care about anyway. If you run around in Heavy Armour, you probably weren't built to use skills that suffer from Armour Check Penalty. Even worse it has no effect on shields, and if it did you'd see a lot more finnesse Spiked Chain +Animated Shields being used. For some it'll be good, but ultimately it's still as flawed as the Fighter is. Then there's the final issue. With this version you only loose a +2 to damage with certain weapons if you steal 1 level of another class. I could take 1 level of Barb, run around in 0 armourcheck Mithral Plate and net myself the Rage benefits and pretty much all the rest. 1 level up you only get a bonus feat (but of course there isn't any improvement on that side of things). After that it's a benefit to Armour you could probably live without. I don't care if it's more attractive for people who had problems in the past, because they never got it in the first place. A bonus feat at 20th would be nice at least.
fractal 02-14-05, 05:05 AM	Haven't read all this, but let me try to explain. First off, you don't just get one less feat, you get them less quickly, one of the more annoying things about this build is the rate at which you gain new feats - it's slower. Not entirely a bad thing, but when you have a build that wants a lot of feats quickly then you start to fall behind. You are half a feat behind the PHB Fighter, yes. That's not really very much, though. The only time there's really a significant difference in feat quantity is if you've only got 2 levels of Fighter. Then, not only do you loose a feat, but you loose out on 5 class abilities if you don't take WF. Worse still, you loose 5 class abilities when you aren't using a weapon you've taken WF for. This means you have to take more WF feats to stop yourself from loosing class features, I imagine WF Unarmed Strike and IUS will become quite popular if this class became a standard, and you'd loose those benefits when you used a weapon. So not only have you lost a feat, but you've lost more feats to trying to take WF than if you hadn't of bothered in the first place. If you don't take WF, you're losing out on class features you wouldn't have had otherwise anyway (with the PHB Fighter), so I'm not sure why you're unhappy. If you don't select Greater Weapon Specialization with the PHB Fighter, you're losing out on class features too (Fighter only feats). If you're using either Fighter without a Tower Shield, you're not taking advantage of all of your class features. That's just how the game works. I can't see Improved Unarmed Strike becoming as popular as you claim, but it might be kind of cool if it did. Fighters who are actually capable of brawling? It requires an investment of valuable feats, however (although not the ridiculous number you'd have to use with the PHB Fighter to achieve a similar competence). Is that really a better approach than completing the combat style trees for your missile and melee weapons (or whatever you customarily fight with)? Beside that, all you've got is a bunch of enhancements to your AC, I assume they stack with other benefits, but all in all - it's not that good an improvement. It's not even that nice of an improvement because it basically downplays some of the limitations of Heavy Armour - which many people who wore didn't care about anyway. If you run around in Heavy Armour, you probably weren't built to use skills that suffer from Armour Check Penalty. Even worse it has no effect on shields, and if it did you'd see a lot more finnesse Spiked Chain +Animated Shields being used. The armor benefits are not particularly powerful, no. They're not meant to be as powerful as feats individually. Still, I think they're pretty good combined, and do more than make up for the loss of half a feat, even if you don't take advantage of the weapon-based class features. With regards to shields, first, Armored Efficiency does apply to your total armor check penalty, including shields. Second, masterwork light shields don't have an armor check penalty anyway, so there's already no reason not to have an animated one. For some it'll be good, but ultimately it's still as flawed as the Fighter is. Then there's the final issue. With this version you only loose a +2 to damage with certain weapons if you steal 1 level of another class. I could take 1 level of Barb, run around in 0 armourcheck Mithral Plate and net myself the Rage benefits and pretty much all the rest. A bonus feat at 20th would be nice at least. If you don't think +2 damage on all focused weapons is worth a feat, then why are you worried about people dipping for Ftr 4 just for Weapon Specialization? After all, a level 20 Fighter is likely to be focused in more weapons than a level 4 Fighter. With regards to that, I don't have a problem with people multi-classing anyway, so long as they're doing so for a fair cross-section of a class's abilities. It's only dipping just for front-loaded abilities that bugs me. Sure, you could take 4 levels of my Alternate Fighter if you wanted to be better with weapons. On the other hand, you could become better still with 4 more levels, etc. Being good with weapons and armor is the point of being a Fighter. Do you really think that Rage 1x/day is significantly better than +2 damage with all of your focused weapons? 1 level up you only get a bonus feat (but of course there isn't any improvement on that side of things). After that it's a benefit to Armour you could probably live without. I don't care if it's more attractive for people who had problems in the past, because they never got it in the first place. *shrug* Maybe it's possible to build characters that are not horrible as Ftr 20, but I think the variety of niches for such a character are very limited, and almost always more effective when multi-classed and PrC'd. I can tell you that my groups have generally had two kinds of Fighters: 2-level dippers, and sadly underpowered characters. Maybe that's because they didn't plan out their careers from level 1, searching through every available splat book to do so, but then, should they have to? I think my Alternate Fighter opens up the possibility of decent single-classed Fighters who haven't got access to every splat book out there, while still neither overpowering nor eliminating the versatility of those who do. I think multiclassers are only encouraged to take more and more levels of Fighter, which is how multiclassed characters should feel. There should never be a "This class is used up, what's next?" response. In my opinion.
Nyferto 02-14-05, 07:54 AM	You don't need every splat book, splat book (CW really) helps with some styles, but really you just need to use what's in the Core books to their fullest. Or whatever fullest extent you need to be a Fighter. Some Fighters might be alright with just a single style and developing other aspects of their character. Others might want to use the most potent weapons in the most potent ways as the time calls for it. The former gets a whole bunch of feats freed up (because they aren't spending an additional 3+ feats). The later completely looses out on ability because he'd be better off dumping some tactics in favour of basic damage output (because the benefits are free and automatic). You can't claim this Fighter is balanced because it gives the Fighter these abilities. WS is not the exclusive class feature - it is the feats and you're turning the focus onto WS and WF - which has never been the perfect option (or sometimes not even a good option) for Core Fighters. With this Fighter, it becomes better to take WF in a bunch of weapons and just take some basic combat feats to cover the rest. To me this is the sadest thing about this revision because it will make the Fighter more boring, but also demands that they be more limited in order to match other Fighters - yes that's right - matching other Fighters. As I said before, you have not fixed any 4 level dip problems, and it wasn't that much of a boost anyway. It was there if you had some other class with nothing better to do and a limited weapon focus. Now you've given them a bunch of WS for free - In no way have you fixed 4 level dips, and you've certainly made >4 dips more powerful. People will now be more inclined to just take 1 level. Also, extended rage and extra rage will take your Rage ability upto 3 uses a day and for 5 rounds extra than normal - for just 2 feats you can take anytime after the Barbarian level. And you've lost +2 to damage with whatever weapons you took WF in.
Nodles 02-14-05, 08:49 AM	A more holistic approach would be to give the fighter a 'fighter special ability' (much like rogue's special ability) every four levels (or even a at first level) instead of a bonus feat. Then, build several 'special ability trees', with one SA leading to the other. You can make a SA tree emulating duelists finesse and agility, one emulating oriental swordsman skills, etc... To each DM their own fighter :). These SAs SHOULD be more powerful than regular feats, they are, after all, special abilities Under this system, one possible tree is making Weapon Specialization a SA at 4th level, and take a nostalgic return to old AD&D proeficiency names: Weapon Mastery, SA at 8th level, further +1 attack +2 damage prereq: weapon specialization Weapon High Mastery, SA at 12th level, triples weapons crit range and adds +1 to crit prereq: improved crit strike, weapon mastery Weapon Grand Mastery, SA at 16th level, gains additional attack at greater bonus when performing full attack. Stacks with haste prereq: weapon high mastery
Arcane Guyver 02-14-05, 01:24 PM	Some Fighters might be alright with just a single style and developing other aspects of their character. Others might want to use the most potent weapons in the most potent ways as the time calls for it. The former gets a whole bunch of feats freed up. The later completely looses out on ability because he'd be better off dumping some tactics in favour of basic damage output. Um...the latter Fighter in this description would be equally screwed, probably moreso with the core Fighter anyways. You're trading power for versatility. You can't claim this Fighter is balanced because it gives the Fighter these abilities. The two fighters in my game would say otherwise. Regardless of all these abilities, magic and sneak attacks still hurt. They are pretty much equal to the barbarians and occasional rangers they run into. WS is not the exclusive class feature - it is the feats and you're turning the focus onto WS and WF - which has never been the perfect option (or sometimes not even a good option) for Core Fighters. :confused: Two feats, and slower feat acquisition. What the hell is so bad about that? The fighter still gets tons more feats than any other character in the game. The slowed feat progression will only hurt level-dipping munchies, which I have absolutely no problem with. If a player came to me crying about how he can't dip four levels of Fighter for three bonus feats, it'd be hard not to grin. With this Fighter, it becomes better to take WF in a bunch of weapons and just take some basic combat feats to cover the rest. Really? I'd think it'd be better to focus in maybe two weapons at most & learn other fighting techniques to be better at using them. Focusing on a ton of weapons makes you a master at arms, but not at strategic combat. Focusing on only a couple weapons, and spending other feats on fighting techniques makes for a balanced warrior. People will now be more inclined to just take 1 level. And this is different from other base classes because...?
Tolby 02-14-05, 01:36 PM	I personally think nothing is wrong with a fighter. I have seen AC's of 20th level fighters topping mid 40's for sword and board. Why does everyone want a great sword? Although nice and I use them on some of my fighters. You are giving up to 9 points of AC with them. I like to take Combat Expertise coupled with a good shield and the AC penalty when raging means a AC differance of up to 15 points. Ouch!
Gunrock 02-14-05, 03:01 PM	I personally think nothing is wrong with a fighter. I have seen AC's of 20th level fighters topping mid 40's for sword and board. Why does everyone want a great sword? Although nice and I use them on some of my fighters. You are giving up to 9 points of AC with them. I like to take Combat Expertise coupled with a good shield and the AC penalty when raging means a AC differance of up to 15 points. Ouch! Three words: Animated Tower Shield. Yes, your dex is maxed at +2, but with Adamantine Full-Plate you're at a +1 anyway. Your AC Tops out at 43 with non-Epic items. Or you use this build and it tops out at 45. I'm cool with that, too. And yes, I love the PH Fighter. But if you want something that stops munchkins and dippers, this is the way to go. It's a fighter and you want all 20 levels of it. Even if, unlike me, you don't know your fighters.
Nyferto 02-15-05, 03:52 AM	Um...the latter Fighter in this description would be equally screwed, probably moreso with the core Fighter anyways. You're trading power for versatility. Except that versatility is what makes them good in the first place, because they make up for the lose of damage (which they'd rarely get anyway) with the frequency and oppotunities they get to attack. The two fighters in my game would say otherwise. Regardless of all these abilities, magic and sneak attacks still hurt. They are pretty much equal to the barbarians and occasional rangers they run into. I don't care. :confused: Two feats, and slower feat acquisition. What the hell is so bad about that? The fighter still gets tons more feats than any other character in the game. The slowed feat progression will only hurt level-dipping munchies, which I have absolutely no problem with. If a player came to me crying about how he can't dip four levels of Fighter for three bonus feats, it'd be hard not to grin. I don't care about level dipping munchies, they'd do it with any class that gives them benefits, and for the last time this revision does nothing but add to 4 level dips because it gives you free feats. I'm more concearned about the concentration of abilities at earlier levels and how inflexible they make the Fighter and how staggered the feat progression is combined with less overall feats and suck up from WF. Really? I'd think it'd be better to focus in maybe two weapons at most & learn other fighting techniques to be better at using them. Focusing on a ton of weapons makes you a master at arms, but not at strategic combat. Focusing on only a couple weapons, and spending other feats on fighting techniques makes for a balanced warrior. You're the one who has problems with the Fighter, why should I listen to you about how to make good ones. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, 2 weapons and two fighting styles is limited. The Fighter is better focusing on broader counter tactics than focusing on two forms of attack. And this is different from other base classes because...? It isn't, but it doesn't fix any problems. Especially with this class the 20th level is actually worse than it was before because you've given them something they can calculate (and therefore dismiss). A quick compromise would be to allow people to drop a WS/WF boost for a bonus feat, loosing the benefit of that boost (and regaining it on the later boosts). It still wouldn't be that good because you'd still be focused on the flawed WF tree.
Mandarbgrim 02-15-05, 10:10 AM	The only character builds it could hurt over the PHB Fighter would be ones that require a lot of feats to get into a PRC earlier, Multiclassers, and Fighters that don't wield a specefic kind of weapon or use armor. The first should rarely be enough of a problem to prefer the PHB Fighter over this one, the second is something that the author is not making a consideration, and the last is a concept that I can't concieve of for anyone who is optimizing their character. "I'm going to play a warrior who wears no armor and use's whatever impromptu weapon he can find nearest him." "Do what? You're playing a peasant?"
Nyferto 02-15-05, 10:23 AM	Or an incredibly dextrous CR based finnesse master. As for the second, they loose out vs other Fighters on feats, and it's quite a drastic loss. All my posts assume the past Fighter was underpowered and this new one is balanced against other classes. To remain competative with this class - you must streamline yourself towards WF. Otherwise you're less competative than what you were before, except your AC and Armour is a tad increased over 20 levels.
Mirror, Mirror 02-15-05, 10:27 AM	The only character builds it could hurt over the PHB Fighter would be ones that require a lot of feats to get into a PRC earlier, Multiclassers, and Fighters that don't wield a specefic kind of weapon or use armor. The first should rarely be enough of a problem to prefer the PHB Fighter over this one, the second is something that the author is not making a consideration, and the last is a concept that I can't concieve of for anyone who is optimizing their character. "I'm going to play a warrior who wears no armor and use's whatever impromptu weapon he can find nearest him." "Do what? You're playing a peasant?" Not quite. By taking all the combat options aviliable a fighter can have a bow, reach weapon, close slashing weapon, close bludgeoning weapon, close piercing weapon, horse, etc. And if something comes along that he wants to trade in for, he is not giving up anything. Conversly, if he specialized in composite longbow and found a +3 shortbow he would be rightly tempted to stick with his masterwork longbow, since he tends to do more damage and he already spent the feats. With a bag of holding you could, of course, take it and all the other stuff you find, but now we are back to the golf bag. The fighter above can adapt to any situation with any weapon combination with no wasted feats. Now I, personally, tend to specialize in one weapon, but use others regularly. It eats up some feats unnecessairly, but my specialty is generally something like a bow, so I use it when I can and ditch it when things get personal. The flexible build is doable and surprisingly complex.
Kakerate 02-15-05, 11:26 AM	I really dont see any need to change the fighter at all. I think it would be best to make a new class entirely that has abilities that you enjoy. "Fixing" a core class is really a bad move I feel. The core classes are a base you can build upon. Messing with that foundation can make a mess of things. Just make a new class like one of mine. Infact the Master class is for Qualifing for PrC's and the Marauder class is one bad ass fighter variant. Both are still being tested by me. I can at least say that they havent proved broken yet. I may be missing some feat or something else that will break them, but its only because I dont own any splat books. I just borrow them from my freinds and so I dont have them memorized. I really recommend taking a look at the Marauder. At the bare minimum it should give you some ideas for alternate fighters, and it is one of the funnest to play of all the classes I have made. This isn't the complete list of classes, but its getting there. Link to Classes--> Click Me!! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=5450509#post5450509) Like, I said the fighter is a core class and shouldn't be changed. Just make different classes untill you find the style of fighter you want. Eventually, if you playtest it and change it some, you can make it as balanced as the core stuff.
Nyferto 02-15-05, 11:34 AM	Yes, varients are often better than core revisions. I should post the Fighter varient I invented sometime.
Mandarbgrim 02-15-05, 01:54 PM	Alright..so..the arguement is this Fighter isn't as good as the PHB Fighter because it is more powerful and will no require a Fighter to get WF simply to remain competitive with the NPC Fighters or other PC Fighters because they will have devoted themselves to a single weapon. Since before that wasn't a problem because it meant the Fighter in question had been burning a lot of Feats to gain the WF/WS tree it is now a problem because he only has to burn 1 Feat for it with his chosen weapon. I don't think it hurts the generalized Fighter as much as you claim..as far as PC's.. Unless the DM adapted the treasure to the party instead of rolling randomly, or picking it based on the NPC's equipment. It would make NPC Fighters more powerful because the DM will assume they have acquired the best version of favored weapon that they could have acquired. So..this makes the power level of a given class go back to depending on the DM and his campaign style. An idea would be to allow the Focus feats to work at one level lower than the chart for ANY weapon they are proficient in, and just the level on the chart for the weapon focus. The Weapon Specialization would only be half the bonus listed for weapons you don't have weapon focus in but are proficient in. This might be too powerful compared to other classes, though.
Arcane Guyver 02-15-05, 03:50 PM	Ah, screw it. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to sell this replacement. Everyone I've shown it to likes it, so a handful of people on this board aren't going to convince me otherwise. All over one feat! :doh:
Mirror, Mirror 02-15-05, 04:17 PM	Ah, screw it. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to sell this replacement. Everyone I've shown it to likes it, so a handful of people on this board aren't going to convince me otherwise. All over one feat! :doh: Of course everyone likes it. I like it. I want to play one. So do all my munchkin friends. We are all willing to lay down the spellbook for this class. That does not in any way indicate the balance of the class...
Krynus Ogrebane 02-15-05, 05:25 PM	Of course everyone likes it. I like it. I want to play one. So do all my munchkin friends. We are all willing to lay down the spellbook for this class. That does not in any way indicate the balance of the class... As has been pointed out before, while WS is nice, it isn't that great. This class actually makes it decently desirable. Melee types still suffer compared to full casters... debatably, this class just narrows the gap a bit. ~~~ First off, I meant Navigate round - as in they get things that cover the gap. When WOTC reworked WS they did a bad job, I'll show you why later. Just pointing out that you STILL didn't explain how the WS tree can be navigated around to cover this gap.
Nyferto 02-16-05, 03:45 AM	Rage, Heroism, Good Hope, Bulls Strength, Holy Sword, Polymorphism, Wildshape, Divine Favour, Divine Might, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Sneak attack, Death Attack, Smite, 1st to 9th level spells, Bard Song, Favoured Enemy, Weapon Enchantments, Hexblade curse... I should stop at the non core stuff, and i've probably missed some things. They all help compensate for a lack of direct combat ability - that's all that the WS tree does - help you deal more damage. On the other hand it doesn't help me do more damage by dual wielding better, or by allowing me to drop my melee weapon and quickdraw a ranged one against a flying opponent, or allow me to hit people further away with greater ease, or avoid attacks any easier or allow me to move attack then move again or allow me to do more basic damage to those that need it, it doesn't make trip a better option, nore does it help much with grapple attempts (unless I take the right feat). Then moving into CW, It doesn't give me a free trip attempt when I puposely draw an AOO with no reprisal, followed by another attempt because they missed thanks to a +5 dodge bonus to AC and grant a massive boon to every member of the party by reducing the damage potential of the enemy to myself and them, whilst putting the ennemy in a more exposed place. It doesn't let me rapid shot my Bastard Sword or Stun people with an offhand shield, or surprise a foe with a paralysing touch when they thought I was limited to a bow. It doesn't let me focus my will save stat so those Wizards who see a bow user don't bother with a fireball but wonder why their dominate person spell just bounced off. Then the Monk wonders how I broke his grapple with a free strike or turned it round to his disadvantage, he didn't expect the Heavy Armoured Warrior to charge him and deal substanial damage with a kick. Oh and MM didn't say that people liked the class because of WS, they liked it because it aided their characters. I don't like it because it diverts the focus of the character and underplays their real strength.
fractal 02-16-05, 03:56 AM	You don't need every splat book, splat book (CW really) helps with some styles, but really you just need to use what's in the Core books to their fullest. Or whatever fullest extent you need to be a Fighter. Some Fighters might be alright with just a single style and developing other aspects of their character. Others might want to use the most potent weapons in the most potent ways as the time calls for it. The former gets a whole bunch of feats freed up (because they aren't spending an additional 3+ feats). The later completely looses out on ability because he'd be better off dumping some tactics in favour of basic damage output (because the benefits are free and automatic). Unless you believe that the armor abilities combine to less than half a feat (which will happen occasionally but not often), even an Alternate Fighter without WF will be as strong as a PHB Fighter built the same way. Since I still don't think that the Alternate Fighter overshadows the Barbarian, I'm not sure how it makes your versatile Fighters irrelevant either. Unless, of course, the Barbarian overshadows them already. If that is the case, doesn't it bother you? You can't claim this Fighter is balanced because it gives the Fighter these abilities. WS is not the exclusive class feature - it is the feats and you're turning the focus onto WS and WF - which has never been the perfect option (or sometimes not even a good option) for Core Fighters. The PHB Fighter has two exclusive class features: Many bonus feats, and access to WS, GWF, and GWS. These are the traits that distinguish the Fighter class. Tower Shield Proficiency is also almost Fighter-exclusive, just because it's not really worth a feat for anyone else. If the only Fighter-exclusive feats, a significant portion of the Fighter flavor as per the PHB, are not a good option, isn't that a sign that they should be improved until they're worthy of consideration? With this Fighter, it becomes better to take WF in a bunch of weapons and just take some basic combat feats to cover the rest. To me this is the sadest thing about this revision because it will make the Fighter more boring, but also demands that they be more limited in order to match other Fighters - yes that's right - matching other Fighters. I don't really understand this statement. Fighters are only one type of humanoid opponent you'll meet, and even my Alternate Fighter really isn't any more dangerous, damage-wise, than a Barbarian or opposed alignment Paladin. If instead it's combat tricks you're afraid of, the PHB Fighter already has access to exactly the same ones. (As do Barbarians, for that matter.) As I said before, you have not fixed any 4 level dip problems, and it wasn't that much of a boost anyway. It was there if you had some other class with nothing better to do and a limited weapon focus. Now you've given them a bunch of WS for free - In no way have you fixed 4 level dips, and you've certainly made >4 dips more powerful. People will now be more inclined to just take 1 level. Frankly, I consider 4 level dips to be much less of a problem than 2 level dips. For one thing, four levels of a class typically encompasses a much broader cross-section of the class abilities than two levels do. For another, a 4 level dip in one class is incompatible, experience-wise, with a 2 level dip in another class, which puts a limit on total dipping that a 2 level dip does not. Finally, as I've asked before, why 4 levels? Why not 3 or 5 or 7 or 8? If four Fighter levels are valuable, I think eight are just as good. With regards to the dip of a single level, that entails equal or worse experience problems, compared to a 2 level dip, with about half the benefit. You're not going to want to take 3 levels of Duelist and 1 level of Fighter, for example. Also, extended rage and extra rage will take your Rage ability upto 3 uses a day and for 5 rounds extra than normal - for just 2 feats you can take anytime after the Barbarian level. And you've lost +2 to damage with whatever weapons you took WF in. Yes, but now you're sacrificing +2 damage and 2 feats. Sure, that build may work, but I think it's a bit subpar, and certainly not a convincing argument that the 20th level class feature is inferior to a feat and therefore insufficient. By the way, with regards to your most recent post, yes, Weapon Specialization only helps you deal more damage (necessary at some point for defeating an opponent). However, Weapon Focus is useful for many of the tasks you described, including hitting with special attacks, and having more attack bonus to spare for things like Combat Expertise.
Nyferto 02-16-05, 04:48 AM	It's more important to have the ability, than have a small benefit on a weapon I might not be using. As I said before, you're assuming the past Fighter was underpowered, and the only thing you've done is add this basic ability on top of them. The way you're competing with other classes is with WS improvements and some AC boosts. Which shifts feats down onto taking advantage of those abilities rather than elaborate combat ability (which the Barbarian doesn't have because he doesn't have the spread and combination or even the time to take them all when they're useful). This alternative doesn't overshadow anything, because it ultimately still focuses on the most flawed tree the Fighter has access to. And you're still advocating that +2 to damage with a weapon is better than a d12, more skills and one feat of many (remeber that you're requiring they take less feats to get more benefit), the ability to Rage for +2 to attack and daamage for at least 8 rounds in combat and 3 times per day with a +2 bonus to will saves with a +10ft of movement when not in heavy armour (or not Mithral Full plate). If people only ever took 4 level dips to get WS, then how is this any better? You've given the exact same benefit, but easier and with extras. Why are you so concearned about 2 level dips when people who'd use 2 level dips would do it anyway with any number of classes? There's no point in protecting a class from the issue if all the others still get it. If two Clerics, one's tricked out with War Domain and the others a straight forward Healer, does it matter if the tricked out one puts the basic healer to shame? With this Fighter, you have to take WF to stay competative with other Fighters, there's no edge through other tactics because WF is so much more powerful and needed to remain competative with other classes. Stop focusing on old Fighter vs this Fighter, start thinking about how this supposedly balanced Fighter and beter than the Old Fighter.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-16-05, 09:36 AM	Rage, Heroism, Good Hope, Bulls Strength, Holy Sword, Polymorphism, Wildshape, Divine Favour, Divine Might, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Magic Weapon, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Sneak attack, Death Attack, Smite, 1st to 9th level spells, Bard Song, Favoured Enemy, Weapon Enchantments, Hexblade curse... I should stop at the non core stuff, and i've probably missed some things. LOL! First, I'd like to point out that WS works in combination with EVERY SINGLE ITEM LISTED ABOVE. You aren't seriously comparing spells to WS, are you? Four words -- durations measured in rounds. Sneak Attack?! OMG. IF your opponent is flat-footed, or flanked, and IF they don't have Improved Uncanny Dodge, and IF they're not outright IMMUNE... I mean, really. Favored Enemy! :rofl: I'm gonna cough up a lung, laughing so hard! A completely DM-controlled ability like FE is no match. They all help compensate for a lack of direct combat ability - that's all that the WS tree does - help you deal more damage. On the other hand it doesn't help me do more damage by dual wielding better, or by allowing me to drop my melee weapon and quickdraw a ranged one against a flying opponent, or allow me to hit people further away with greater ease, or avoid attacks any easier or allow me to move attack then move again or allow me to do more basic damage to those that need it, it doesn't make trip a better option, nore does it help much with grapple attempts (unless I take the right feat). Then moving into CW, It doesn't give me a free trip attempt when I puposely draw an AOO with no reprisal, followed by another attempt because they missed thanks to a +5 dodge bonus to AC and grant a massive boon to every member of the party by reducing the damage potential of the enemy to myself and them, whilst putting the ennemy in a more exposed place. It doesn't let me rapid shot my Bastard Sword or Stun people with an offhand shield, or surprise a foe with a paralysing touch when they thought I was limited to a bow. It doesn't let me focus my will save stat so those Wizards who see a bow user don't bother with a fireball but wonder why their dominate person spell just bounced off. Then the Monk wonders how I broke his grapple with a free strike or turned it round to his disadvantage, he didn't expect the Heavy Armoured Warrior to charge him and deal substanial damage with a kick. Can you say "SEVENTEEN other feats" (eighteen, if human)? How long do you think combat feat trees are? You can complete at least two or three... or more likely, you can cherry pick from many, or even ALL of them for tactical diversity, regardless of which fighter class you play (PHB, or alt). The loss of one feat is no great burden... except to two-level dippers. :evillaugh I don't like it because it diverts the focus of the character and underplays their real strength. Not. Even. Close. I think you're over-reacting. You're behaving as if we work for WOTC, and we're about to publish this as the new core FTR class.
Nyferto 02-16-05, 09:55 AM	First off, whilst all those work with WS, they work with any weapon - unlike WS. With this Fighter, you'd get WS for free with any weapon you'd want - not exactly better. Can you say "SEVENTEEN other feats" (eighteen, if human)? How long do you think combat feat trees are? You can complete at least two or three... or more likely, you can cherry pick from many, or even ALL of them for tactical diversity, regardless of which fighter class you play (PHB, or alt). The loss of one feat is no great burden... except to two-level dippers Already said, it's not just one feat, it's competition with other classes and other Fighters combining to reduce you're overeall availability of feats and reducing your actual effectiveness. It's a lot more than one feat. With this build, it's better to be more focused and use a few weapons than bother with all these feats. Last Fighter I made primarily used Elven Thinblade, but never took WF with it and actually had a shortage of feats to take over 20 levels. They were not only competative, but very strong. I'd have to retroactively eliminate feats just to get some bonuses with a bunch of weapons I may never use (or even loose) and somehow +3 to AC is meant to make up for it? Asside from the Spiked Chain (which isn't that good a choice), there's few weapons anyone would ever use completely exclusively and not be a flawed one trick pony, even if they were a Spiked Chain monkey -they'd be a one trick pony. WF is a very bad feat, this Fighter focuses on it.
Gunrock 02-16-05, 12:50 PM	Yes, varients are often better than core revisions. I should post the Fighter varient I invented sometime. And finally we come to the reason this is a "bad variant." It's not Nyferto's. I rebuilt 8 20th level fighters using this variant. My melee monsters (WS tree and all) became MORE versatile by allowing them to get 2 more feats (+3 for each favored weapon beyond the first). My ranged fighters were able to acquire increased melee prowess by using one of the feats that had gone to WS (longbow) to go to WF (rapier or s. sword or whatever melee back up they used). The only one that was "hurt" was my disarmer build. Basically he steals your weapon and murders you with it. He lost one feat. But his AC went up by 2 points. That an 8,000 gp value minimum. And since he had WF (unarmed strike) anyway, he actually gained three feats for a net change of +2. That's not limiting, that's liberating. Is it balanced? Yes because it increases damage by only 2 points per hit and does not change skills at all (the area where a fighter SHOULD stink).
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-16-05, 01:02 PM	They all help compensate for a lack of direct combat ability - that's all that the WS tree does - help you deal more damage. On the other hand it doesn't help me do more damage by dual wielding better Weapon Focus short sword, Longsword, dagger or which ever weapon you expect to be using. or allow me to hit people further away with greater ease, Weapon Focus Longbow, shortbow, javelin, or crossbow. Thats a +3 total bonus to attack. Which means you can hit people further away with greater ease. or avoid attacks any easier[/qoute] Armored Efficiency, +2 max dex to armor. [quote]allow me to do more basic damage to those that need it, Take 3 WFs, and use whichever weapon you have on hand. it doesn't make trip a better option WF: Flail, halberd, or Whip. +3 to attack, better chance of making your primary connection to the opponent. On top of all that it only costs you 1 feat. Which means you have more room for Improved Trip, Quickdraw, Farshot, etc etc. Already said, it's not just one feat, it's competition with other classes and other Fighters combining to reduce you're overeall availability of feats and reducing your actual effectiveness. It's a lot more than one feat. I don't understand this sentence. Already said, it's not just one feat Okay it's competition with other classes Which can be done better in this version. and other Fighters combining Like Voltron? to reduce you're overeall availability of feats Isn't just that one feat you lose out on? and reducing your actual effectiveness. Because you lose one feat? And gain improved armor usage, and can take WF in 3 weapons and have a good One handed, Two handed, and ranged attack? If I pick up WF: Longsword, WF: Longspear, and WF: Longbow. I gain a +3 attack and +6 damage with all three of them. Not to mention short spears can be thrown, and so can daggers. I could do WF: Longsword, WF: Shortspear, and WF: Dagger. +3 attack +6 damage with two ranged attacks, +3 attack +6 damage with three different melee weapons, and a bonus to two weapon fighting if I want to go that route. If people only ever took 4 level dips to get WS, then how is this any better? You've given the exact same benefit, but easier and with extras. They gain 2 feats, a ACP reduced by 1, and Weapon specialization with any weapon they have focus in. But what do they lose for it? By 20th level a -Barbarian: 8 skill points, Mighty Rage, Tireless rage, DR 1/-, Trapsense +1 -Bard: 16 skill points, Mass Suggestion, Inspire Courage +4, 1 3rd and 4th level spell/day, 2 5th level spells/day, and 4 6th level spells/day, 1 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spell known, 2 6th level spells known, -4 caster level. -Cleric: 1 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th level spell/day, 2 8th level spells/day, all 9th level spellcasting, Turning reduced by 4, -4 Caster level -Druid: 8 skill points, Elemental Wildshape, Wildshape 1/day, 1 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th level spell/day, 2 8th level spells/day, all 9th level spellcasting, Animal Companion strength/dex reduced by 1, -2 HD, -2 Natural AC, -1 trick, -4 caster level -Monk: 8 skill points, Timeless Body, Tongue of Sun & Moon, Slowfall any distance, Empty Body, Perfect self, 2d10 unarmed damage, 10Ft move speed, -1 AC -Paladin: Remove Disease 1/week, Smite evil 1/day, 1 1st and 2nd level spell/day, 2 3rd and 4th level spells/day, 2 uses/day of Mount Command ability, -4 to Mount's Spell Resistance, -2 caster level -Ranger: 16 skill points, Hide in Plain Sight, 1 Favored Enemy, 1 1st and 2nd level spell/day, 2 3rd and 4th level spell/day, -2 to Ranger's animal companion strength, -2 caster level. -Rogue: 24 Skill points, 2d6 sneak attack, +1 Trapsense, 1 Rogue ability -Sorcerer: 1 7th level spell/day, 3 8th level spells/day, all 9th level spellcasting, 1 7th level spell known, 2 8th level spells known, -2 Int to Familiar, -2 AC to Familiar, -4 Familiar's SR, -4 caster level. -Wizard: 1 Bonus Feat, 1 6th and 7th spell/day, 2 8th level spells/day, all 9th level spellcasting, 8 spells know for free, -2 Int to Familiar, -2 AC to Familiar, -4 Familiar's SR, -4 caster level Well, if the PC wants to give that up for +2 damage with any weapon they spend a feat for Weapon Focus in, 2 bonus feats, and a -1 to Armor check penalty, and sometimes a boost to BAB and HD. Well, let them. I'd have to retroactively eliminate feats just to get some bonuses with a bunch of weapons I may never use Generally the player has pretty good control over which weapons they use. and somehow +3 to AC is meant to make up for it? +2 AC if you have the Dex for it, and reduced ACP by 3. Also a +3 attack and +6 damage with any of those weapons you have the option of using. -they'd be a one trick pony. Flails can trip and grant a bonus to disarm, can be used mounted, with power attacks or with combat expertise or Combat reflexes, whirlwind attacks, or Spring attacks, or sunders, and dual wield with another weapon Guisarms can be used mounted, with power attacks or expertise, combat reflexes, sunder, at a reach, and can trip well. Short spears can be used one handed, mounted, power attacked or expertised, spring attacked or whirlwinded, combat reflex, and can be thrown for ranged feats and benefits. A Dire flail can trip, disarm, use mounted, power attack, sunder, expertise, whirlwind, spring attack, dual wield, and use combat reflexes Every pony has multiple tricks. Just because a weapon has a special feature doesn't mean it can't be used differently. The flail especially is great as well, but in no way limits your ability to use it with other feats. Weapon Focus means exactly what it says, you're better at everything you do with that weapon. Only it doesn't cost you as much. And if you don't want to weapon focus you only lose 1 feat. Theres no other features other than that one feat that makes this fighter weaker than original fighters compared to other classes, and honestly, I doubt that 1 feat makes a difference at 20th level compared to most other classes. Especially the ones with 9th level spells. 1 feat is a big difference to any other class, but not the fighter whos packing feats out the wazoo.
Mirror, Mirror 02-16-05, 03:03 PM	Why does this class suffer more than 1 feat loss... Well, for starters, your a fool not to take WF, while before there was really not much reason to unless you wanted to go WS. That's 2 feats. Before, WS in multiple weapons was too expensive. Now it's cheap. If you got it, use it. I need WS in a reach weapon as well as a ranged weapon in addition to my meele weapon. Because that's still cheaper than GWS used to be, right? That's 4 feats. So the human fighter gets WF in 3 different weapons. Well, that's all his 1st level feats. Now for the feat chains, right? Well, those will require several levels to achieve, and are mostly useful at low levels, right? (not my argument, but what is usually said about fighter feat chains) Now I can choose to take a long, hard path to feat chains, or take the quickest ones that net me something cool (Rapid shot, Improved sunder). Those 4 feats lost put my fighter in a completly different track than he could have been otherwise. Basically, you are adding class features that require feats to power. If I gave a Barb a bonus feat at 1st level, but he needed some feat to use his rage ability, was the bonus feat really a bonus feat?
Xeviat-DM 02-16-05, 03:30 PM	Hello Fractal, I need your help. I really enjoy your Alternate Fighter, because it removes, what I consider to be, the silly notion of class only feats. If a feat is limited to a single class, it should be a class ability of that class in my opinion. What is difficult about this is the alternate proficiency system I use in my games. In my games, each class gets a number of proficiencies at first character level, and a set of automatic weapons. Additionally, characters get a free proficiency feat every time their BAB reaches a multiple of 4. I also use weapon proficiency groups, slightly modified from the UA approach. Fighters get 6 proficiencies and all simple weapon groups. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers get 4 proficiencies and all simple weapons. Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Rogues get 4 proficiencies and all basic weapons (club, dagger, quarterstaff). Sorcerers and Monks get 2 proficiencies and all basic weapons. Wizards get 1 proficiency and all basic weapons. Proficiency feats include simple weapon proficiencies (by group), martial weapon proficiencies (by group, +1 BAB requirement, requires an associated simple weapon group), exotic weapon proficiencies (single weapon, +1 BAB requirement, requires an associated martial weapon group), weapon focus (weapon group, applies to all prerequisite weapon groups, +1 BAB requirement), improved critical, light/medium/heavy armor proficiencies, shield/tower shield proficiencies, and any other feat which only applies to a single weapon or armor type. Characters may also spend 2 starting proficiency feats on a feat selected from the fighter bonus feat list, representing training in a fighting style rather than a weapon. You only gain these proficiency feats for your first character level, just like x4 skill points and max HD. This design was initially created to give a small advantage to non-spellcaster warrior-type classes. It allows fighters to gain their focus/specialization feats without drawing upon the rest of their skills. But the specialization proficiencies were made to be fighter specific, so it was an advantage of the fighter. Characters are also allowed to not have proficiencies they won't use, and finesse characters gain something for giving up medium/heavy/shield proficiencies. Characters are also able to gain greater armor proficiencies later when they can afford them, rather than being frontloaded with them. This also gives multiclass characters a reason to consider starting as a either class of their intention, rather than going for the one that gives the most skill points and HD without consideration. My point is that I'd like to use this style of alternate fighter. I like the fact that it's uniqueness is it's class abilities, rather than having fighter-only bonus feats. Any assistance would be great. PS: Since it seems like a few posters are complaining that WF is required by this fighter, why don't you give them WF as a bonus feat at first level? Compare that to the abilities of other classes at first level, like the barbarian and the monk, and it doesn't seem to be overloading the level too much to me.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-16-05, 03:54 PM	Why does this class suffer more than 1 feat loss... Well, for starters, your a fool not to take WF, while before there was really not much reason to unless you wanted to go WS. That's 2 feats. Before, WS in multiple weapons was too expensive. Now it's cheap. If you got it, use it. I need WS in a reach weapon as well as a ranged weapon in addition to my meele weapon. Because that's still cheaper than GWS used to be, right? That's 4 feats. If thats what you want to do, fine. But feats are still the main bonus of a Fighter. Not alot of Clerics specialize in turning undead, but they still can if they want. You're not in any way required to take WF. If those bonuses aren't worth it to you, don't do it. If you don't want to take WF, and WS, and all that jazz, you lose one feat. If you do want to take it, you don't lose any feats, you gain feats. I would trade a feat for +2 max dex and reducing ACP by 3, especially since it applies to any armor. I just don't see what the problem is. You have the choice of taking a feat for WF, no ones going to make you. Just like a Sorcerer has a choice of picking up Stone to Flesh, maybe he's a fool to do it, but its their choice. Its not his only option, but it is an option. If you simply decide not to pick up the WF bonus feat, you lose 1 feat and gain AC benefits. Well, for starters, your a fool not to take WF, while before there was really not much reason to unless you wanted to go WS. So, now WS is more desirable? Is that a problem? (not my argument Why on earth are you using it then?
Mirror, Mirror 02-16-05, 06:01 PM	Problem with the analysis that WF is just another choice: There are 5 class features geared towards WF. It's like if the sorcerer got 5 class abilities geared towards summoning spells and never took one. Or a ranger taking the archery path, then fighting sword&board. Or a monk wearing armor. The class is geared towards something else, and that something else is WF. Bottom line, with both factors, the fighter is essentially 2 feats down from where he was minimum. It changes the fundamental nature of the fighter from a supremly flexible combatant to a specialized medium-armor wearer.
Arhra 02-16-05, 10:25 PM	I don't undertand what you mean by effectively being two feats down Mirror, Mirror. Its also actually only two class features geared towards weapon focus but they scale. What the fighter loses: 1 bonus feat What the fighter gains: Improved bonuses to the Weapon Focus Feat Free Weapon specialisation for any weapon they have Weapon Focus in. Max Dex +2 for all armours - this can lead to running across some surprisingly agile fighters wearing full plate. Mithral full plate would go up to a maximum Dexterity bonus of +5. -3 to Armour check penalties, argueably not a good a bonus as the other abilities but still nice. As was said before, if you already were planning to take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation, you effectively gain a feat. If you are not intending to take Weapon Focus you still get that max Dex bonus which I would say is better than a feat in most cases. Also, for all these versatile combat tricks you generally rely on a specific weapon for them. A +3 bonus on trip attempts with a spiked chain is nothing to sneer at. Especially if it comes with a free +6 to damage. As for becoming a specialised medium-armour wearer. I really don't see where you got that from. Armoured Defense aids anyone who's wearing armour from the insanely high dexterity duelist-type character who's wearing leather armour to the full plate clad warrior. I'm of the opinion its more beneficial for the heavy armour wearers myself. Could the people who are saying this hampers versitality give an actual example of a build that is hampered by the variant?
Gunrock 02-16-05, 11:45 PM	I just rebuilt my only Finesse fighter (not my style, but I tried to build a really good one). I even rebuilt it two ways, one without a WF. I got more powerful with the Alternate Fighter. +2 Max Dex with any armor (now I'm using a +5 Mithral Breastplate for my +7 Dex, -0 Armor check, and +10 Armor Bonus, so I now get 17 rather than 15). The non-Focus fighter lost it's Run feat (had to take my IUS). The WF fighter gained Improved Grapple and Great Fortitude (because I had a free feat). Skills were unaffected. Summary: AC up 2 loss of one feat with non-focus fighter gaining of one tactic and +2 on fort saves WF used PH fighter: 1 WF used Alt. Fighter: 1
fractal 02-17-05, 02:20 AM	There are 5 class features geared towards WF. It's like if the sorcerer got 5 class abilities geared towards summoning spells and never took one. Or a ranger taking the archery path, then fighting sword&board. Or a monk wearing armor. The class is geared towards something else, and that something else is WF. *shrug* The Druid, for example, gets lots of class features that might never see use, the same with the Monk. If what you guys are saying is not so much that WF (etc) is a weak feat, as one that cramps your style, then I can see where you're coming from. The ability to be fully skilled in only a very limited number of weapons is quite annoying. However, I believe that this is more an aspect of the PHB Fighter than of my Alternate Fighter, as I have tried to make it less costly to master individual weapons. Bottom line, with both factors, the fighter is essentially 2 feats down from where he was minimum. It changes the fundamental nature of the fighter from a supremly flexible combatant to a specialized medium-armor wearer. First, again, it's only half a feat. Second, I would suggest that you stop thinking of WF/WS as a limitation that forces you to only use one or two types of weapons. Instead, think of it as an additional available combat technique you can select, in order to have a weapon that hits and damages your opponents more effectively. So, when you're swapping weapons around with Quickdraw, you can choose your weapon with reach, or your weapon that trips, or your weapon that disarms, or your ranged weapon, or your weapon that deals extra damage to finish off an opponent. The fact that the WF feat allows this last weapon to overlap with any of the others is just a bonus. If you would spend feats on just about any part of the ranged combat tree (which pretty much all just help you hit and deal damage), why is this any worse?
Nyferto 02-17-05, 07:56 AM	Weapon Focus short sword, Longsword, dagger or which ever weapon you expect to be using. This is the point, what weapon am I going to be using? With the past Fighter - I don't care what weapon I use because I use the best one for the situation from whatever ones I find/make that mesh with my feats. Weapon Focus Longbow, shortbow, javelin, or crossbow. Thats a +3 total bonus to attack. Which means you can hit people further away with greater ease. +3 to attack at higher levels doesn't help me that much when I've taken Farshot to throw Alchemical weapons further than normal or throwing axes, or if I need to hit things at their maximum range. Even then, so far it's 6 feats with poxy benefit with weapons I might not use. or avoid attacks any easier Armored Efficiency, +2 max dex to armor. What if I don't have a 4 higher dex stat to make use of it? How is it better than a set tower shield which would completely negate the damage? How does that help against being flat footed? Does it add as much as Fighting Defensively with Improved Expertise? Take 3 WFs, and use whichever weapon you have on hand. What if I need to use a different one? Remember the golfbag effect. WF: Flail, halberd, or Whip. +3 to attack, better chance of making your primary connection to the opponent. Well for starters none of those help with the opposed checks unless it's disarm, none of those negate all of the AOO's or grant any of the extra benefits with any weapon you may want to use to make the check. Is it 9 WF feats so far? On top of all that it only costs you 1 feat. Which means you have more room for Improved Trip, Quickdraw, Farshot, etc etc. So far it's cost 9 WF feats and god knows how many weapons. I'm even more feats down and I've probably lost some of the standard feats. I don't understand this sentence. As MM says, you're loosing competitiveness to WF and forcing yourself to rely on specific weapons, 3 feats on making them slightly more effective if you hit and limiting your options even further. Because you lose one feat? And gain improved armor usage, and can take WF in 3 weapons and have a good One handed, Two handed, and ranged attack? If I pick up WF: Longsword, WF: Longspear, and WF: Longbow. I gain a +3 attack and +6 damage with all three of them. Not to mention short spears can be thrown, and so can daggers. I could do WF: Longsword, WF: Shortspear, and WF: Dagger. +3 attack +6 damage with two ranged attacks, +3 attack +6 damage with three different melee weapons, and a bonus to two weapon fighting if I want to go that route. Where's your blunt weapon? Are you carrying 3 different effective weapons of each type for DR purposes? What happens when or if you loose those weapons? You've lost even more then. Well, if the PC wants to give that up for +2 damage with any weapon they spend a feat for Weapon Focus in, 2 bonus feats, and a -1 to Armor check penalty, and sometimes a boost to BAB and HD. Well, let them. And now you're missing PrC's and feats which would expand those options. Why is any amount of level dip worth worrying about at all? Generally the player has pretty good control over which weapons they use. But they have no control over which ones will be effective, hence WF being poor. Flails can trip and grant a bonus to disarm, can be used mounted, with power attacks or with combat expertise or Combat reflexes, whirlwind attacks, or Spring attacks, or sunders, and dual wield with another weapon Guisarms can be used mounted, with power attacks or expertise, combat reflexes, sunder, at a reach, and can trip well. Short spears can be used one handed, mounted, power attacked or expertised, spring attacked or whirlwinded, combat reflex, and can be thrown for ranged feats and benefits. A Dire flail can trip, disarm, use mounted, power attack, sunder, expertise, whirlwind, spring attack, dual wield, and use combat reflexes [quote] Now try doing all that in one character with good wepaons in all accounts, then make each one an effective tactic over just hitting them with a better damage output weapon. Of and remember you've just lost a bunch of feats just to hit things better and harder, less quickly with extra feats down. [quote] Every pony has multiple tricks. Just because a weapon has a special feature doesn't mean it can't be used differently. The flail especially is great as well, but in no way limits your ability to use it with other feats. Weapon Focus means exactly what it says, you're better at everything you do with that weapon. Only it doesn't cost you as much. And if you don't want to weapon focus you only lose 1 feat. Theres no other features other than that one feat that makes this fighter weaker than original fighters compared to other classes, and honestly, I doubt that 1 feat makes a difference at 20th level compared to most other classes. Especially the ones with 9th level spells. 1 feat is a big difference to any other class, but not the fighter whos packing feats out the wazoo. As I said, it's a lot more than one feat, there is no one single weapon that will handle everything, but there are feats that will help counter whatever tactics the enemy pulls irrelevent of whatever suitable weapon you try to use.
Nyferto 02-17-05, 08:06 AM	I don't undertand what you mean by effectively being two feats down Mirror, Mirror. Its also actually only two class features geared towards weapon focus but they scale. What the fighter loses: 1 bonus feat What the fighter gains: Improved bonuses to the Weapon Focus Feat Free Weapon specialisation for any weapon they have Weapon Focus in. Max Dex +2 for all armours - this can lead to running across some surprisingly agile fighters wearing full plate. Mithral full plate would go up to a maximum Dexterity bonus of +5. -3 to Armour check penalties, argueably not a good a bonus as the other abilities but still nice. As was said before, if you already were planning to take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation, you effectively gain a feat. If you are not intending to take Weapon Focus you still get that max Dex bonus which I would say is better than a feat in most cases. Also, for all these versatile combat tricks you generally rely on a specific weapon for them. A +3 bonus on trip attempts with a spiked chain is nothing to sneer at. Especially if it comes with a free +6 to damage. As for becoming a specialised medium-armour wearer. I really don't see where you got that from. Armoured Defense aids anyone who's wearing armour from the insanely high dexterity duelist-type character who's wearing leather armour to the full plate clad warrior. I'm of the opinion its more beneficial for the heavy armour wearers myself. Could the people who are saying this hampers versitality give an actual example of a build that is hampered by the variant? Everytime you take WF, you dedicate your resources to one weapon and it's uses, unless you have completely synergised and the most tricked out weapons, you're going to be falling down the "just hit them" route. BTW, if you have a +6 to damage on trips with a Spiked Chain, then you're going to need Improved Trip to make use of it, because otherwise you'd be better off just hitting them. God forbid you be forced to use a different weapon. Second, I would suggest that you stop thinking of WF/WS as a limitation that forces you to only use one or two types of weapons. Instead, think of it as an additional available combat technique you can select, in order to have a weapon that hits and damages your opponents more effectively. You don't control combat all alone, everyone else on the battle field does. You don't control if the Balor flies off and you have to use a Longbow, you don't control if a Fire Elemental then desides to grapple you. All you can do is respond and out act people in combat. It's far better to do that with any weapon and a bunch of feats they don't have, than be forced to attack them with a Weapon. It might be nice to focus on a standard damaging weapon and use it, but if they just avoid that weapons forms of attack? Then you'll need another WF feat, and if that ones ineffective - another feat, and all the time you're missing out on simple counter tactics. What's wrong with my suggestion of dropping a benefit from WS/WF for a bonus feat?
DanSDS 02-17-05, 11:07 AM	It took me a bit, but I really came around to this fighter variant. I like that it actually makes it a redeemable class as stand-alone, other than something other classes multiclass with up to 5 (most of the time) or 12 (some of the time). Taking out the one most multiclassable and abused class in the game and replacing it with this is definitely a good thing; It encourages the use of Prc's more for one thing, and it actually reflects what a true fighter would be- a focused damage machine who can effectively use and move in armor. The Armor thing was definitely the key factor for me. To me, its absolutely huge. Bravo for the creation of this. If you don't mind, I'd like to make use of this variant. As for the WF controversy, having specialized focus in select weapons doesn't make you completely inept at using other forms of offense. Sure, you won't be as effective *with* these alternatives, but keep in mind you still have the Fighter's great BAB along with applicable statistical mods that supplement this, as well as universal bonus feats that facilitate *all* weapons, ranged or melee. You aren't 'forced' into any sort of situation with the weapons, it just happens to be your preferred 'focus,' hence the name.
Gunrock 02-17-05, 11:53 AM	The right weapon for each situation. Which weapon is it? If I want to be the trip master, I'll use a chain or whip that give me bonuses to tripping. If I want to be disarmer supreme, I'll use a flail. If I want to be Sunderer extrordinaire I'll use an adamantite greatsword. If I simply want to do all of these things, and do them well, I'll use a fighter who has a magic silver morningstar, a composite short or long bow, a flaming adamantite greatsword, and maybe a glaive or longspear if I find myself needing reach weapons a lot of the time. And my Improved Unarmed Strike for when I get disarmed, caught away from my weapons, or captured. That's it. I'd choose focus with either the greatsword or the reach weapon, unless I thought of myself as an archer. The rest would just be there to kill things that are immune to my other attack forms. A trip can be done at any time using a simple leg sweep. You don't need a chain/whip/halber/glaive/boogity-boo to trip, you just need to be concious and not to provoke AoOs. Hence, IUS or Improved Trip.
Gunrock 02-17-05, 11:54 AM	Disarming and sundering are the same. Weapons designed for them are nice, but you don't need them, that's why your a fighter. You want people to be in awe of your ability to suddenly change the entire fight by using one of your many skills. I think we can all agree on that part. This build still lets you do that. And if you happen to take focus with anything, you get lots of bonuses with it because you're a fighter.
Gunrock 02-17-05, 11:57 AM	What's wrong with my suggestion of dropping a benefit from WS/WF for a bonus feat? If that's what you want to play, then use the PH Fighter and don't complain about it being "weak" or "underpowered" or "frot-loaded". Do like I have, say that fighters rock, and proceed to build fighters that rock.
Nyferto 02-17-05, 12:08 PM	I'm doing that already, and you seem to be missing the benefits of the Improved (attack) feats. Then missing that it's not as simple as a weapon all the time. What you're still missing is that this Figher is supposed to be an improvement to the Fighter, and better balanced - it isn't. It's just more refined and less flexable beacause of the power increase to WF.
Gunrock 02-17-05, 12:25 PM	I'm doing that already, and you seem to be missing the benefits of the Improved (attack) feats. Then missing that it's not as simple as a weapon all the time. What you're still missing is that this Figher is supposed to be an improvement to the Fighter, and better balanced - it isn't. It's just more refined and less flexable beacause of the power increase to WF. First, I make fighters by the dozen and ALL of them have Improved everything. Even the one that has Quicken Spell (another story...). Second, by removing the need to keep a fighter's damage competative by wasting feats on the WS feats, this build allows a fighter to take MORE of the Improved feats. That's a good thing.
Gunrock 02-17-05, 12:26 PM	Any disarmer, tripper, grappler, sunderer worth his AC has a favorite weapon for making those attacks. That weapon usually has the highest enhancement of all his or her weapons AND has a WF on it for the +1 to all of those checks. This build lets them get WS, GWF, and GWS without spending a single feat. That's 3 free feats. That I have to give up the one tactical feat that I didn't really want (TWF or Mounted Combat or Manyshot) is a price I'm more than willing to pay.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-17-05, 01:24 PM	None of these class features limit you from anything you could do as the PHB fighter except lose 1 feat. You don't have to specialize with every weapon you use. Hell, you don't even have to be proficient. You can pick up a dire flail and start swinging, you just take a -4 attack. You seem to be arguing that the fighter can only use the weapons they have specialization in. God forbid you be forced to use a different weapon. Or that you come into combat with a flying creature or an ooze that can't be tripped. Or an owlbear who's natural weapons can't be sundered. Or a wolf who's teeth can't be disarmed. Or a retriver that you're not going to beat on your bull rush Or a golem immune to your Improved Critical feat Or a chaos beast that you'd be a fool to grapple Or a tyrannosaur that you won't be able to overrun Or an invisible stalker that your Far shot, rapid shot, many shot aren't going to help against. Or a cave dwelling creature where your mount won't go Or fight in a small room where you don't have much room to move attack and move again. Or an undead that you can't stun with your stunning fist Or a single, powerful giant that your whirlwind attack isn't going to net you any bonuses against. No one ability is always going to be useful. It sounds like you'd want the ability to apply in every situation. Weapon Focus et all is probably the most likely ability to apply in every situation, because you can't really control any of the above circumstances, but at least you almost always control the weapon you meet them with. Would you really want the fighter to have a free +3 attack with every weapon and +6 damage with every weapon that exists? No, it has to be limited, and this is an excellent way to take care of that. And if you don't want to use the class ability, you only lose out on 1 feat, and gain more defense. What if I don't have a 4 higher dex stat to make use of it? Hell if I care. You made a choice not to have higher dexterity knowing the benefits granted by the class and now you have to live with the consequences. Whoopity-do. My ranger can't cast spells, he has 9 Wis at 7th level. I don't fault the build for that, I made a choice, and in this situation, so did you. With the past Fighter - I don't care what weapon I use because I use the best one for the situation from whatever ones I find/make that mesh with my feats. Aside from 1 feat, what the hell is stopping you? Just because its a class ability you think somehow you have to make use of it? But they have no control over which ones will be effective, hence WF being poor. There are so few monsters whos Damage reduction is based on damage type its not a real problem to switch to deal with specifically those monsters. They're things like Skeletons, Clay golems, and Annis Hags. Even that aside, they have the same control that the PHB fighter has. Except the PHB fighter lost much more when he faced a monster that resisted his damage type weapon. The fighter doesn't lose anything but 1 feat if he refuses to take WF. He gains defensive abilities instead. Abilities better than Dodge, which is a feat, because it applies to all enemies. He's not going to get Dodge without 13 dex, which he can happily use in Half-plates now, because he'll get that +1 dex to AC. This build doesn't stop you from using any of your character concepts, weaken the fighter, or force you down any path. You make your decisions about the class with full knowledge, and if you choose to ignore those class features, you still make a net gain over the PHB fighter. So what the hell is the problem here?
Tony Vargas 02-17-05, 02:11 PM	None of these class features limit you from anything you could do as the PHB fighter except lose 1 feat. They do channel you a little, though, FWTW. It is a loss of customizeability in return for power. The only problem I see is it's a little too good a deal compared to the regular fighter... but, if the goal is also to rebalance the fighter higher, than that's to be expected. Aside from 1 feat, what the hell is stopping you? Just because its a class ability you think somehow you have to make use of it? There's trade-offs and there's trade-offs. A regular fighter has GWS as a sort of 'class feature' since only fighters get to take it (core, anyway). If he doesn't specialize at all, though, he gets 4 feats instead. This fighter gets a specialization ability that's more potent than the regular fighters at the highest levels, and, if he chooses not to use it at all, he gets back /one/ feat, instead. Yeah, that prettymuch means you have to make use of it. In fact, I'd say that you'd be making a pretty poor decision if you didn't take two WF feats (one solid melee weapon, and the composite longbow - the only worthwhile missle weapon for a strong fighter).
Gunrock 02-17-05, 03:02 PM	There's trade-offs and there's trade-offs. A regular fighter has GWS as a sort of 'class feature' since only fighters get to take it (core, anyway). If he doesn't specialize at all, though, he gets 4 feats instead. I can't deny your logic, since that would be lying and mathematically untrue, but I would like to make one comment. I've made such unspecialized fighters before, and they came out as characters that annoyed the enemy greatly without ever really killing him. This wasn't a fault of the tactics, the excecution, or the feat synergies I used, this was a simple mathematical fact of the missing damage from Improved Crit and the WS feats. It may be that I'm missing some crucial splat-book feat that makes the unspecialized fighter just as hard-hitting as the specialized one, and if that's so I'd appreciate the guidance. If that's not so, then you can no more deny my logic than I could deny yours.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-17-05, 04:34 PM	There's trade-offs and there's trade-offs. A regular fighter has GWS as a sort of 'class feature' since only fighters get to take it (core, anyway). If he doesn't specialize at all, though, he gets 4 feats instead. This fighter gets a specialization ability that's more potent than the regular fighters at the highest levels, and, if he chooses not to use it at all, he gets back /one/ feat, instead. Yeah, that prettymuch means you have to make use of it. In fact, I'd say that you'd be making a pretty poor decision if you didn't take two WF feats (one solid melee weapon, and the composite longbow - the only worthwhile missle weapon for a strong fighter). I disagree. Theres nothing that means I have to take it. I may be stronger by taking it, but I don't have to take it. After all, not every fighter uses greatswords/spiked chains/longbows do they?
mermin_8403 02-17-05, 04:34 PM	If you say that you really need more than one damage type, because things have, DR/ slashing or DR/ silver or cold iron, or adamantine, etc. I have this calculation for you. Let's say I'm playing a fighter with WF (greatsword) with this alternate version of the fighter, and you're playing one with lots of different weapons in your golf bag, and nothing really specialized. We run into a devil or some such, and we both get in close with our default weapons (for me, my best greatsword (which I bought), for you, whatever we've found with the highest enhancement bonus). And then the mage chimes in "Hey, this guy's got Damage Reduction vs. cold iron." My response is "Darn, My greatsword is adamantine, and my backup is silver." Your's is "I'll go into my golf-bag for a slightly worse weapon that is cold iron." Next round, we both full attack; Your weapon ignores the DR, mine doesn't (I see no need to draw a different one). But what can I do? I channel that +3 to hit from Greater weapon focus into my power attack, for an extra +6 damage. And I get +6 damage from greater weapon specialization. That means, when I hit, my weapon focus has given me +12 damage, and no bonus to hit. When you hit, since you don't have weapon focus, it doesn't give you squat. In fact, you probably did less damage than you would with your best weapon. Then our damage is reduced by the damage reduction. I still come out okay unless the damage reduction is more than 10/ cold iron, and not much has that non-epic. And if I do have a second greatsword that's cold iron, I'm doing even better. Is this worth a feat? I'd say yes, it can replace, for example, quickdraw, on a melee fighter until high levels. Later, maybe quickdraw can replace some other feat.
fractal 02-17-05, 04:51 PM	It took me a bit, but I really came around to this fighter variant. I like that it actually makes it a redeemable class as stand-alone, other than something other classes multiclass with up to 5 (most of the time) or 12 (some of the time). Taking out the one most multiclassable and abused class in the game and replacing it with this is definitely a good thing; It encourages the use of Prc's more for one thing, and it actually reflects what a true fighter would be- a focused damage machine who can effectively use and move in armor. The Armor thing was definitely the key factor for me. To me, its absolutely huge. Bravo for the creation of this. If you don't mind, I'd like to make use of this variant. Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. You are certainly welcome to use it. That, along with hoping for feedback, are the two reasons I posted the Alternate Fighter. To those who say that this is just an alternate class, in addition to the PHB Fighter, well, that's true. However, my intent with the creation of the class was to build a class that could replace the PHB Fighter. Therefore, criticism regarding its ability to fill the roles of the PHB Fighter is appropriate, although I personally feel that the Alternate Fighter is capable of doing so in just about every instance. As for the WF controversy, having specialized focus in select weapons doesn't make you completely inept at using other forms of offense. Sure, you won't be as effective *with* these alternatives, but keep in mind you still have the Fighter's great BAB along with applicable statistical mods that supplement this, as well as universal bonus feats that facilitate *all* weapons, ranged or melee. You aren't 'forced' into any sort of situation with the weapons, it just happens to be your preferred 'focus,' hence the name. Yes, this is the point I was trying to make with my previous post. The use of a focused weapon is a powerful option to have available, but you're not required to only wield such weapons.
Tony Vargas 02-17-05, 05:11 PM	I disagree. Theres nothing that means I have to take it. I may be stronger by taking it, but I don't have to take it. After all, not every fighter uses greatswords/spiked chains/longbows do they? Fighters don't have to wear armor, either, but most have little reason not to, and every reason to do so. There's a point where a given option is so superior to alternatives that the 'choice' among them becomes meaningless for purposes of balancing based on customizeability vs power. When you're evaluating this version of the fighter, you have to consider that one or two feats are going to WF to enable the specialization feature - a given PC could chose not to do that, but, that's not really relevant: it's so poor a choice that the option it represents has virtually no value. Though, exactly /when/ feats are devoted to WF probably does represent a meaningful choice. So I guess it's not really quite fair to characterize it has having flat out two-fewer feats to choose... Whether you look at it as a 10-feat fighter with additional power, or an 8-feat fighter with additional power, it's still a substantial step up from the PH fighter, and a small step down in customizeability. To those who say that this is just an alternate class, in addition to the PHB Fighter, well, that's true. However, my intent with the creation of the class was to build a class that could replace the PHB Fighter. As an alternate class to go side-by-side with the PH Fighter, this would have to be toned down. 5 bonus feats over 20 levels instead of 11 might do the trick (just a guess). As a more-powerful replacement for the fighter, it certainly fits the bill. About the only thing it can't replace is the 1 or 2-level dip to snag feats, which'd slightly alter the availability of some PrC-based builds...
Tony Vargas 02-17-05, 05:18 PM	I've made such unspecialized fighters before, and they came out as characters that annoyed the enemy greatly without ever really killing him. This wasn't a fault of the tactics, the excecution, or the feat synergies I used, this was a simple mathematical fact of the missing damage from Improved Crit and the WS feats. I know exactly what you mean. I've tended to ignore WS in my 3E fighters, and, when someone else is playing a barb or greatsword specialist or uber-archer, the differnce in damage-dealing is evident. It strikes me as a viable trade-off, though. 4 feats is a heavy investment for a simple numerical bonus, and while other uses of those 4 feats may not help as much in beating down a single enemy ASAP, they can help out in a lot of other ways.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-17-05, 05:30 PM	Fighters don't have to wear armor, either, but most have little reason not to, and every reason to do so. There's a point where a given option is so superior to alternatives that the 'choice' among them becomes meaningless for purposes of balancing based on customizeability vs power. When you're evaluating this version of the fighter, you have to consider that one or two feats are going to WF to enable the specialization feature - a given PC could chose not to do that, but, that's not really relevant: it's so poor a choice that the option it represents has virtually no value. Though, exactly /when/ feats are devoted to WF probably does represent a meaningful choice. So I guess it's not really quite fair to characterize it has having flat out two-fewer feats to choose... Whether you look at it as a 10-feat fighter with additional power, or an 8-feat fighter with additional power, it's still a substantial step up from the PH fighter, and a small step down in customizeability. I would agree, although I'd refer to it as a Diminuative step down rather than small. Halflings are small. What I disagree with by many arguements is that this fighter is substancially gimped in customizability when compared to the PHB fighter. What I want to point out is that the difference between this fighter, and the PHB fighter is 1 lost feat, and a slew of additional benefits. Whether or not a character takes advantage of those benefits is up to them. But I have concluded that there is really a near 0 loss in terms of customizability, in sacrifice for a stronger standing amongst the Fighter's fellow classes.
Crashy75 02-17-05, 06:06 PM	A nice simple build. I like it
Tony Vargas 02-17-05, 06:47 PM	I would agree, although I'd refer to it as a Diminuative step down rather than small. Halflings are small. :rolleyes: Fine. Except mice are diminuative. :pbbbtt: and bees are Fine ...argh! OK, how 'bout 'slight' can be a slight step-down...?
Nyferto 02-18-05, 07:58 AM	Well it's better for around 75% of Fighters, but means a complete scrap for the rest, which is why I don't like it. I'd put it in medium step down, or perhaps small with a feat that makes them act a bit like medium. After we've got over this little hump, we can move onto A) Epic progression B) Balance
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-18-05, 08:37 AM	Nyferto, could you please just post one of these fighters who has to be completely scrapped with this build? Because I can't imagine how the loss of a feat is seriously going to scrap an entire build, especially a fighter who still gets 17 feats throughout their levels. :rolleyes: Fine. Except mice are diminuative. :pbbbtt: and bees are Fine ...argh! :evillaugh:
DanSDS 02-18-05, 08:53 AM	A select few seem to be missing the point. Its not just an overall upgrade/moving to the side of the current D&D Fighter class; its an attempt to make Weapon Focus and associated feats Fighter only, thus redeeming the class for standalone play. This class does that, and does it well. As far as having to 'scrap' certain builds, as Nyferto has said, I'd definitely have to see said build that works so perfectly with the standard fighter package but not with this alternative one. The overall differences are rather minute; besides, even if there are differences, thats a variance in the way you play. You still get most all of what the normal fighter gets, but Weapon Focus/Specialization, et al are made as class abilities instead of as selectable fighter 'bonus' feats, which in my opinion *finally* makes them a real class with real abilities instead of just a 'jack of all trades' character that someone can jump in on for a few levels and get huge frontloaded benefits. As Treetrip astutely pointed out, you play to the strengths of the class you are leveling in, and don't dismiss the class because of a self-imposed limitation due to statistics. My only problem is having said focus in multiple weapons. How would you accomplish this? Would you have a feat called "Secondary Weapon Focus" that only the fighter could take, and would allow all applicable bonuses from level evolution to apply upon taking this feat? If so, it would require some steep prereqs, including but not limited to a fairly high (7+) BAB before you qualify. The reason? The nature of being focused in a weapon is essentially that - focus. Your character puts all his time and energy (most of it anyway) into completely mastering the intricacies of his chosen weapon. By simply being able to take a one time feat and gain all the initial abilites of said focuses/specializations on that weapon when it took several levels to build it up with the initial weapon...well that just doesn't make sense. Put a level min. requirement on it, or a BAB to make sure there is a time gap before you can 'master' multiple weapons. This is all theoretical of course; I have no idea how you plan to incorporate multiple WFing. There is another option you could use as well. Make 'Secondary Weapon Focus' available earlier, but the WF bonuses he gets aren't retroactive; the user only starts accruing future bonuses from that point on. Just my 2 cents.
Rowan_Whispercloak 02-18-05, 08:54 AM	Personal I don't take weapon focus/specialization for more than one weapon two at most. I like to have different tricks and with tactical feats I have found more reason to just take fighter all the way through. -Funniest Beginning an New campaign moment DM: roll ability scores Me: (rolling DM's dice) 18 DM: (raises eyebrow) Me: (rolling DM's dice) 18 DM: (raises eyebrow again) Me: (rolling DM's dice) 18 DM: (raises eyebrow third time) Me: (rolling DM's dice) 18 DM: (eye open wider than I have ever seen) Me: (rolling DM's dice) 18 DM: (mouth moves in silent obscenities) Me: (rolling DM's dice) 18 DM: Those dice have to be loaded. Me: They're your dice dude. DM: (rolling his dice) 3 Me: (shrugs shoulders) DM: I hate you.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-18-05, 10:18 AM	Just cuz I'm feeling wacky... alt.variant.A 1 Armor Focus +1 2 Bonus Feat 3 Weapon Focus +1 4 Bonus Feat 5 Weapon Specialization +2 6 Bonus Feat 7 Armor Focus +2 8 Bonus Feat 9 Weapon Focus +2 10 Bonus Feat 11 Weapon Specialization +4 12 Bonus Feat 13 Armor Focus +3 14 Bonus Feat 15 Weapon Focus +3 16 Bonus Feat 17 Weapon Specialization +6 18 Bonus Feat 19 Bonus Feat 20 Bonus Feat ... or ... alt.variant.B 1 Weapon Focus +1 2 Bonus Feat 3 Armor Focus +1 4 Bonus Feat 5 Weapon Specialization +2 6 Bonus Feat 7 Weapon Focus +2 8 Bonus Feat 9 Armor Focus +2 10 Bonus Feat 11 Weapon Specialization +4 12 Bonus Feat 13 Weapon Focus +3 14 Bonus Feat 15 Armor Focus +3 16 Bonus Feat 17 Weapon Specialization +6 18 Bonus Feat 19 Bonus Feat 20 Bonus Feat Armor Focus = increase max dex and decrease armor check penalty. ~~~ Yeah I know, variants on the same theme. I don't want to step on your toes, fractal. If you'd prefer, I'll remove these so that the discussion doesn't potentially get de-railed. That's not my intent.
Arcane Guyver 02-18-05, 12:22 PM	Krynus - I admire the intent, and that is a solid class structure. However, it also truly forces the focusing on one weapon. Whereas focusing with Fractal's is more of a suggestion. Plus that build reintroduces the two-level dip, for those who wanted WF in the first place.
Tony Vargas 02-18-05, 12:57 PM	Don't kid yourself that this fighter isn't 'forced' into focusing on at least one weapon, the bonuses gained for the cost of one feat make it a no-brainer. Krynus's version just makes it explicit, FWIW. Really, what we're talking about here, in terms of specialization, is something of a return to 1E specialization, where you picked one weapon at 1st level and stuck with it, or 2E, where you spent nearly-meaningless proficiencies to get awe-inspiring bonuses. At least, 3E made specialization just one option, with a fair 'cost,' rather than a gimme or deep-discounted ability... Don't ge me wrong, I still think the idea of a fighter with more-powerful, less customizeable abilities might be worth developing, but, it did finally occur to me that, in one way, this one's a step backwards.
mermin_8403 02-18-05, 01:11 PM	Nyferto, I'd also like to see this fighter that has to be scrapped with this new build. Then please explain to me how he survived being level 19 (or for that matter any level before he got the one feat he apparently so drastically needs but can't take with Fractal's alt. fighter).
Arcane Guyver 02-18-05, 02:09 PM	Don't kid yourself that this fighter isn't 'forced' into focusing on at least one weapon, the bonuses gained for the cost of one feat make it a no-brainer. It may be a no-brainer, but people like Nyfer here will cry if you absolutely force them to Focus. This brings it back to the level dippers - You wouldn't really NEED that Weapon Focus if you're only taking three levels of Fighter for two bonus feats. In a way this is like Monte Cook's Warmain class - if you spend a feat on Weapon Focus, you get Weapon Specialization free. If you didn't...well, too bad, so sad. The reason neither force you to take WF at first level is so you'll have the first three levels to find a weapon you want the bonus attached to. Of course, WS works differently here - if you take WF later on as a fighter, you retroactively get the WS benefits.
Tony Vargas 02-18-05, 02:37 PM	Sorry to hijack the thread again, but, this came to me. This is an alternative fighter that is more highly focused (and thus more powerful). Alternate fighter special ability progression: L1: 1st Combat Style 2 2nd Combat Style 3 Battle Reflexes +1 4 1st Combat Style 5 2nd Combat Style 6 Battle Discipline +1 7 1st Combat Style 8 2nd Combat Style 9 Battle Reflexes +2 10 1st Combat Style 11 2nd Combat Style 12 Battle Discipline +2 13 1st Combat Style 14 2nd Combat Style 15 Battle Reflexes +3 16 1st Combat Style 17 2nd Combat Style 18 Battle Discipline +3 19 1st Combat Style 20 2nd Combat Style Battle Reflexes: The fighter adds this unnamed bonus to his REF saves when in combat, and to his initiative rolls. Battle Discipline: The fighter adds this unnamed bonus to his WILL saves when in cobmat, and to skill checks with direct combat aplications, such as Listening for an invisible foe, Spotting or hiding in ambush, spotting or making a feint, or tumbling to avoid an AoO. Combat Styles are progressions of 7 feats. The 1st 5 are standard PH feats, the last two are special class abilities that add to or progress those feats beyond normal. The fighter picks his 1st combat style at 1st, and his 2nd at 2nd level, and is locked into them from then on. He gains the listed feats in order, and does not need to meet any prerequisites, though restrictions still aply. Combat Styles: Weapon Mastery Weapon Focus Specialization Improved Crit Greater Focus Greater Specialization Supreme Focus +3 total Supreme Specialization +6 total Archery: (these feats aply only to missle weapons, not thrown) Rapid Shot Precise Shot Multishot Distance Shot Improved Precise Shot Melee Shot: no AoO for firing in melee Threaten: Take AoO with ranged weapon, w/in your normal reach. Two-Weapon Fighting (these feats aply only to melee weapons, not thrown) TWF TWD ITWF ITWD GTWF Double-Attack: Attack once with off-hand weapon in Standard Attack Perfect TWF: no TWF penalties Weapon & Shield: (these feats aplly only when using a light, heavy or Tower shield) Improved Shield Bash TWF Mobility ITWF Improved Bull Rush Improved Shield Defense: You gain a Dodge bonus equal to your shield's shield bonus. Magic-shield Defense: You add your shield's Enhancement bonuses to the above Dodge bonus. Mighty Warrior (these feats aply only when using a THW) Cleave Great Cleave Improved Bull Rush Power Attack Improved Sunder Rage: 1/day Mighty Rage: 2/day Swashbuckler (these feats aply only when wearing light or no armor and a buckler or no shield, and employing a finesseable weapon) Weapon Finesse Combat Expertise Improved Disarm Blindfight Improved Feint Sneak Attack: +2d10 1/round Sneak Attack: +4d10 1/round 'Knife' fighter (these feats aply only when using light, throwable weapons) TWF Quickdraw Rapid Shot Weapon Finesse Improved Feint Sneak Attack: +1d10 Sneak Attack: +2d10
Tony Vargas 02-18-05, 02:45 PM	Then please explain to me how he survived being level 19 (or for that matter any level before he got the one feat he apparently so drastically needs but can't take with Fractal's alt. fighter). In all fairness, the feat that's lacking is probably felt at 1st level, and it's being 'behind' where he should be his whole career that's problematic. Not having the feat preqs for something you want until after you've fullfilled the BAB preq, for instance, can hurt. I agree that it'd be a pretty 'tense' build that would really feel the difference all the way through, though. For most, the pain would be over by 6th level or so... and that's for 'most' of the very small (tiny, er, diminuative, uh - no, infinitesimal!) subset of fighter builds for which the alternate isn't screamingly more powerful. :rolleyes:
hammer_man_Dan 02-18-05, 05:30 PM	personally i think nothing is wrong with the fighter class, this being said i REALY like this alternative fighter. I intend to share this with my fellow players. This is quite simply a briliant piece of work, and why the HELL ARE YOU NOT WORKING AT WOTC??? :confused: i am looking forward to more posts from you maby you could rengeneer some other classes? a man once told me that if you find one truth you have found something truly amazing and precious. well i have found a truth and it is : people are stupid
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-18-05, 06:32 PM	Don't kid yourself that this fighter isn't 'forced' into focusing on at least one weapon, the bonuses gained for the cost of one feat make it a no-brainer. I really see it as a difference between a fighter taking Combat Expertise or Skill Focus: Craft: Woodcarving. Maybe one of them more appropriately describes his backstory and character nature, but the other makes him stronger. If its not in the characters backstory or character nature, then he doesn't have to have special talent with any weapon at all. Maybe he didn't want to be a fighter but his mother made him, so he just got proficient with the weapons, and didn't worry about really fine tuning his use with any of them. Thats fine, but he's going to be weaker because of a choice made about the character with full knoweldge about the class and the game. I just don't see how this fighter is worse than the PHB fighter because of it. well i have found a truth and it is : people are stupid Don't forget that you're a people too.
fractal 02-19-05, 05:06 AM	Sorry to hijack the thread again, but, this came to me. This is an alternative fighter that is more highly focused (and thus more powerful). Alternate fighter special ability progression: Combat Styles are progressions of 7 feats. The 1st 5 are standard PH feats, the last two are special class abilities that add to or progress those feats beyond normal. The fighter picks his 1st combat style at 1st, and his 2nd at 2nd level, and is locked into them from then on. He gains the listed feats in order, and does not need to meet any prerequisites, though restrictions still aply. Combat Styles: Weapon Mastery Archery (these feats aply only to missle weapons, not thrown) Two-Weapon Fighting (these feats aply only to melee weapons, not thrown) Weapon & Shield (these feats aplly only when using a light, heavy or Tower shield) Mighty Warrior (these feats aply only when using a THW) Swashbuckler (these feats aply only when wearing light or no armor and a buckler or no shield, and employing a finesseable weapon) 'Knife' fighter (these feats aply only when using light, throwable weapons) This, your Combat Stylist (as I'll call it), is an interesting class. Obviously you just came up with it, so I shouldn't be too critical, but I do have a few concerns about it. One concern is that the Combat Stylist is much more different from the PHB Fighter than my Alternate Fighter is, and therefore less able to replace the PHB Fighter in many of the roles it fills. The Alternate Fighter was intended to be, as the thread title says, "like the PHB Fighter, only better". (I don't consider the loss of 0-1 feat to prevent this.) Another concern is that, like the Specialist Wizard, the Ranger, and the Cleric, except to a much greater degree, the options available to the Combat Stylist fork widely. This means that you can end up with a very different character depending upon which style choices you make at levels 1 and 2. However, since a given character may only have one progression in a particular class, a level 3 character couldn't decide he didn't like their styles and start over. Instead he'd be forced to continue with the styles he had, or else switch into Barbarian or Ranger, and try to learn the new style the hard way. Look at it this way. If a character of any other class (besides Specialist Wizard) decides she doesn't like her first two levels, she is, at worst, two levels down. If a Combat Stylist decides he doesn't like his first two levels, well, tough luck. If he wants Combat Stylist levels, those two styles are what he's getting. Finally, there's a general concern about giving a fixed bonus feat as a class feature. Frequently such feats are granted after their prerequisites could have already been met. This raises the possibility of characters either having to wait to gain feats they're supposed to be extra good at, or losing out on a feat entirely, because it had already been selected. Note that under the Core rules, the only classes to grant fixed bonus feats (past level 1) are Ranger and Monk, and Ranger, in particular, at least makes an effort to grant the feats as soon as the prerequisite could be met. Other than those concerns, I do think a Combat Style Fighter has potential, and I think your Battle Reflexes and Battle Discipline abilities have very nice flavor. If the Combat Styles were all (or almost all) unique abilities rather than bonus feats, especially if the Combat Stylist could multiclass with itself, then I think the class could be solid either as the primary fighting class, or alongside the PHB or Alternate Fighters. P.S. Regarding the Alternate Fighter, it is intentional that she can master more than one type of weapon. I feel that diminishing returns will stop almost everyone from focusing on more than two or three, and that it is not necessary to enforce "primary" and "secondary" weapons. I consider the ability of an established character to spend a feat on weapon focus and change his preferred weapon to be more of a strength than a weakness.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-19-05, 01:29 PM	Krynus - I admire the intent, and that is a solid class structure. However, it also truly forces the focusing on one weapon. Whereas focusing with Fractal's is more of a suggestion. Tony Vargas (in quote, below) has the right of it... fractal's alt.FTR does practically "force" a player to choose Weapon Focus, whereas the A/B variants give it away. From that perspective, it validates Nyferto's view that this fighter is essentially losing out on two bonus feats of the player's choosing (because to not pick WF underpowers the character compared to other fighters using the same variant). Plus that build reintroduces the two-level dip, for those who wanted WF in the first place. Two-level dippers don't really want Weapon Focus; it's the four-level dippers that do. With either the A or B variant, they'd have to go five levels. :devil: Having said that, if the B variant is cause for sufficient concern (AFAICT, it's not, but what do I know), the A variant starts with Armor Focus instead, which combined fractal's Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense into one ability. I combined them because while they are nice abilities, individually, they didn't feel as appealing (for lack of a better word). Don't kid yourself that [fractal's] fighter isn't 'forced' into focusing on at least one weapon, the bonuses gained for the cost of one feat make it a no-brainer. Krynus's version just makes it explicit, FWIW. Really, what we're talking about here, in terms of specialization, is something of a return to 1E specialization, where you picked one weapon at 1st level and stuck with it, or 2E, where you spent nearly-meaningless proficiencies to get awe-inspiring bonuses. (As an aside, I'm not sure if my previous post was clear on this or not, but you could choose additional WF feats and gain the better WF and WS abilities in all focused weapons, just like fractal's class allows.) There's several reasons I posted these. If you noticed, both variants have 11 bonus feats of the player's choosing... the class just happens to backload them instead of the PHB frontloading. With the Foci and Specialization abilities added in, we essentially have a 20-bonus-feat fighter class. I guess the question is whether fractal's alt.ftr is too powerful when compared to the Bbn, Pal, or Rgr? (I don't think so.) Followed up by, is either A/B variant too powerful when compared to the Bbn, Pal, or Rgr? (Hard to say.)
Arcane Guyver 02-19-05, 09:44 PM	From that perspective, it validates Nyferto's view that this fighter is essentially losing out on two bonus feats of the player's choosing (because to not pick WF underpowers the character compared to other fighters using the same variant). For every time you take Weapon Focus, you forfeit some other feat. A fighter who Focuses on three weapons will be three tactical feats short of a non-focused fighter. Let's hope for the Focused fighter that the other didn't pick something like Improved Disarm, Sunder, or even Trip.
Wereman 02-20-05, 12:24 AM	i have made a few fighters and i find some of the same problems that you have - underpowered and somewhat limited by only feats. However; if you change the fighter like this the barbarian in your campaign needs some improvement too. I like seeing that u've put a ton of effort and research into this. I might use this in one of my campaigns. :D Thanks man, your friendly neighborhood wereman
Nyferto 02-21-05, 07:51 AM	I've got about 7 Past Fighters (all slightly similar to an extent) that needed to be completely rebuilt, and found that their old ideals were worthless and it was better to just focus on a good weapon (like a shortspear or heavy flail), rather than use their adapted tactics. Of the 4 other Fighters that actually bothered with WF, they got a substantial boost, and a bunch of feats they hadn't used before. Those 4 were never the great Fighters the 7 were. What's worse is that some of the Fighter multiclasses got an even bigger and un-needed boost because they were already focused on one weapon or linear styles. There was one Fighter/Warmage/EK/AZN who got refocused onto ray spells and the like who became especially devestating. I'll hunt out the builds and go through them for you, but it'll take some time. One I posted recently, incomplete calculation Anyway, the first remoded CW Dex and Int build. Ignoring the CW Swashbuckler completely. 20th Elven Fighter Str 14 Dex 22 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 13 Cha 10 1. Improved Weapon Familiarity 1. Weapon Finnesse 2. Dodge 3. Dash 4. Expertise 6. Combat Reflexes 6. Close Quarters Fighting 8. Mobility 9. Elusive Target 10. Power Attack 12. Lightning Reflexes 12. Prone Attack 14. Improved Disarm 15. Iron Will 16. Defensive Strike 18. TWF 18. Shield Bash 20. Improved Toughness It's a loose fit and it needs some work (wish I had the CAdv), but I'll update it, and retroactively build it. It's a fairly flexible build though, note that it was designed to make use of the Elven Thinblade, but in reality it rarely ever did.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-21-05, 08:47 AM	So whats the motivation, background for the character concept? After all, a series of feats doesn't really tell you what a characters all about. Weapon Finesse AND power attack? I didn't think you could power attack with the thinblade, that was some sort of balance factor or what not.
Nyferto 02-21-05, 12:46 PM	It's the same as the Rapier. Alright, the motivation was to see if we could out dualist the dualist (in a way we couldn't), but the character used all the reflex feats, a good amount of intelligence and finesse and still have a good Fighter - which he was. It's fairly free form, the feats can be switched around as you like, and depending on need or want you can switch things out when you need them, and take others when they become more important. Whilst this character is focued on the Elven Thinblade, it will never use it exclusively. TWF and Shield Bash allow for a large number of ranged possibilities, the basic set up functions with any number of weapons, with things like Elusive Target and Defensive strike adding to the defence possiblities. It says Improved Disarm, but the real Fighter had a different feat I can't find a refference for, but that's not important. This is one of the ones that can be drastically altered by the revision. First off, which 2 feats do we drop for WF, and which Weapon do we Focus on? Well I could drop Dash, it's not that important (if nice when hasted), but anything else? They're all far more potent and life saving than WF will ever be, plus they can be used irrelevent of weapon (mostly). So do I drop IWF and stick with Martial varients, loosing the exotic flair, a point of damage? Perhaps Shield Bash? Well if I do the first one then I have to decide on what weapon I'm going to use, Rapier becomes obvious, and I would get a good set of benefits from it, but then I never used the Elven Thinblade exclusively anyway, at Higher levels it became less vital or even intergal to the build, so I'm down on ability if I ever deviate from the Rapier - it's not that bad a choice though. What then of the TWF aspect of things, sure the Shield is nice (Spiked and Bashing and Defending if I want), but now that I'm focusing on the Rapier from the start, what am I going to do before Shield Bashing becomes a good idea? Seeing as I'm more likely to use the Spiked Shield persistantly, should I focus on that at some point? What about IWF, now that I don't have the option of the Lightblade offhand will I be picking up the Shortsword as well? Wouldn't it now be better to just focus on weapons that i'd get WF benefits for and use just one? What about Ranged Weapons, now that's behind as well, it's not like I had quickdraw (I was actually down on feats), but I at least didn't have to worry which weapon I equiped. Do I take WF in one of those and reduce my feats again? Do I need to take QD to make sure I can use whichever in a pinch? Should I think about just focusing on two basic weapons and using them as appropriate (the boring thing), which two should I go for, how does that effect the rest of my feats. So far I'm down to dual wielding two martial lightweapons and a bow with quickdraw, just so I can get more usage out of this focused damage. I could've stopped at the Rapier, but then my approach to combat would have to revolve around it's application.
Nyferto 02-21-05, 12:49 PM	I should probably post some semi-positive imput quickly. The First 3.0 Fighter I made was pretty good, but when it came to 3.5, they actually lost out due to all the revisions, with this build, the simple character who actually works on the application of one weapon all the time gets a significant an easy boost, so for some more focused characters it is actually a good work around. However for the ones that aren't - it can mean a massive revision of the base themes of the character, god forbid that First Fighter use a weapon more complex than the Longsword.
fractal 02-21-05, 02:37 PM	I've got about 7 Past Fighters (all slightly similar to an extent) that needed to be completely rebuilt, and found that their old ideals were worthless and it was better to just focus on a good weapon (like a shortspear or heavy flail), rather than use their adapted tactics. Of the 4 other Fighters that actually bothered with WF, they got a substantial boost, and a bunch of feats they hadn't used before. Those 4 were never the great Fighters the 7 were. What made the other Fighters great? I get the feeling that that is at least partly because you felt they overcame unfavorable odds to be successful. That's very nice, certainly, but I don't think a class should have to do that. There was one Fighter/Warmage/EK/AZN who got refocused onto ray spells and the like who became especially devestating. I'm quite interested to know how this build could become "especially devastating", when it is gaining, at most, maybe +2 damage on ray spells that should already be dealing 10d6+ of damage. I guess Scorching Ray could be better, but even there it's only +6 damage in a round. 1. Improved Weapon Familiarity 1. Weapon Finnesse 2. Dodge 3. Dash 4. Expertise 6. Combat Reflexes 6. Close Quarters Fighting 8. Mobility 9. Elusive Target 10. Power Attack 12. Lightning Reflexes 12. Prone Attack 14. Improved Disarm 15. Iron Will 16. Defensive Strike 18. TWF 18. Shield Bash 20. Improved Toughness Well, I'd turn this into something like: 1. Improved Weapon Familiarity 1. Weapon Finesse 3. Dodge 3. WF: Rapier 5. Expertise 6. Combat Reflexes 7. Close Quarters Fighting 9. Mobility 9. Elusive Target 11. Power Attack 12. Lightning Reflexes (Iffy, IMO. Improved Toughness instead?) 13. Prone Attack 15. Improved Disarm 15. Iron Will 17. Defensive Strike 18. TWF 19. Shield Bash (Improved Buckler Defense?) So, you lose Dash and either Lightning Reflexes, or else Improved Toughness (a nice feat, but you weren't even getting it until level 20 anyway), and in return you gain extra attack and damage with the Rapier, Elven Thinblade, and Elven Lightblade (as they inherit WF from the rapier). You also gain the ability to wear heavier armor without penalty (and thus gain more AC). You can still wield every other weapon just as well as you could before.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-21-05, 04:41 PM	First off, which 2 feats do we drop for WF, and which Weapon do we Focus on? You only need to drop one feat. This build looks to be focused around defense, rather than offense. With your relatively low STR score, the only feat really begging you to pick up WF is Power Attack, so drop PA from the build. However, if you're convinced that WF is a must-have with fractal's alt.ftr, AND you want more offense, keep Power Attack, drop Mobility and Improved Toughness, and get some better armor. The better armor plus Armored Defense will cover the loss of those two feats. I'm not familiar with Elusive Target. What book is it in? Well I could drop Dash, it's not that important (if nice when hasted), but anything else? They're all far more potent and life saving than WF will ever be, plus they can be used irrelevent of weapon (mostly). WF is not needed. You've answered your own question with that sentence in bold.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-21-05, 05:12 PM	So then the classes backstory is that he wants to out duelist and duelist without being a duelist? That wouldn't fly at my table. Power Attack? I, a man of finesse, wit, pinache and speed, am going to instead swing really hard. Improved Toughness? When were duelists know for soaking up damage? Iron Will? Duelists are reknown for being too outgoing, too boisterous, too easily manipulated by letting emotions rule their senses? I've never heard of improved Weapon Familiarity, Dash, Close quarters fighting, or Elusive target. However, I think having to use material from books beyond the base 3 is interesting. Could you build a similarily functional build without the non-3 books? Because I don't have anything but the 3. Everytime you add feats to the market, the fighter becomes more powerful. If you have to add feats, then you have to improve the fighter, which I think is interesting, because most of the the other core classes can stand on their own two feet with just the core three books. But you needed to add 6 extra feats to make this fighter viable. Wouldn't it now be better to just focus on weapons that i'd get WF benefits for and use just one? Thats pretty inherently obvious. You don't normally pick up PBS, Far shot, Rapid shot, and Precise shot and then plan on charging into melee with your longsword. If you pick a feat, I think its safe to assume you intend to use it. To say that you might not use a weapon after taking WF in it means, essentially, you're gimping yourself. Theres those times, like skeletons and some other monsters that have DR/bludgeoning. But other than those few encounters, why would you take WF and not use the weapon? What about Ranged Weapons, now that's behind as well, Ranged weapons are not further down for you than before. Theres not a single ranged weapon feat on that list (unless its one of the non-three ones). You're just as dandy with whatever ranged weapon you pick up as you used to be. So far I'm down to dual wielding two martial lightweapons and a bow with quickdraw, just so I can get more usage out of this focused damage. Why exactly is it a bad thing to focus on two martial light weapons and a bow that you have focus in? If anything, you did it to yourself if you picked up those feats with no intention of using the weapon most of the tiem. Seeing as I'm more likely to use the Spiked Shield persistantly Shield Bash isn't a feat listed in the DMG. Either you mean Improved Shield Bash, so you can retain your AC with the shield, or you used a feat for something you could already do. I think that changed between 3.0 and 3.5, so you didn't need a feat to use a shield as your offhand weapon. Now if you don't want the benefits of WF: Rapier whenever you have a rapier in your hands, then you use 1 feat, and lose another random feat. I'd guess power attack and Improved Toughness, because thats not a very duelist concept. There, you lost a feat that didn't make sense for a duelist. In return your skills are improved by 3 in armor (a duelist would be using skills more often than a normal fighter, right?) and a +2 AC (unless you have low Dex, which means your a poor duelist.) I'm just not seeing what scraps this build. If you have to have all that, it puts you 2 levels behind.
fractal 02-21-05, 05:14 PM	You only need to drop one feat. This build looks to be focused around defense, rather than offense. With your relatively low STR score, the only feat really begging you to pick up WF is Power Attack, so drop PA from the build. Actually, it occurs to me that dropping PA for WF itself wouldn't be a terrible idea. The situational WF/WS will frequently provide better benefits than the situational PA. Since you're a finesse Fighter, doing so also allows you to dump Strength, boosting Con or Wis. I'm not familiar with Elusive Target. What book is it in? It's a CW Tactical Feat that requires Dodge and Mobility. It's actually pretty good. WF is not needed. You've answered your own question with that sentence in bold. True, it's not. It does seem a bit strange to select Improved Weapon Familiarity over it (as this typically adds a total of what, +1 damage, when wielding a rare type of weapon?), but apart from that, WF/WS only make you better at what you can already do. Dash, btw, does not get doubled when Hasted, as Haste adds a maximum of +30 feet of movement.
Nyferto 02-22-05, 03:57 AM	WF does not pass on to Elven Thinblades or Shortblades from anything, nore is power attack at all unrelated to finnesse, and either way, the Character wasn't a Swashbuckler, he was an elven Fighter with a lot of dexterity backing him up. The idea for inventing the class was to out Swashbuckle a Swashbuckler, wrong class, but it has nothing to do with the character, simply what was done with it. Are you seriously suggesting dropping power attack and str (it was a fixed array, but that's beside the point), for more dex would somehow be better? You seem to be missing my point again, why does this class exist the way it does if the damage output isn't the way it's being balanced? You are assuming the past Fighter is weak for whatever reason, and in order to stay competative with other classes you have to have WF in a weapon to match their damage output (that's the only thing you've significantly improved). Without WF you're only got some very minor benefits and are feats down. With WF you've got your AC benefits and your massive damage increase and your'e feats down. It's just better to focus on WF and limited forms of attack. With the revision Fractal poseses, I've got damage down and up, but I'm more constrained into hitting people with my rapier, rather than using any weapon that may be more suited. If I need to use a blunt weapon or whatever, then I'm damage down and uncompetative. As for the EK, there are two versions of WS(RAY), one needs caster level, one needs fighter levels, they both stack. When you consider the AC benefits of Mithral Full Plate for someone who can cast in them, is adding +4 to damage, +int and 1d6 sneak with Death attack potential and has hurl weapon as a spell, then you've got some dangerous potential.
Nyferto 02-22-05, 07:48 AM	Right, yes it was improved Shield bash, which is now a lesser option, Do I now drop the shield bashing stuff and focus on TWF tree? That's 3 feats down but I'd get more damage out of my full attacks, which is where I'd like to be because charging with a light weapon isn't so hot. So now that I'm exclusively using one weapon, do I now have to downgrade the weapon further to a Shortsword, which I can't power attack with (well now I'd be getting back on feats for TWD). For some reason you think I had an Armour Check penalty to start with, i'd only decress it very slowly over the levels with armour that wouldn't have infered it anyway - more lost features. Please remeber you have to play from 1st to 20th. Am I even bothering to wear light armour, or play defensively? Do I just hit and hope they die nowadays? So far I'm down to Dual Wielding two shortswords with a complete re-work of feats, far less defensive and possibly wearing mithral full plate and moving less quickly (by 15ft). 1. Weapon Focus Shortsword 1. Weapon Finesse 3. Dodge 3. Two Weapon Fighting 5. Expertise 6. Combat Reflexes 7. Close Quarters Fighting 9. Mobility 9. Elusive Target 11. TWD 12. Iron Will 13. Improved Two Weapon Defence 15. Improved Two Weapon Fighting 15. Greater Two Weapon Fighting 17. Defensive Strike 18. Greater Two Weapon Defence 19. Improved Toughness I'm +2 Reflex down, No more prone attack (req), no more power attacks, and I'm more inclined to use Defensive Fighting.
Nyferto 02-22-05, 07:54 AM	What made the other Fighters great? I get the feeling that that is at least partly because you felt they overcame unfavorable odds to be successful. That's very nice, certainly, but I don't think a class should have to do that. They were great because they persistantly reacted to the changing combat environments, and kept going. No matter what was thrown at them, they never stopped attacking (unless they run out of ammo). This build makes it simly better to just focus on two optimal styles and try to apply them all the time. So far I think I've got it down to Scimitar and Rapid Reloaded Light Crossbow (if you can). Though an easy alternative is Morningstar, Throwing Axes and Longbow. The build I posted was just one of the more CW focused Fighters that I recently posted as an example of dextrous and intelligent Fighers doable in the CW (someone said they couldn't). There's plenty more to come.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-22-05, 01:16 PM	This is what I don't understand. This is a list of feats, not a fighter concept. How can this build represent your fighter any less, when they exist solely as numbers? Fighters have names, histories, and a life just as much as any other PC. I can't possibley understand any complaint you would have with a PC who is just a list of feats. You'd be comparing effectiveness at fighting, not effectivness at representing a character concept. I see a series of feats. How the hell do I figure out what the character is like and how to represent him. If your concept is "He does everything perfectly" then your character concept also involves "He is 40th level". Theres no such thing as the 1st level fighter that can do everything right. Nor a 4th, or 12th, or 18th, or 20th. You'll have to tell me what Close Quarters Fighting and Elusive Target do for me to understand why they've been taken. I don't have CW. the Character wasn't a Swashbuckler, he was an elven Fighter with a lot of dexterity backing him up. You said he was a duelist who wanted to be a better duelist than someone with the duelist PrC. How exactly do you expect us to know anything other than that? For some reason you think I had an Armour Check penalty to start with Unless you've invented the Armor of Awsome which has AC 8, Max Dex 5, ACP 0 then you can do better with these class features. You've either got an armor check penalty or a low AC from armor. Only a Mithral Hide (which you can't have) has its ACP reduced to 0 with a high +3 AC. Now you can wear a Mithral Full Plate, have 0 ACP and a +5 Dex bonus to AC. Isn't that better than not wearing armor? It is unless you have Dex 36 (13 AC with armor).
Tony Vargas 02-22-05, 05:15 PM	This, your Combat Stylist (as I'll call it), is an interesting class. Obviously you just came up with it, so I shouldn't be too critical, but I do have a few concerns about it. Combat Stylist will do fine, and yes, it was off the top of my head... One concern is that the Combat Stylist is much more different from the PHB Fighter than my Alternate Fighter is, and therefore less able to replace the PHB Fighter in many of the roles it fills. That's right. It's actually intended to be an alternative that'd be more-or-less balanced alongside the existing fighter. Another concern is that, like the Specialist Wizard, the Ranger, and the Cleric, except to a much greater degree, the options available to the Combat Stylist fork widely. Yes, that's intended. The Combat Stylist really is several very closely-related classes, much like the Wizard is really one of several very similar arcanist classes, the rest of which are specialists. However, since a given character may only have one progression in a particular class, a level 3 character couldn't decide he didn't like their styles and start over. True, though he could switch to fighter. Finally, there's a general concern about giving a fixed bonus feat as a class feature. Frequently such feats are granted after their prerequisites could have already been met. This raises the possibility of characters either having to wait to gain feats they're supposed to be extra good at, or losing out on a feat entirely, because it had already been selected. Very true. Because the exact level when you get the feat varies based on whether you picked the style at 1st or 2nd, that's hard to control. Waiting too long or 'losing' (overlapping) and ability is a real consideration when dealing with a class with a fixed progression, and one of the reasons why such classes get to be more 'powerful' while remaining balanced, overall. One option that would make it easier to 'fine tune' the styles might be to actually differentiate between a list of 'basic' styles (S&B, THF, TWF, Archery) chosen at 1st, and suplemental 'advanced' styles (Weapon Mastery, Mobility, Tactics, whatever) chosen at 2nd. That way, you'd be certain of the level at which each feat or ability in the style would be gained. Other than those concerns, I do think a Combat Style Fighter has potential, and I think your Battle Reflexes and Battle Discipline abilities have very nice flavor. Thanks, they were inspired by the Scout's 'battle fortitude.' Either or both could be simply added to the fighter (or re-done as feats), to address some of the 'viability' issues the class has at high levels and/or in campaigns that favor casters, or feature frequent, critial high-save DCs and the like, by increasing the fighter's durrability in the face of magic a bit. They're also just cool. I think the Combat Stylist is pretty nearly balanced with the PH fighter as it is - it gives up a fair amount of flexibility and gains a corresponding amount of power - though the fighter might need access to something like Battle Reflexes/Discipline for it to be dead-even. Also, exactly how the styles are laid out, and rather new ones can be added could make a big difference balance-wise. If the Combat Styles were all (or almost all) unique abilities rather than bonus feats, especially if the Combat Stylist could multiclass with itself, then I think the class could be solid either as the primary fighting class, or alongside the PHB or Alternate Fighters. Unique abilities might be an option, but with so many feats already extant, it'd be hard to come up with good ones that fit the bill, and weren't just feats with the serial numbers filed off, anyway. If the stylist could multiclass with itself, is a difficult question - since the class is a bit backloaded, it'd probably be a bad idea, as well as probably being just plain illegal - both of those considerations are the case with wizard-specialists, as well. P.S. Regarding the Alternate Fighter, it is intentional that she can master more than one type of weapon. I feel that diminishing returns will stop almost everyone from focusing on more than two or three, and that it is not necessary to enforce "primary" and "secondary" weapons. I consider the ability of an established character to spend a feat on weapon focus and change his preferred weapon to be more of a strength than a weakness.Oh, I agree. The ability to add a full-power weapon of specialization later is a substantial strength, while accumulating many would get into diminishing returns. Declining to ever take even one, though, would be simply foolish.
Nyferto 02-23-05, 03:51 AM	This is what I don't understand. This is a list of feats, not a fighter concept. How can this build represent your fighter any less, when they exist solely as numbers? Fighters have names, histories, and a life just as much as any other PC. I can't possibley understand any complaint you would have with a PC who is just a list of feats. You'd be comparing effectiveness at fighting, not effectivness at representing a character concept. I see a series of feats. How the hell do I figure out what the character is like and how to represent him. If your concept is "He does everything perfectly" then your character concept also involves "He is 40th level". Theres no such thing as the 1st level fighter that can do everything right. Nor a 4th, or 12th, or 18th, or 20th. You'll have to tell me what Close Quarters Fighting and Elusive Target do for me to understand why they've been taken. I don't have CW. You have to understand, that he was made as a concept of a dextrous and intelligent fighter using the CW. He was meant as a comparison to the Swashbuckler base class (imagine the DMG duelist as a base class). The character is irrelevent, I can do whatever I like with any class, it's the final combat abilities that will gauge balance. Elusive Target lets you do a number of things, like causing a flanking foe to hit their flanking support, negate power attacks and cause trips when people try to hit you for moving out of a threatened area. Close Quarters Fighting helps you against grapples, you always get an AOO for a grapple attack and if it does damage you get the damage as a bonus to escape the grapple. The Class is built around AOO's, dodging and evading attacks and keeping the enemy occupied. The problem (asside from other mechanical ones) is how this Fighter favours certain styles of play and builds of character. The Armour feats favour medium or lightly armoured mobile characters, The dex boost to AC is useful if you have a dex to use it, but it also frees up the substitution of Mithral for Adamantine in some cases. The power and free nature of WF favours those who use specific weaponry frequently, and get to apply damage with those weapons. There are Bard/Fighters who are significantly more powerful, Warmage/Fighter/EK's who are more powerful, every class that used Fighters and used specific weapons and less restrictive armour gets greater gains than others who don't. It's like how a Barbarian is more inclined to use a Two Handed weapon because they get more benefits for using related tactics (and higher bonuses anyway).
Krynus Ogrebane 02-23-05, 05:28 AM	The idea for inventing the class was to out Swashbuckle a Swashbuckler, wrong class, but it has nothing to do with the character, simply what was done with it. If it is the Swashbuckler you were trying to out-do, your character is a rather bad example of it. Improved Weapon Familiarity, Power Attack, Shield Bash, and Improved Toughness do not help at all in this concept. Two-Weapon Fighting is arguably an unhelpful feat (for swashbuckler concept fulfillment). In fact, WF/WS is a more appropriate choice when compared with the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike and Improved Flanking abilities, rather than the five feats mentioned in the previous paragraph. Additionally, Defensive Strike is an awful feat. ... and of course, you will ALWAYS have the short end of the stick in the skills department. Plus your ho-hum Charisma (a defining trait of swashbucklers) helps your CHA-based skills not at all. Are you seriously suggesting dropping power attack and str (it was a fixed array, but that's beside the point), for more dex would somehow be better? No, he's suggesting that, because of your relatively low STR 14, WF would be more useful than PA, when this character is built using fractal's alt.ftr. Without WF you're only got some very minor benefits and are feats down. Actually, that would be feat down (singular). As for your specific character, see above. With WF you've got your AC benefits and your massive damage increase and your'e feats down. It's just better to focus on WF and limited forms of attack. With the revision Fractal poseses, I've got damage down and up, but I'm more constrained into hitting people with my rapier, rather than using any weapon that may be more suited. If I need to use a blunt weapon or whatever, then I'm damage down and uncompetative. Ahem. A non-Min/Max'd swashbuckling Fighter build (that's not a Swashbuckler), using fractal's alt.FTR class: 1 Fleet of Foot (regional feat from PGtF) (alternately, Dash) 1 f Weapon Finesse 2 f Armored Efficiency +1 3 Dodge 3 f Weapon Focus [rapier (or light blades, if you use the much-preferred UA Weapon Groups variant)] 4 f Weapon Specialization +2 5 f Combat Expertise 6 Combat Reflexes 6 f Armored Defense +1 7 f Close-Quarters Fighting 8 f Improved Weapon Focus +2 9 f Mobility 9 Elusive Target 10 f Armored Efficiency +2 11 f *Improved Unarmed Strike 12 Lightning Reflexes 12 f Improved Weapon Specialization +4 13 f Prone Attack 14 f Armored Defense +2 15 Iron Will 15 f Improved Disarm 16 f Greater Weapon Focus +3 17 f Improved Combat Expertise 18 *Weapon Focus [unarmed strike] 18 f Armored Efficiency +3 19 f ** any feat of your choosing ** 20 f Greater Weapon Specialization +6 * = only because WF (light mace) nor WF (light hammer) are not very swashbuckly... choose two different feats, if this doesn't suit your taste Notice that this build acquires pretty much the same feats at pretty much the same level as your character. There are several feats here that, if this were my PC, I'd probably pass by for something more appropriate, but this build is more swashbuckling, a closer approximation to the Swashbuckler class, and likely a tougher opponent than your character. Keeping in mind that both builds are supposed to be swashbuckler-types, and assuming the same gear and stats, this build has anywhere from a 3- to 22-point AC advantage, depending on armor worn. Additionally, damage is up 6 points per successful attack, AND he doesn't lose out on any meaningful tactics provided by the feats you have that he doesn't.
Nyferto 02-23-05, 06:32 AM	So not only do I need to have PgtF, but I need to use a character from the right region of Faerun in Faerun, using a varient that isn't really that much better. Defensive Strike is actually a great feat if you use it right. Especially when you consider that i've got a bunch of feats that revolve around being missed or causing misses, and that the character likes to be miss hit because getting hit isn't nice for them. How is having a 1d8 piercing off hand weapon which is defending and already provides a +6 shield bonus to AC a bad thing? If I wanted to make a Swashbuckler, I would've used the class, the reason I didn't, is because I wanted to make a Fighting style Fighter with the Fighter who was dextrous and intelligent to compare performance against a Swashbuckler. Hence out swashing the Swashbuckler. With that build I am forced to use a certain weapon to stay competative (remember the Core Fighter is considered imbalanced without WF improvements and is therefore weak when WF improvements are not used). I have to focus on hitting with the rapier, seeing as this Fighter doesn't apply the Armour Check reduction to a Shield (but final Armour check), therefore depriving me of a Shield, I fail to see how this is really better for AC and tactics. I'm still feats down (WF+), less flexable and better off dual wielding two shortswords. Note that this was just the first Fighter I had already posted on a recent topic on this forum, come weekend there are plenty more that suffer for this build, and worse, some that gain drastically.
Nyferto 02-23-05, 06:49 AM	Next up, the next issues. The bonus to Armour Check penalty - if I have a shield and armour with only a -1 AC penalty on each (-2 total), at 3rd level I'll get a reduction to -1, but which one does it apply too? This is important for finnesse fighters. It can't work like an AC penalty. The bonus to Dex AC - favours those who could actually benefit from it, whilst allowing them to use heavier grades of armour without worrying about certain other limitations. Wouldn't a bonus similar to Monk AC (not including adding a stat to AC) be better? Progression of bonuses: Whilst it's nicely ordered, it ignores that some benefits at higher levels need/should be greater than their lower forms, restructuring the benefits to be a single greater increase at a higher disjointed level would help with this issue. This would help reduce the straight forward multiclassing benefits that are commonly deemed as being appropriate (like 10/10 splits). Epic Progression: I'd make the WF and WS automatic feats, otherwise they'll progress into epic levels (no other class gets something like that). What does the Bonus feat progression look like?
fractal 02-23-05, 07:00 AM	WF does not pass on to Elven Thinblades or Shortblades from anything Okay, it's a change in Races of the Wild. Having just read it, I didn't think to look up CW and see if it had been present in that version. With Races of the Wild, the special elven blades inherit WF, WS, etc. from various martial swords. Are you seriously suggesting dropping power attack and str (it was a fixed array, but that's beside the point), for more dex would somehow be better? Well, it's certainly worth considering. Normally Fighters gain melee attack, bonus damage, and PA qualification for having a good Strength. You aren't benefitting from the first part at all, and you get less from the second two as well, due to your one-handed and light weapons. Your character might very well be better off focusing his investment elsewhere. With the revision Fractal poseses, I've got damage down and up, but I'm more constrained into hitting people with my rapier, rather than using any weapon that may be more suited. If I need to use a blunt weapon or whatever, then I'm damage down and uncompetative. This always applies, WF or not. Have you noticed that magic weapons are expensive? Either you wield inferior weapons, or you focus on 2-3 and accept that if you have to wield something else, you're not going to be as effective. As for the EK, there are two versions of WS(RAY), one needs caster level, one needs fighter levels, they both stack. When you consider the AC benefits of Mithral Full Plate for someone who can cast in them, is adding +4 to damage, +int and 1d6 sneak with Death attack potential and has hurl weapon as a spell, then you've got some dangerous potential. But this is nothing you couldn't have done before. I completely fail to see how this character is really gaining anything, unless you take 5-8 Fighter levels, a very poor idea for a caster.
Nyferto 02-23-05, 07:34 AM	Well EK's aren't trying to be Casters, and Battlemages certainly aren't. I think the build stands at 8/8/3/1 Fighter/Battlemage/EK/Azn Before their ability was handicapped slightly by the nature of WF and the way they used two primary attack methods (Longsword and Spells). Now it's Touch and Ray (or other spells). I'm sure there are better or even less cheesed builds out there, ignoring Azn (because it was slightly broken anyway), this guild just gained in the effectiveness of their attacks and the increase in allowance of armour (because they gain more benefits with less effort). Before it was medium mithral with a minor benefit to touch and longsword attacks. Now it's just touch attacks and Adamantine Full Plate (remember that people who lost feats to WF and WS are partly up feats). Any Fighter who used multiple weapons got spells backing them up, not Magic Weapon or the like, but the ones that just give you bonuses to attacks or basic enchancements. Power attack doesn't care about your str, it's simply there when you need to hit a low AC target Hard and soon, it's a tactical decision over the simplicity of WF, because with WF you go into "just hit them" teritory. Oh, further issue. How do you handle PrC's or classes that get WS for free, like the CD Favoured Soul, Templar, Psychic Warriors (or was it Soul Blades) amidst others?
Gunrock 02-23-05, 01:26 PM	The bonus to Armour Check penalty - if I have a shield and armour with only a -1 AC penalty on each (-2 total), at 3rd level I'll get a reduction to -1, but which one does it apply too? This is important for finnesse fighters. It can't work like an AC penalty. What are you talking about? Armor Check is Armor Check. Unless you're using armor or shields you're not proficient with (as a fighter?) it doesn't matter where the bonus applies, just that it does. The bonus to Dex AC - favours those who could actually benefit from it, whilst allowing them to use heavier grades of armour without worrying about certain other limitations. Wouldn't a bonus similar to Monk AC (not including adding a stat to AC) be better? Sure, but would it be balanced? I say not. I have no idea what the f*** you're saying with your next part, but that's because you don't use complete sentences and complete ideas. As well as too many abbreviations that all look the same, so I'll ignore it.
Gunrock 02-23-05, 01:29 PM	Epic Progression: I'd make the WF and WS automatic feats, otherwise they'll progress into epic levels (no other class gets something like that). What does the Bonus feat progression look like? I agree, we do need to see the epic progression on this thing, or it will be broken after level 20. How do you handle PrC's or classes that get WS for free, like the CD Favoured Soul, Templar, Psychic Warriors (or was it Soul Blades) amidst others? Simple, they get Weapon Specialization +2 with one weapon they have Weapon Focus in (really easy if WF is a class feature. See d20 Modern's Soldier advance class to understand if you're confused.)
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-23-05, 03:30 PM	The problem (asside from other mechanical ones) is how this Fighter favours certain styles of play and builds of character. The fighter has always favored certain styles of play. Two handed power attackers, double shortsword, ranged combatants. Now it favors more. Sword and board fighters (who can get a hefty bonus while still sing 2 or 3 weapons), different double weapon combinations (because two feats can net you a +3/6 attack/damage, instead of 12 feats for each), ranged combat as well. Also, if the problem is how it favors certain styles of play, thats a character issue. The character is irrelevent, I can do whatever I like with any class, it's the final combat abilities that will gauge balance. Which means you disagree with yourself. Combat abilities are mechanical issues. So you can't pick and choose exactly what you want to display and what you don't, because as you stated, you consider both of these to be a problem with this Alternate Fighter. Power attack doesn't care about your str, it's simply there when you need to hit a low AC target Hard and soon, it's a tactical decision over the simplicity of WF, because with WF you go into "just hit them" teritory. Since when has part of a fighter's repretoire not been "hit them"? I thought that was supposed to be a large part of what they do. You know. Put the pointy end into the other man. WF works nicely with power attack, that +3 to hit can turn into +3/6 damage, giving a total of +9/12 damage over a weapon which you are unspecialized in. Have you noticed that magic weapons are expensive? Either you wield inferior weapons, or you focus on 2-3 and accept that if you have to wield something else, you're not going to be as effective. I've been trying to point this out. I've never had a character, that at level 20, could just drop his +5 Flaming Ghost Touch Greatsword of Speed, and choose between his +5 Flaming Ghost Touch Halberd, Longbow, Shortsword, Morning Star, or Longspear of Speed. If this is one of the defining characteristics of your games, then I can understand why you think WF is so poor an ability. However if you're going to drop that +5 Shocking Ghost Touch Longsword of Speed for a +1 Heavy mace just because you spot a skeleton, well, you deserve whatever you get. How is having a 1d8 piercing off hand weapon which is defending and already provides a +6 shield bonus to AC a bad thing? No. But you won't be using it to attack and retaining that +6 shield AC. Or you could take Improved Shield Bash, have a +5 Bashing Heavy Shield of Spell Resistance 17 that deals 1d8 bludgeoning damage and acts as +1 weapon, and retains all its shield bonuses when making a bash attack, and can additionall be improved with elemental resistances at the cost of gold rather than enhancement modifiers... Or you could invest in a 1d8 piercing off hand weapon (which would be a trident or Morning star) that will net you a -4 to each attack, or a 1d6 piercing (light) weapon which nets you a -2 to attack, and can grant a total of +6 AC (+7 if fighting defensively), and has no other defensive capabilities, save that it can be used in a pinch as a fighting weapon, but isn't going to give you that +5 to attack and damage unless you lose that defense. Improved and Great Two Weapon Defence aren't in the SRD, I assume they increase TWD by +1/+2 defensive. Even then they aren't core to the 3 books, which means you still have to add feats to strengthen your fighter. This leads one to believe that the PHB fighter is too weak, and needs to be strengthened, but in your opinion by adding more feats from which to draw upon. The same way adding more spells makes the wizard, cleric, and druid stronger. The bonus to Armour Check penalty - if I have a shield and armour with only a -1 AC penalty on each (-2 total), at 3rd level I'll get a reduction to -1, but which one does it apply too? This is important for finnesse fighters. It can't work like an AC penalty. Light and Heavy shields have to Max Dex penalty. Tower shields have a Max Dex of 2, but provide cover instead of AC. If I wanted to make a Swashbuckler, I would've used the class, the reason I didn't, is because I wanted to make a Fighting style Fighter with the Fighter who was dextrous and intelligent to compare performance against a Swashbuckler. Hence out swashing the Swashbuckler. A what!? A fighting style fighter with the fighter. All fighters are fighting style fighters. You wanted to make a dexterous and intelligent fighter who could go toe to toe with the Swashbuckler? Did you want to make a fighter that was dexterous and intelligent that could perform the same functions as a swashbuckler? Theres a low of evolution that says when one species of animals attempts to live the life of another species of animal, the first species will fail and die. Example, an ape trying to survive at being a rodent, will be beaten out by rodents, and eventually die (this occured in North America with a species of ape that went extinct. It was trying to live like a rodent, but wasn't as good at it as the rodents.) The fighter shouldn't be able to out swashbuckle the swashbuckler unless there is no swashbuckler class in your game. If the fighter was a better swashbuckler than the swashbuckler, why does the swashbuckler class exist? Intelligence has never favored fighters in games where DMs do not enforce the roleplaying of your intellect. Certain feats require a 13 Int as a cursory nod towards fighter's with a brain, but fighters recieve no other reward with their meager skill list and complete lack of any ability requiring high Int. seeing as this Fighter doesn't apply the Armour Check reduction to a Shield (but final Armour check), therefore depriving me of a Shield, I fail to see how this is really better for AC and tactics. I'm sorry. Come again? So you can't use a shield because you have a higher dex to AC and lower ACP? Whyyyyyyyyy...? Because the ability doesn't let you just ignore ACP, the class is weaker than the previous class that didn't reduce ACP at all? I mean, do you run around naked because armor gives you an ACP? You'll have more roleplaying troubles than combat troubles if you want to do that. I still. Do not see what trashes any build that could be made with the previous fighter. This fighter alternative is inherently more powerful and I argue more flexible than the previous PHB fighter. You gain +2 Max Dex in any armor. Dex fighters can wear heavier armor if they want it. -3 ACP in any armor. Now fighters can perform basic skills such as jumping, climbing, or walking across a rope bridge while still wearing only moderatley encumbering armor. Variety of weapon specializations. A fighter who WFs now doesn't have to marry his weapon. He can have a number of weapons which they have deep training in. Now there can be true "multi weapon masters". On top of that you still get 17 feats. Compared to the PHB fighter's 18. 1 feat, bonus to AC and some skill checks. Is there a problem that an unspecialized fighter will be weaker? No, let him disarm, sunder, power attack, expertise, fight with two weapons, trip, dodge, spring, whirlwind, overrun, ride, shieldbash, and shoot farther, faster, and more accurately with every weapon she knows as though it were just another weapon all at the same time as he is harder to hit and can adapt to new enviroments better by jumping, climbing, or swimming as needed. If there were a feat "Armor Expertise" Armor Expertise [Fighter]: Benefit: Your Max Dex bonus in any armor is increased by 2. Your Armor Check Penalty is reduced by 3. Would you take it? Being one of the only feats that improves your AC against multiple opponents, I would.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-23-05, 05:32 PM	So not only do I need to have PgtF, but I need to use a character from the right region of Faerun in Faerun, using a varient that isn't really that much better. You. Are. Killing me, dude. Did you not notice the part that says "alternately, Dash", or are you being intentionally obtuse? What I find comical is that while you find it acceptable to use CW, you object to FR material. They're both non-core. Defensive Strike is actually a great feat if you use it right. Especially when you consider that i've got a bunch of feats that revolve around being missed or causing misses, and that the character likes to be miss hit because getting hit isn't nice for them. No, it's not great at all. In order to use it, you have to waste a round not attacking, plus you cannot use Combat Expertise at the same time. You did know that, didn't you? When using the total defense action, you cannot use Combat Expertise at the same time. (p. 142, 3.5 PHB) Combat Expertise is not only more efficient and protective but, unlike total defense, you can still make attacks while using it. The build I made has every single feat that "revolves around being missed or causing misses" that your build has, plus one more (Improved Combat Expertise). Choosing sub-par feats is no excuse for declaring "but I'd be gimped using this alt.ftr class". He's sub-par to begin with. How is having a 1d8 piercing off hand weapon which is defending and already provides a +6 shield bonus to AC a bad thing? This is a non-sequitur. This is supposed to be a direct comparison of swashbuckling builds with the same equipment. If you have one, so does mine. The benefits cancel each other out, and I'm still ahead on AC from either armor or shifting +3 from my attack bonus to AC from Expertise. It's even better AC-wise if both can apply while maintaining my attack bonus at the same level as yours (armor dependent). Furthermore, you are limited to +5 AC with Expertise, while I can go up to +20, giving me much more flexibility. Not only that, but if you have a defending weapon in your off-hand, you can't use Shield Bash. Additionally, Shield Bash is not a swashbuckling feat by any stretch of the imagination. If I wanted to make a Swashbuckler, I would've used the class, the reason I didn't, is because I wanted to make a Fighting style Fighter with the Fighter who was dextrous and intelligent to compare performance against a Swashbuckler. Hence out swashing the Swashbuckler. But that's not what you did, and we've been pointing it out to you. With that build I am forced to use a certain weapon to stay competative (remember the Core Fighter is considered imbalanced without WF improvements and is therefore weak when WF improvements are not used). While swashbucklers are proficient with "all simple and martial weapons", their archtype is centered around light weapons, and the rapier (overwhelmingly, in fact, light blades). To use anything else is not only against the archtype, but fails to take advantage of Weapon Finesse. Therefore, you basically are limited to the rapier or shortsword anyway. Anything else is either too big or undesirably weak as a primary weapon. I have to focus on hitting with the rapier, seeing as this Fighter doesn't apply the Armour Check reduction to a Shield (but final Armour check), therefore depriving me of a Shield, I fail to see how this is really better for AC and tactics. You keep forgetting that part about "same equipment". If the Swashbuckler isn't proficient with shields, and you're trying to out-swash a swashbuckler, you don't use a shield either. This is why Shield Bash is out of line as a suitable feat selection. I'm still feats down (WF+), less flexable and better off dual wielding two shortswords. No, you're not, as I've demonstrated. With the build I posted, unarmed strikes are a close second in melee effectiveness (giving you flexibility for situations needing a bludgeoning weapon), OR you can TWF with a blade and unarmed strikes, if you prefer. A very swashbuckler-icious way to fight. And since non-core material is liberally used here, UA's Weapon Group proficiencies are a boon. Weapon Group [light blades] includes rapiers, shortswords, daggers, and punching daggers, which covers the swashbuckling concept perfectly. +3/+6 due to the WF/WS in fractal's alt.ftr is just what the doctor ordered. Note that this was just the first Fighter I had already posted on a recent topic on this forum, come weekend there are plenty more that suffer for this build, and worse, some that gain drastically. For the record, gaining is a good thing. The PHB.ftr needs it. Anyway, before you post another example, you can't miss the fact that the build I posted using fractal's alt.ftr is better at accomplishing the swashbuckling concept, in addition to being a more dangerous and skillful opponent, all this without losing any of the tactical flexibility you were concerned about. ~~~~~ As an aside, you never commented on the A/B variants I posted a while back (page 4 of this thread). They both included 11 bonus feats (back-loaded, as opposed to the front-loaded PHB.ftr), an alteration on fractal's WF/WS progression, and an amalgamation of fractal's Armored Defense and Armored Efficiency into one ability called Armor Focus. Since you have issues with fractal's alt.ftr class, I was wondering what you thought of those A/B variants.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-23-05, 09:19 PM	Epic Progression: I'd make the WF and WS automatic feats, otherwise they'll progress into epic levels (no other class gets something like that). What does the Bonus feat progression look like? I agree, we do need to see the epic progression on this thing, or it will be broken after level 20. Is this a joke? Epic level play is no place to discuss balance.
fractal 02-23-05, 09:20 PM	Well EK's aren't trying to be Casters, and Battlemages certainly aren't. I think the build stands at 8/8/3/1 Fighter/Battlemage/EK/Azn EK's can frequently be casters. 9/10 Caster progression does that. I can't really comment further because I'm not familiar with the Battlemage. I had been assuming you meant the Warmage. Any Fighter who used multiple weapons got spells backing them up, not Magic Weapon or the like, but the ones that just give you bonuses to attacks or basic enchancements. Don't those spells work even better in combination with enchanted weapons? I don't really understand what method you're using to be able to use many different types of weapons, at once, without taking a penalty to the specific effectiveness of each one. Power attack doesn't care about your str, it's simply there when you need to hit a low AC target Hard and soon, it's a tactical decision over the simplicity of WF, because with WF you go into "just hit them" teritory. It's a little bit of arithmetic, it's hardly a major tactical decision. Compare it to the strategic decision of weapon selection. How do you handle PrC's or classes that get WS for free, like the CD Favoured Soul, Templar, Psychic Warriors (or was it Soul Blades) amidst others? This is a good question. My personal opinion, as Gunrock suggested, is that those classes simply receive a +2 damage to one weapon (whichever rules the class uses to select one) that stacks with the Fighter Weapon Specialization ability. Epic Progression for the Alternate Fighter is a valid concern. I'll think about that. In any event, I don't think possible problems with Epic is a significant argument when considering game balance pre-Epic.
Nyferto 02-24-05, 04:01 AM	Lots to respond to, not much time right now. First off, Power attack only requires a 14 Str, which isn't that hard to achieve with any point buy (and some roles), and it benefits all attacks with it's damage bonus. WF still only works with the weapon you took it for, unlike Power attack which can add the more vital increase to damage at any level (remember when you get the increases to damage through WS). Faerun feats have nothing to do with Greyhawk or Ebberon or Custom campaigns, CW feats are more universal. Fighting Defensively has nothing to do with Total Defence, and you can certainly use Expertise whilst Fighting Defensively, and if you declare an attack to use Expertise - it wouldn't matter anyway. The preposed alternative build, looses the point of the off hand shield bash, and as I'll explain it again the ACP benefits aren't clearly a benefit. The IUS is flawed because it still looses out for damage and effectiveness (it's only 1d3 + 1/2 my str bonus). A penalty to AC can subtract from the basic amount (10), you don't subtract it from your pick of the AC bonuses. With ACP you subtract it from a specific area (Armour or Shield), seeing as shields apply their ACP to attack roles with a finnessed weapon, it becomes important to know how it's handled. If I'm wearing Studded Leather and a Light Shield with a finnesse weapon, at 3rd level, how does the benefit apply? Can I choose to drop the ACP from the shield and finnesse my weapon without penalty, or what? I don't need several +10 enchantment weapons, I only need suitable weapons for each scenario. A +1 Cold Iron Holy Returning Dagger Might be enough for Grapples with Balors, a quick Throwing Weapon and Against Rakshasha's. A +1 Adamantine Holy Morningstar might work even better in other situations and still be a potent weapon. When I get polymorphed into a Large Humanoid Form - it adds up further and i've still got the flexability of this feat. Most of those would automatically ignore a large section of DR I would otherwise be forced to Power Attack past unless I did gear up on a large selection of +5 Holy Material +Elemental weapons. Then there's the simplicity of the bow. No matter how you look at it, a Raging Barbarian is still loosing damage against an opponent with suitably opposed DR. This alternative favours those who capitalise on it's benefits and leave those who don't down and only mildly better in ACP than their Core Fighter (and technically weak) brothers. A Better AC benefit would actually lose some of that predudice, but then you're still stuck with the WF benefits. And yes I did mean Warmage.
Nyferto 02-24-05, 07:56 AM	EK's can frequently be casters. 9/10 Caster progression does that. I have a topic about that on the PrC forum, you might be supprised how many disagree with that sentement. Do you know what lost bonuses are? When you have so much benefit it actually goes to waste because you can't apply the bonus in any other way, it's a key point when making a character - how powerful do you need to be? One example was of the Greatsword vs Scythe, imagine if you attack a large number of low HP foes - ones that will drop more probably on a critical hit. You loose benefits from the Scythe because you're less frequently killing them in one strike (and then killing more through cleaves). Simple example. Power Attack is simply more flexable than WF (and WS) because Power Attack lets you decide how much of a bonus you need to really hurt someone. Did you want to make a fighter that was dexterous and intelligent that could perform the same functions as a swashbuckler? No, it was a dextrous and intelligent Fighter who was like a Swashbuckler, you still haven't explained properly why Shield Bash and Power attack are actually against finnesse. And since non-core material is liberally used here, UA's Weapon Group proficiencies are a boon. Weapon Group [light blades] includes rapiers, shortswords, daggers, and punching daggers, which covers the swashbuckling concept perfectly. +3/+6 due to the WF/WS in fractal's alt.ftr is just what the doctor ordered. As I thought, the weapon groupings are dumb and poorly constructed, nore do I care because it's all about alternative rules, not additional material like the Complete Series. Anyway, before you post another example, you can't miss the fact that the build I posted using fractal's alt.ftr is better at accomplishing the swashbuckling concept, in addition to being a more dangerous and skillful opponent, all this without losing any of the tactical flexibility you were concerned about. But you did miss the fact that without some alternative, it's absolutely focused on the rapier, unlike my original which was balanced and useable with any number of weapons. If you upped the same build, it would be one step backwards and down on competative damage unless they use specific weapons and be further down on flexability. In your opinion it better suits a swashbuckling ideal (new issue: is it better than a swashbuckler?), but it was never confined to a swashbuckling ideal, just similar themes (dextrous and intelligent and being decent in combat). Where's your evidence against the TWF Shortsword that is fundamentally better than the build you posted. Since when has part of a fighter's repretoire not been "hit them"? I thought that was supposed to be a large part of what they do. You know. Put the pointy end into the other man. WF works nicely with power attack, that +3 to hit can turn into +3/6 damage, giving a total of +9/12 damage over a weapon which you are unspecialized in. There's a difference between persistantly doing damage and causing losses to a foe, and standing next to them and making full attacks. You aren't alone in a party standing next to them making full attacks constantly, you're in a rapidly adapting combat environment, where it may be more advantageous to do more than just hit them with a full attack or try to move next to them. And again, WF works nicely at 20th level with a weapon you specialised in, but no other weapon pre-20th level with a weapon you didn't specialise in.
Nyferto 02-24-05, 08:00 AM	alt.variant.A 1 Armor Focus +1 2 Bonus Feat 3 Weapon Focus +1 4 Bonus Feat 5 Weapon Specialization +2 6 Bonus Feat 7 Armor Focus +2 8 Bonus Feat 9 Weapon Focus +2 10 Bonus Feat 11 Weapon Specialization +4 12 Bonus Feat 13 Armor Focus +3 14 Bonus Feat 15 Weapon Focus +3 16 Bonus Feat 17 Weapon Specialization +6 18 Bonus Feat 19 Bonus Feat 20 Bonus Feat alt.variant.B 1 Weapon Focus +1 2 Bonus Feat 3 Armor Focus +1 4 Bonus Feat 5 Weapon Specialization +2 6 Bonus Feat 7 Weapon Focus +2 8 Bonus Feat 9 Armor Focus +2 10 Bonus Feat 11 Weapon Specialization +4 12 Bonus Feat 13 Weapon Focus +3 14 Bonus Feat 15 Armor Focus +3 16 Bonus Feat 17 Weapon Specialization +6 18 Bonus Feat 19 Bonus Feat 20 Bonus Feat I'll get back to you on these.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-24-05, 10:02 AM	First off, Power attack only requires a 14 Str, which isn't that hard to achieve with any point buy (and some roles), and it benefits all attacks with it's damage bonus. STR 13, actually. Fighting Defensively has nothing to do with Total Defence, and you can certainly use Expertise whilst Fighting Defensively, and if you declare an attack to use Expertise - it wouldn't matter anyway. Fighting defensively cannot be used in conjunction with the feat Defensive Strike (p. 97, CW), which is why I maintain that it is an awful feat. The preposed alternative build, looses the point of the off hand shield bash, and as I'll explain it again the ACP benefits aren't clearly a benefit. Shield Bash is not at all swashbucklery [sic]. The IUS is flawed because it still looses out for damage and effectiveness (it's only 1d3 + 1/2 my str bonus). No it's not, and no it doesn't. Full STR bonus to unarmed strikes, except for off-hand attacks. Easily gotten around when TWF by using the rapier in the character's offhand, and unarmed strikes with the primary hand. In fact, the only time it need ever come up is if the rapier is out of the picture for some reason (sundered, disarmed, et al), and yet that off-hand attack is still doing 1d3+7 bludgeoning damage (1d3+8 primary). A penalty to AC can subtract from the basic amount (10), you don't subtract it from your pick of the AC bonuses. Not at all sure what you're trying to say here. With ACP you subtract it from a specific area (Armour or Shield), seeing as shields apply their ACP to attack roles with a finnessed weapon, it becomes important to know how it's handled. If I'm wearing Studded Leather and a Light Shield with a finnesse weapon, at 3rd level, how does the benefit apply? Can I choose to drop the ACP from the shield and finnesse my weapon without penalty, or what? Which is why swashbucklers don't use shields. Still trying to out-swash the swashbuckler, right? That's what you said was the goal of your build. I don't need several +10 enchantment weapons, I only need suitable weapons for each scenario. A +1 Cold Iron Holy Returning Dagger Might be enough for Grapples with Balors, a quick Throwing Weapon and Against Rakshasha's. A +1 Adamantine Holy Morningstar might work even better in other situations and still be a potent weapon. When I get polymorphed into a Large Humanoid Form - it adds up further and i've still got the flexability of this feat. Most of those would automatically ignore a large section of DR I would otherwise be forced to Power Attack past unless I did gear up on a large selection of +5 Holy Material +Elemental weapons. Then there's the simplicity of the bow. No matter how you look at it, a Raging Barbarian is still loosing damage against an opponent with suitably opposed DR. Not sure what you're trying to say here either. It looks like you've just explained why Power Attack is a wasted feat for your build, confirming my reason for leaving it out of mine. In any event, while not very swashbucklery [sic] to use something as crude as a morningstar (not finesse-able, by the way), my build is still capable of using all the weapons you've listed above. As I thought, the weapon groupings are dumb and poorly constructed, nore do I care because it's all about alternative rules, not additional material like the Complete Series. Actually, they're intuitive and mostly well-constructed. Oh, and hello, the Complete series is non-core, just like Unearthed Arcana. Your distinction is a transparent ploy to justify what you like and discount what you don't. Doesn't wash. But you did miss the fact that without some alternative, it's absolutely focused on the rapier, unlike my original which was balanced and useable with any number of weapons. If you upped the same build, it would be one step backwards and down on competative damage unless they use specific weapons and be further down on flexability. Again, you're wrong. My build is just as capable as yours with any simple or melee weapon you can name, and more capable with a light blade or unarmed strike. All three weapon damage types are covered through WF/WS and the boon that is Weapon Groups. Furthermore, my AC is much more flexible than yours, through the ability to use heavier armor at a higher max dex threshold, or Improved Combat Expertise, or both. In your opinion it better suits a swashbuckling ideal (new issue: is it better than a swashbuckler?), but it was never confined to a swashbuckling ideal, just similar themes (dextrous and intelligent and being decent in combat). You stated that your build was supposed to "out-swash the swashbuckler", and now you've decided to change your story when it suits you. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad form, and that's what you're trying to do here. New issue = my build is not better than the swashbuckler class, because there's no way to approximate Lucky, Weakening Critical, Wounding Critical, Acrobatic Charge, or Acrobatic Skill Mastery, nor do I come close with the skills. But it is a better swashbuckler than yours. Where's your evidence against the TWF Shortsword that is fundamentally better than the build you posted. Are you saying that your build is better with TWF shortswords than mine? Because if you are, it's not, thanks to the non-core Weapon Group proficiencies. And even if you insist that "Weapon Groups=bad", all I have to do is point out the obvious: we are identically adept with TWF shortswords. Actually, I don't even need two shortswords, because with IUS, WF[US], and TWF, my attack routine is: +27/+27/+22/+17/+12 attack bonus 1d3+7 bludgeoning (primary)/1d3+6 bludgeoning (off-hand) average damage 9 (8 off-hand) ... and yours is: +24/+24/+19/+14/+9 attack bonus 1d6+2 slashing (primary)/1d6+1 slashing (off-hand) average damage 5.5 (4.5 off-hand) ... and that's before any magic is involved. You can't even Power Attack for squat with shortswords. (p. 98, 3.5 PHB) What's really funny is that my build would actually benefit a lot more than yours would from Power Attack, since I can gain a one-for-one damage benefit with unarmed strikes and PA, but because of fractal's ingenious WF/WS progression, it's no great loss. Since I'm satisfied with my damage output, it's much nicer and preferrable to Expertise my AC higher. Not getting hit is a good thing.
Quintara 02-24-05, 10:40 AM	Do you know just how unbalanced this class is!!! It is about twice as good as any published class that I've read so far. This class should be destroyed immediatly, before more of its vile, unbalanced particles seep into other, more balanced counterparts! :mad:
Mirror, Mirror 02-24-05, 11:37 AM	Well, we gave it a try. 8th level NPC Alt.Ftr. We are all about 9th, so this seemed fair. The first problem was that he was in adamantium heavy armor, had boots of striding and springing, decent dex, and focused in Two-handed sword and composite longbow. At range, he was out-rangering the ranger. In meele, he was out barbarianing the barbarian. Now we have all had some stat boost, so he was behind there. The problem was that, unlike the bard who is 3/4 of multiple classes, this guy was 9/10 of multiple classes. While that may not seen too bad, it was a big downer for the ranger and the barbarian. The ranger was ok, since she still had spells and lots of skills and abilities, but the barb (with his Int penalty) thought he was getting the shaft. So the conclusion was the alt.ftr was better than the barb for most of his career, and was thus too powerful. FWIW.
Krynus Ogrebane 02-24-05, 11:46 AM	OK, I've had a minor epiphany. As elegant as fractal's build is, especially the concept of making WS a class ability rather than a feat, I have to wonder if it's the right way to approach it. Now, I've posted two variants on his foundation, but I know that they're over-powered. Tony Vargas posted a Combat Stylist alt.ftr, and while the concept is interesting, I'm certain that many would agree that they're a bit restrictive. I'd like to approach it from a different angle. Going back to the idea of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization being feats, something as simple as rewording them so that they scale with fighter levels would do the trick. For example: Weapon Focus [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, BAB +1. Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus increases to +2 at fighter level 8th, and +3 at fighter level 16th. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats. Weapon Specialization [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus, fighter level 4th. Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make when using any weapon for which you have the Weapon Focus feat. This bonus increases to +4 at fighter level 12th, and +6 at fighter level 20th. Special: A fighter may select Weapon Specialization as one of his fighter bonus feats. ~~~~~ Using these, the feats Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization become unnecessary and extinct. Admittedly, this would create several gaps in fractal's alt.ftr class, since they would remain feats rather than class abilities. So, as a companion to the above, here's a re-tooled variant of fractal's work: alt.variant.C 1 Bonus Feat 2 Armored Efficiency +1 3 Bonus Feat 4 Armored Agility +1 5 Bonus Feat 6 Armored Defense +1 7 Bonus Feat 8 Improved Armored Efficiency +2 9 Bonus Feat 10 Improved Armored Agility +2 11 Bonus Feat 12 Improved Armored Defense +2 13 Bonus Feat 14 Greater Armored Efficiency +3 15 Bonus Feat 16 Greater Armored Agility +3 17 Bonus Feat 18 Greater Armored Defense +3 19 Bonus Feat 20 Bonus Feat Armored Efficiency: At level 2, a Fighter's experience at moving while in armor allows him to accomplish physical tasks more easily. The total armor check penalty for a Fighter using armor and/or a shield is reduced by 1. At levels 8 and 14, the Fighter's armor check penalty is reduced by another point. Armored Agility: At level 4, a Fighter's experience at moving while in armor isn't as hindering to his ability to dodge blows. The total maximum dexterity bonus for a Fighter using armor and/or a shield is increased by 1. At levels 10 and 16, the Fighter's maximum dexterity bonus is increased by another point. Armored Defense: At level 6, a Fighter's combat training allows him to gain greater protective benefit when wearing armor. The armor bonus to AC of a Fighter's armor is improved by +1. At levels 12 and 18, the Fighter's armor bonus is increased by another point. ~~~~~ Notice that this alt.ftr has 11 bonus feats, back-loaded rather than front-loaded like the PHB.ftr. Tell me what you think.
Mirror, Mirror 02-24-05, 12:27 PM	Actually, I think just the WF and WS scaling feats are enough... The armored bonuses allow the fighter to co-opt the barb style too much. Actually, reducing the ACP is not a bad thing at all, and if it was only +4 over 20 levels, it's still useful for the med armored fighter. The problem with armored defense and armored agility is it encourages the adamantine tank even more.
Tony Vargas 02-24-05, 12:31 PM	Combat Stylists are an alternate fighter progression, meant to exist more-or-less side-by-side with the PH fighter. It represents a fighter who has a particular talent for certain sorts of fighting over others, and developes that talent relentlessly. The PH fighter, remains, a warrior who develops his combat skills through training and experience, alone. Instead of 11 bonus feats chosen from a large list in any order desired, the Combat Stylist choses a basic combat style (S&B, TWF, THF, Archery) and a suplementary style (Weapon Mastery, Mobility, Tactics, Fencing). He recieves 5 bonus feats in each style, in a proscribed order, and 2 high-level special abilities (also feat-like) in each, as well. In addition, he gets Battle 'Reflexes' and Battle 'Discipline' which are comparable to Lightning Reflexes & Iron Will in-combat only, with a few bells and wistles, and an extra +1 at higher levels. It comes out to the equivalent of about 17 feats in a fixed progression, instead of 11 that you choose. A little too powerful, IMHO, but leaving a 'dead' level is anathema, so I'll live with it. Fighter 'Combat Stylist' optional progression: L1: Basic Combat Style 2 Sup. Combat Style 3 Battle Instincts +1 4 Basic Combat Style 5 Sup. Combat Style 6 Battle Discipline +1 7 Basic Combat Style 8 Sup. Combat Style 9 Battle Instincts +2 10 Basic Combat Style 11 Sup. Combat Style 12 Battle Discipline +2 13 Basic Combat Style 14 Sup. Combat Style 15 Battle Instincts +3 16 Basic Combat Style 17 Sup. Combat Style 18 Battle Discipline +3 19 Basic Combat Style 20 Sup. Combat Style Battle Instincts: The comat stylist adds this insight bonus to his REF saves and initiative rolls, when in combat, and able to use both his styles. If regular fighters are given this ability, it aplies in all combat situations. Battle Discipline: The combat stylist adds this morale bonus to his WILL saves and to skill checks with direct combat aplications, such as Listening for an invisible foe, Spotting or hiding in ambush, spotting or making a feint, or tumbling to avoid an AoO - when in combat, and able to use both his styles. If regular fighters are given this ability, it aplies in all combat situations. Combat Styles are progressions of 7 feats. The 1st 5 are standard PH feats, the last two are special class abilities that add to or progress those feats beyond normal. The fighter picks his 1st combat style at 1st, and his 2nd at 2nd level, and is locked into them from then on. He gains the listed feats in order, and does not need to meet any prerequisites, though restrictions still aply. Basic Combat Styles: Choose one at 1st level. Weapon & Shield: (these feats aplly only when using a light, heavy or Tower shield) 1 Improved Shield Bash 4 TWF 7 Mobility 10 ITWF 13 Improved Bull Rush 16 Improved Shield Defense: You gain a Dodge bonus equal to your shield's shield bonus. 19 Magic-shield Defense: You add your shield's Enhancement bonuses to the above Dodge bonus. Two-Handed Fighting (these feats aply only when using a THW) 1 Cleave 4 Great Cleave 7 Improved Bull Rush 10 Power Attack 13 Improved Sunder 16 Rage: 1/day 19 Mighty Rage: 2/day Archery: (these feats aply only to missle weapons, not thrown) 1 Rapid Shot 4 Precise Shot 7 Multishot 10 Distance Shot 13 Improved Precise Shot 16 Melee Shot: no AoO for firing in melee 19 Threaten: Take AoO with ranged weapon, as if you were wielding a conventional reach weapon. Two-Weapon Fighting (these feats aply only to melee weapons, not thrown) 1 TWF 4 TWD 7 ITWF 10 ITWD 13 GTWF 16 Double-Attack: Attack once with off-hand weapon in Standard Attack 19 Perfect TWF: no TWF penalties Suplementary Fighting Styles: Choose 1 at 2nd level. Weapon Mastery (the weapon chosen must be useable with your Basic Combat Style) 2 Weapon Focus 5 Specialization 8 Improved Crit 11 Greater Focus 14 Greater Specialization 17 Supreme Focus +3 total 20 Supreme Specialization +6 total Tactics (these feats aply only when wearing medium or light armor, and employing a weapon with reach, disarm, set-vs-charge and/or trip special abilities) 2 Combat Reflexes 5 Improved Trip 8 Combat Expertise 11 Improved Grapple 14 Improved Disarm 17 Suprise Manuever: You gain an extra +4 with the opposed check with any combat manuever you initiate. You can aply this bonus only once per encounter. 20 Counter-moves: You gain +4 on all opposed checks when defending against combat manuevers. Mobility (these feats aply only when you are at light encumbrance and wearing light or no armor) 2 Dodge 5 Spring Attack or Shot on the Run 8 Endurance 11 Shot on the Run or Spring Attack 14 Run 17 Skirmish: +1 AC/d6 when you move (see Scout) 20 Skirmish: +3AC/d6 when you move (see Scout) Fencing (these feats aply only when wearing light or no armor and a buckler or no shield, and employing a finesseable weapon) 2 Weapon Finesse 5 Combat Expertise 8 Improved Disarm 11 Blindfight 14 Improved Feint 17 Sneak Attack: +2d10 1/round 20 Sneak Attack: +4d10 1/round If you find the combat stylist option leaves the regular fighter too far behind, I'd reccomend giving the standard fighter Battle Discipline/Instincts, but at different levels, to help limit 'dead' levels, and to help differentiate the two options: Standard fighter level: 5 Battle Discipline +1 7 Battle Instincts +1 11 Battle Discipline +2 13 Battle Instincts +2 17 Battle Discipline +3 19 Battle Instincts +3
Arcane Guyver 02-24-05, 01:10 PM	At range, he was out-rangering the ranger. In meele, he was out barbarianing the barbarian. Um...could you be a bit more specific? Like what feats you have? At best, the Fighter would have +2 damage (WS) & +2 attack (due to WF). I'm not too worried about the Fighter being better at fighting than the Ranger (since they're really meant to be more of a sneaky wilderness warrior). The Barbarian...I'm not even sure what you mean here. Fighters almost always have better AC than Barbs. Damage reduction is a non-factor, as you don't need the Alt.Fighter to get adamantine armor. Attack and damage-wise...yes, the fighter does outdo the barb...as long as he's using the right weapons. The barbarian gets his bonuses with any weapon he's wielding while raging out. I do like Ogrebane's ideas...scaling feats and a class that focuses on better armor usage. Now it takes two feats to become supersweet at a weapon (or weapon group), which is still better than the five or so as written. Giving the Fighter Battle Discipline and Instincts is pretty cool too. I'm thinking the Fighter with those abilities, plus scaling WF/WS feats, and maybe some way to lighten Armor Check Penalty...maybe fold ACP into one of those Battle abilities? Or make it simply a level-dependant ability; ACP reduced by one at first level, and an additional one every five levels?
Mirror, Mirror 02-24-05, 01:34 PM	Um...could you be a bit more specific? Like what feats you have? At best, the Fighter would have +2 damage (WS) & +2 attack (due to WF). I'm not too worried about the Fighter being better at fighting than the Ranger (since they're really meant to be more of a sneaky wilderness warrior). The Barbarian...I'm not even sure what you mean here. Fighters almost always have better AC than Barbs. Damage reduction is a non-factor, as you don't need the Alt.Fighter to get adamantine armor. Attack and damage-wise...yes, the fighter does outdo the barb...as long as he's using the right weapons. The barbarian gets his bonuses with any weapon he's wielding while raging out. I do like Ogrebane's ideas...scaling feats and a class that focuses on better armor usage. Now it takes two feats to become supersweet at a weapon (or weapon group), which is still better than the five or so as written. Giving the Fighter Battle Discipline and Instincts is pretty cool too. I'm thinking the Fighter with those abilities, plus scaling WF/WS feats, and maybe some way to lighten Armor Check Penalty...maybe fold ACP into one of those Battle abilities? Or make it simply a level-dependant ability; ACP reduced by one at first level, and an additional one every five levels? WF greatsword, WF composite longbow, PB Shot, Rapid Shot, PA, Cleave, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will. Human. Moves as fast as the barb, does as much damage as the barb, has a better AC than the barb, has DR, has a lower ACP than normal. What was the barb supposed to specialize in again? Well, he was doing it. It wasn't that he was just doing it. It's that he was doing it while being as good as the ranger as well!
Arcane Guyver 02-24-05, 03:13 PM	What this tells me is that this fighter is the best at fighting. Which was the whole point of the class, right? Not just 'the class that gives full BAB, d10 HD, Fort & feats'. All the other martial classes give up the ability to fight as well for more skills and different types of bonuses. The Fighter is better than the Ranger at fighting? Huh. I guess the Ranger should start using his other abilities to compensate for lack of contribution in battle. The same could be said of the Barb, Paly, Swash, Hex & Samurai. Less so with the Barb, who is just barely behind the fighter if he takes WF. Oh yes - the only reason the fighter is keeping pace with the barb is a magic item the barb very well could have. He's still going to be stealthier and faster than the Fighter.
Mirror, Mirror 02-24-05, 03:57 PM	What this tells me is that this fighter is the best at fighting. Which was the whole point of the class, right? Not just 'the class that gives full BAB, d10 HD, Fort & feats'. All the other martial classes give up the ability to fight as well for more skills and different types of bonuses. The Fighter is better than the Ranger at fighting? Huh. I guess the Ranger should start using his other abilities to compensate for lack of contribution in battle. The same could be said of the Barb, Paly, Swash, Hex & Samurai. Less so with the Barb, who is just barely behind the fighter if he takes WF. Oh yes - the only reason the fighter is keeping pace with the barb is a magic item the barb very well could have. He's still going to be stealthier and faster than the Fighter. Well, the "fighter is the best fighter" mentality is exactly the sort of backwards thinking that results in overpowered base classes. Should the fighter be better than the barb? Well, that depends on what you mean by better. Do more damage, no. That barb has most of his class features dedicated to dealing and taking damage. For the fighter to outshine him leaves the barb without a place in the party. Fight better than the ranger? Once again, that depends. It is more acceptable to be better than the ranger, since only a few of his class abilities go towards any given combat form, but to completly outshine him begs the question should he be a rouge instead? No, the fighter should not be a better damage dealer or specialized fighter than the other classes. A fighter being the best fighter is one than adapts to combat situations fluidly. This fighter is never off his guard because he is prepared for every circumstance. This fighter may not be as good as the specialists in their specialty, but is overall better than everyone else in everything. Some say it dosn't work. Some say the barb has it all. I say 11 feats goes a long way, but not if you try to re-invent the wheel. And therin lies the problem with this class. The alt.ftr gets both the benefits from specialization and the feats to generalize. It's like giving the cleric bonus item creation and metamagic feats: Utterly overpowered.
Tony Vargas 02-24-05, 04:01 PM	Giving the Fighter Battle Discipline and Instincts is pretty cool too. I'm thinking the Fighter with those abilities, plus scaling WF/WS feats, A PH fighter with Battle Discipline/Instincts should be more 'viable' at higher levels, in the sense of being able to better match some of the REF/WILL save DCs he'll come up against, and also be able to put in a better showing in some areas where his lack of skills hurt him. I also think it's nice to give a scaling init bonus for a change. The actual increase in power is not /that/ substantial (it's always possible insight and morale bonuses will be available, anyway), but it adds a little something. 'Scaling' WF/WS is hardly called for with the standard PH fighter. If the fighter wants the extra damage, he can afford the feats, otherwise, the feats can go to other things. It's a fair enough trade, maybe one waited a tad towards chosing other feats. If WS scales automatically, it becomes a deep-discounted feat, and a bit too much of a must-have. At least, for a fighter balanced with the 'Combat Stylist.' Obviously, it works fine with Fractal's alternate fighter, since the WS/GWF/GWS are all obviated, in any case. maybe some way to lighten Armor Check Penalty...maybe fold ACP into one of those Battle abilities? Or make it simply a level-dependant ability; ACP reduced by one at first level, and an additional one every five levels? Armor check penalty strikes me as trivial for a pure fighter. The skills it impacts that the fighter's likely to use are mostly STR-based, and the penalty's likely to decline (MW, mithral) as the fighter levels up, while his STR is going to increase (level-ups, items, inherent bonuses). And, the fighter is rarely called upon to make extremely difficult skill checks in any case.
Arcane Guyver 02-24-05, 04:51 PM	WF greatsword, WF composite longbow, PB Shot, Rapid Shot, PA, Cleave, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will. Human. Alright. I'm looking at the core PHB Fighter. He would get one more feat than the Alt. Fighter, but would spend four feats just to be as good with his Focused weapons (so remove Rapid Shot, Lightning Reflexes & Iron Will). This is counting the same equipment (so adamantine armor for DR 2/ada.) The differences? PHB Fighter is just as good at outshining the barb, except he is slightly clumsier with ACP & has possibly one less point of AC from Dexterity. He doesn't have Rapid Shot, but can easily get that when he catches up at 9th level. He doesn't have a +2 Will or Reflex, which are modest boosts to begin with (the Ranger still beats the Fighter Reflex-wise, and the Fighter will never truly catch up with the Barb's rage-juiced Will save). Not counting the ability to throw more damage & hit better: The barbarian has fast movement, can never be caught flatfooted or flanked (with the exception of some rogues), has a +3 bonus on all things concerning traps, and always reduces damage by 1 point, no matter what the source. He has more class skills & skill points, as well as HP. He doesn't get as good armor however. The ranger has superior Reflexes, wild empathy, Track & swift tracker, Endurance, spells, Favored Enemy x2 (counts towards skills & whatnot), an animal companion, woodland stride, and evasion. He also has more class skills & skill points, but lesser HP & armor use. I guess my point is that the Fighter is focused entirely on fighting; hence his name. The other classes can be almost as good at tactics, and outdo the Fighter damage-wise (unless the Fighter Specializes in at least one weapon). But they get special class features that can't truly be replicated with feats, and the ability to do more things outside of combat. The PHB Fighter can make up for all this with equipment...but then again, the other classes should get the same amount of cash for their own boosting equipment. This Alt.Fighter makes the Fighter's life a little easier by removing the feat load to keep up with damage and attack, and helps the Fighter's meager skills with ACP reduction & their AC from eventually being outstripped by increasing Max Dex.
Tony Vargas 02-24-05, 05:33 PM	I guess my point is that the Fighter is focused entirely on fighting; hence his name. The fighter is focused entirely on combat, yes, but not on any one sort of combat, having the option to specialize (or not) on a given weapon or focus (or not) on a given type of cobmat. Other classes have more non-combat abilities, but, instead of being 'weaker' in combat to compensate, they're just more focused on specific types of combat. That allows these classes to hold the interest of players in a game that tends to put a lot of emphasis on combat. A Ranger has tons of skills, for instance, but the only paths open to him are light armor/high DEX and TWF or archery, and his damage-dealing is only good against specific foes. The Barbarian is great at dishing out damage in melee with a two-handed weapon when raging (that specific enough?), but absorbs a lot of damage in the process, and any other aproach to combat wastes some of his class features. Fractal's fighter - though I don't think this is what he had in mind - basically assumes that the emphasis on combat over non-combat is off, and that the fighter needs /more power/ in combat to compensate for his lack of non-combat ability; and, similarly, that broad ability in combat is not that much more valuable than very narrow ability. So, scaling bonuses in multiple weapons and armor and almost all the existing bonus feats are justified, in a re-balanced fighter - because the way the game in general, and the fighter in particular, is balanced now, is just wrong. Conversely, the other warrior-types who might all find themselves outdone by the fighter (even a single fighter) are still viable, since they have /other things/ they can do. The ranger and pally cast spells, the ranger tracks and spots ambushes, the pally gets huge save bonuses, etc...
Scarlet Knight 02-24-05, 05:52 PM	Since now we're comparing different fighter varients, he're what I did with Fractal's alternate fighter (hope you don't mind fractal): Level Ability 1 Bonus Feat 2 Defense +1 3 Bonus Feat 4 Weapon Specialization +2 5 Bonus Feat 6 Armor Efficiency 7 Bonus Feat 8 Improved Weapon Focus +2 9 Bonus Feat 10 Defense +2 11 Bonus Feat 12 Weapon Specialization +4 13 Bonus Feat 14 Improved Armor Efficiency 15 Bonus Feat 16 Improved Weapon Focus +3 17 Bonus Feat 18 Defense +3 19 Bonus Feat 20 Weapon Specialization +6 Bonus Feat: The Fighter may pick a bonus feat from the list of Fighter feats. All requirements for the feat must still be met. The Fighter gains a new bonus feat at every odd Fighter level. Defense: At level 2, a Fighter improves her ability to use armor and shields to protect herself. Whenever a Fighter wears armor or is equipped with a shield, her armor or shield bonus improves by +1. This bonus improves to +2 at level 10 and to +3 at level 18. Weapon Specialization: At level 4, a Fighter improves her mastery of the weapons she has focused upon. Whenever a Fighter makes an attack with a weapon for which she possesses the Weapon Focus feat, it deals an additional 2 points of damage. This bonus damage improves to +4 and then +6 at Fighter levels 12 and 20. Armored Efficiency: At level 6, a Fighter's experience moving while in armor allows him to accomplish physical tasks more easily. The total armor check penalty for a Fighter using armor and/or a shield is reduced by one point. Improved Weapon Focus: At level 8, a Fighter's accuracy with her focused weapons improves further. The attack bonus granted by Weapon Focus feats improves from +1 to +2. At level 16, it improves again, to +3. Improved Armor Efficiency: At level 14, a Fighter's combat training allows him to present a more active defense even when encumbered by armor. The maximum Dexterity bonus to AC of a Fighter's armor is improved by +1. A fighter’s armor check penalty is reduced by a second point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I wanted second level to offer fighters something better than just a reduced armor check penalty, so I gave them "Defense +1" instead: essentially +1 AC whenever fighters wear armor or use a shield. I think that Armor Efficiency is a rather weak ability, since armor check penalties hardly matter to many characters. I felt that a lot of players would dip just the first fighter level for the feat, and then multiclass out, since Armor Efficiency isn't that impressive as an ability. A +1 bonus to AC is a much more compelling reason to stick with the class to the second level. They still get Armor Efficiency, but not until level 6, since I figure that most characters would be more likely to continue progressing as fighters after having invested 5 levels in the class, and a somewhat weaker ability would be more acceptable at that point. I also felt that Armored Defense +1 and +2 made the class too dependent on Dexterity. I wanted the fighter class to still appeal to dwarven characters that dump Dexterity in favor of Constitution and Strength, so I included both Armored Defense +1 and Armor Efficiency +2 as "Improved Armor Efficiency" at level 14, and dropped Armored Defense +2 altogether. Compared to a barbarian, this fighter is almost certainly a better combantant, with far superior AC, smaller armor class penalties, more feats, and very good attack and damage bonuses with weapons they focus in. However, that does not really bother me too much, since barbarians still have more hit points, more skill points, better saves, and can better deal with traps and Sneak Attacks than fighters can thanks to Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge. The fighter is better at fighting than the barbarian, but the barbarian better at overcoming dangerous situations and attacks that are less straightforward, which is the way I like it.
Mirror, Mirror 02-24-05, 06:25 PM	Well, the big difference between the alt.ftr and the phb.ftr I saw was that the phb.ftr could challenge the barb, or the ranger, but not both simultaniously. The alt.ftr can. I don't think that kind of power increase is necessary or warrented. High level fighters are suffering, right (I don't think so, but that's what this is all about...)? They need high level abilities. And feats making them better at swinging swords or shooting bows just don't cut it. Fighters are excellent reactive combatants. They are versital. High level feats emphasizing versatility are what's needed. The problem is that everyone always tries to focus on specilization and focused combat. Give the fighter a feat at 16th level that reduces the multiple attack penalty to 4 instead of 5 and lets him have a 6th attack. Generic, powerful, and unique.
Scarlet Knight 02-24-05, 06:34 PM	Give the fighter a feat at 16th level that reduces the multiple attack penalty to 4 instead of 5 and lets him have a 6th attack. Generic, powerful, and unique.But not very useful to fighters that use Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack, I'm afraid.
Scarlet Knight 02-24-05, 06:47 PM	Tell me what you think. I think that your fighter goes a little overboard with the AC bonuses. By eighteenth level, a high Dexterity fighter has Greater Armored Agility +3 and Greater Armored Defense +3, for a total of +6 more AC than a character of some other class that wears the same armor. I think that's a bit too much. I do like the idea of fighters gaining better armor bonuses though. My fighter version has a similiar ability that improves armor bonuses, but gets a maximum of +4 AC versus other classes in the same armor. I also prefer fractal's method of making Weapon Specialization a fighter class ability, rather that a feat. I think that the fighter class should have both strong offensive abilities and strong defensive abilities.
Mirror, Mirror 02-24-05, 07:00 PM	But not very useful to fighters that use Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack, I'm afraid. :heehee Well, nobody's perfect. That's what I get for trying to pull something out of nowhere... Forcing WS on the fighter is just not really in line with what a fighter does. Kensai, perhaps, but not a fighter. Improved dodge, mabey. Finesse with any weapon, perhaps. PA with any weapon...well...? Improved armor use, why not. SR, now were talking, but no. Anyway, abilities to give the fighter more to do with what he already has as opposed to raw power or flat bonuses are what's needed, if anything. Either that, or just worry about nerfing the cleric. That's far more problematic than the fighter...
Borring 02-24-05, 08:29 PM	Well, the big difference between the alt.ftr and the phb.ftr I saw was that the phb.ftr could challenge the barb, or the ranger, but not both simultaniously. The alt.ftr can. I don't think that kind of power increase is necessary or warrented.. So, a fighter that specializes in melee should just be equal in power with a barbarian? With less skill points and class skills, not to mention uncanny dodge, DR, trap sense, rage (with its great bonnus in will and fort saves (the will bonus alone saved the party more than once)) etc? The barbarian in my party is a tatical nightmare: fast movement, ranks in jump, tumble etc; and he still has enough ranks in survival to be very useful. Sorry, but what is the place that a fighter has in a group? Versatility? But not enouth to be good in both ranged and close combat? Rangers only get 3 bonnus feats, and aren't particulaly good with either style (actually, by core, they are a very lousy TWFers when not fighting a racial enemy, and just somewhat bad ranged fighters). The fact that your party's ranger was easily outshined doesn't really impress me (and notice that your alt fighter posted can't pull the tricky shots the ranger can).
Gunrock 02-25-05, 12:33 AM	Do you know just how unbalanced this class is!!! It is about twice as good as any published class that I've read so far. This class should be destroyed immediatly, before more of its vile, unbalanced particles seep into other, more balanced counterparts! :mad: That's because the Fighter doesn't need to be made more powerful. IF the PH Fighter were actually weaker than the other classes then this would be the way to fix it. Since the Fighter is not weaker, the added power of this build makes it too powerful. It's still an elegant and simple design. It's just has a completely unecessary goal and is therefor unbalancing.
Nyferto 02-25-05, 03:58 AM	I thought you were against the PHB fighter? Well nevermind. Variations A&B You still missed the point on Armour Check Penalty, it doesn't work like other bonuses or penalties because it's a sum from two sources that are independant from each other. More importantly you've still got a Fighter that's favours moderate dex, limited weapon choice. You haven't cleared up WF and Armour Focus properly because there's no clear indication of how they work and they seem to be +1 attack up from Fractals. Then you've got the problem of the bonus feats being at the top of the class - where you didn't really need them. The 20th Fighter feat isn't going to be that earth shattering unless you do actually head into Epic play, the ones at 18th might be more significant, but then the ones at 15th and 16th might be more so again. The nature of the feasts means that it's more useful to get a number early, and close up the chains towards the end of your Fighter's progression, i.e. get the important feats first, and then add onto it later. Your Alternate Fighters place more feats in the later half, and both of them supposedly compensate for the loss of feats by adding a bunch to the end, where it might look nice if you consider the character at 20th, but it'd be quite bad if you consider him at any time before that. Most classes should have the basics of their class in place by 10th or 12th, and after that you are simply broadening what you've built on. -- MM only posted one feats, there are plenty more feats out there that bridge gaps between styles. Although you should really stop thinking about TWF, 2-Handed, Ranged and W&S (You too Tony), and remember that it all gets applied when it's most optimal to do so. I haven't made a strictly TWF Fighter in ages, but I still made Fighters that used TWF, with Ranged Attacks and Two Handed Attacks and Grapples and a Shield whilst Tripping and drawing attacks.
fractal 02-25-05, 05:06 AM	Well, we gave it a try. 8th level NPC Alt.Ftr. We are all about 9th, so this seemed fair. The first problem was that he was in adamantium heavy armor, had boots of striding and springing, decent dex, and focused in Two-handed sword and composite longbow. At range, he was out-rangering the ranger. In meele, he was out barbarianing the barbarian. Now we have all had some stat boost, so he was behind there. The problem was that, unlike the bard who is 3/4 of multiple classes, this guy was 9/10 of multiple classes. While that may not seen too bad, it was a big downer for the ranger and the barbarian. The ranger was ok, since she still had spells and lots of skills and abilities, but the barb (with his Int penalty) thought he was getting the shaft. So the conclusion was the alt.ftr was better than the barb for most of his career, and was thus too powerful. FWIW. Well, I appreciate that you went ahead and ran a test. I do have some comments, however: Adamantine Fullplate is nice, no question. However it costs $16,500. That's a lot of gold for an 8th level character, even with nothing else. (Magic weapons?) As far as feats go... WF greatsword, WF composite longbow, PB Shot, Rapid Shot, PA, Cleave, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will A 9th level Barbarian has 3 Rages/day which bump him ahead of the WF/WS benefits. He's also got 5 feats to match up against the 8 your Fighter has used (admittedly the Fighter will get two more next level), and more skill points, hp, uncanny dodge, fast movement (stacks with boots!), and trap sense. I can see this Fighter possibly standing up to a Barbarian in melee, if the Barbarian didn't use all of his feats on melee combat, but not beating him. The Fighter is expected to do a bit better in ranged combat, but Barbarians are no slouches there either. In more complicated circumstances, or out of combat, the Barbarian's skills, Uncanny Dodge, and Trap Sense should easily show up the Fighter. No one likes having to share their thunder, but I really don't think the Barbarian class should be superior in melee to the Fighter. They should (if both devote resources to it) be comparable, while the Fighter maintains a bit more combat versatility, and the Barbarian possesses more out of combat versatility. Could you post the Barbarian build? Rangers are harder to compare, due to their wide array of class features, but I think a typical archer Ranger will have a lot more tricks and a little bit less straight-up damage (against non-favored enemies) except for his ability to focus more resources upon his bow. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem to me. Barbarians can be considered focused classes, Fighters are focused classes, but Rangers are not. If you want a quintessential archer, that would be a ranged Fighter, not a Ranger. In terms of your 3/4 and 9/10, the Ranger is more like .8 Fighter + .6 Rogue + .4 Druid.
fractal 02-25-05, 05:29 AM	With regards to the various alternate Alternate Fighters being posted... I must say that I don't care for most of them as much as for mine. Why not? Well, first, although they take their inspiration and borrow from mine, I didn't come up with them. Isn't that a good enough reason? ;) Apart from that, my main concern is the irregularity of the class progressions. In my opinion, the near-uniform distribution of my Alternate Fighter's class features is one of its main strengths. It discourages those who would attempt to plunder the class for front-loaded benefits, while facilitating players who want to include in their characters a representative cross-section of the Fighter's abilities. Some of the variants also go a bit further than I would like to. I believe that the PHB Fighter is underpowered. Furthermore, I don't think that the Alternate Fighter goes too far in correcting that. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with significant additions of further power, as it can be difficult to tell when you have overshot the mark. With all of that said, I do appreciate the attempts to offer input and creative new ideas and variations. Please keep in mind, however, that it's not really possible for a class to be all things to all people without being overpowered.
Mirror, Mirror 02-25-05, 10:47 AM	So, a fighter that specializes in melee should just be equal in power with a barbarian? With less skill points and class skills, not to mention uncanny dodge, DR, trap sense, rage (with its great bonnus in will and fort saves (the will bonus alone saved the party more than once)) etc? The barbarian in my party is a tatical nightmare: fast movement, ranks in jump, tumble etc; and he still has enough ranks in survival to be very useful. Sorry, but what is the place that a fighter has in a group? Versatility? But not enouth to be good in both ranged and close combat? So you don't think the freedom to choose between effective meele and range is worth anything? Barb's don't really have the choice: their bonuses make meele THF almost a no-brainer. And that choice of flexibility is what makes the fighter a little weaker than the specialized classes. So, yes, a specialized meele ftr should be "just equal" to the class-specialized meele barb. No one likes having to share their thunder, but I really don't think the Barbarian class should be superior in melee to the Fighter. They should (if both devote resources to it) be comparable, while the Fighter maintains a bit more combat versatility, and the Barbarian possesses more out of combat versatility. Could you post the Barbarian build? Not really, since it was not my character. I think he has PA, Cleave, Imp. Sunder, extra rages, and extended rages (from CW). And admittedly the sunder didn't come into play as we were fighting delvers. And, yes, the armor was most of this guys wealth. Normal PC's wouldn't have this kind of equipment load out. Then again, we mostly have wondrous items. Only the paladin and the ranger have magic weapons. It was only a spot example, but it was amazing how an encounter (CR10) became almost trivial with this guy around. And when he gets 2 more feats at 9th, well, it just gets uglier from there. Now what I would like to know is if the alt.ftr is still that good at 20th level. It seems to me the major complaints about fighters don't really start till past 12th level (even though there are 3 "dead" levels in that progression). How does the alt.ftr stack up against the phb.barb at lvl20?
Borring 02-25-05, 12:14 PM	So you don't think the freedom to choose between effective meele and range is worth anything? Barb's don't really have the choice: their bonuses make meele THF almost a no-brainer. And that choice of flexibility is what makes the fighter a little weaker than the specialized classes. So, yes, a specialized meele ftr should be "just equal" to the class-specialized meele barb. So a fighter that focus in melee is more powerfull because he could have focused on something else? I actually don't think that a barbarian is such a melee specialist. As was pointed out his better skills make him a lot better than a fighter outside combat, and much more versatile in it (in terms of combat and terrain). A fighter that is "just equal" is in my opinion, just inferior (throw in some mind affecting spells and see what happens, or try to make an ambush with assassins). The fighter you posted took no special manouver feats whatsoever (disarm etc), only "I will hurt" and the bonnus saves feats; I really think it was nice to see that he actually hurt something. Ps: I never really played with it or saw one such char, but I have thrown in a encounter some thrown weapon using barbarian, and, as un-named NPCs villains they were quite interesting.
Nyferto 02-25-05, 12:25 PM	Given the simple progression, fairly well, it all depends how you intend to compete. More of the Barbarians advantages will be ironed over by magical items. MM's Bow ability will far outstrip the Barbarians all the time, UD isn't so essential when you've got Heavy Armour and can use it well. Barbs DR will be counter balanced by Adamantine armour and trap sense is beaten by Lightning Reflexes (not to mention a higher AC). What do you think the Barbarian should have over the Fighter? The Hp's aren't that much further, with one bonus fighter feat from the CW and it's gone, the DR is only really useful to Barbarians because they're more geared to taking damage whilst a Fighter is more inclined to simply avoid it. Then you have to remember that a Barbarian's Rage will run out, it's not a permenant benefit.
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 01:02 PM	Apart from that, my main concern is the irregularity of the class progressions. In my opinion, the near-uniform distribution of my Alternate Fighter's class features is one of its main strengths. The Combat Stylist's progression is even more uniform than the PH fighter's. 1st Combat Style at 1st, advancing every 3 levels; 2nd combat style at 2nd, advancing every 3rd level; Alternating Battle Instincts/Discipline starting at 3rd and every third level thereafter. Some of the variants also go a bit further than I would like to. I believe that the PHB Fighter is underpowered. ... However, it can be difficult to tell when you have overshot the mark. Since I consider the PH fighter balanced (though, a class can be balanced and seem underpowered in specific comparisons), that's even more of a concern for me. The Combat Stylist, like the barbarian, comes up with more 'power' than the fighter - he has the equivalent 14 feats, 4 of which are high-level abilities inaccessible to the fighter, instead of 11, and progressive save and other bonuses (earlier than the fighter, if they're shared out to the basic fighter, as well) - and, like the barb 'pays' for it by having less flexibility and customizeability in it's progression.
Borring 02-25-05, 01:16 PM	Given the simple progression, fairly well, it all depends how you intend to compete. More of the Barbarians advantages will be ironed over by magical items. Sorry I don't get your point. Barbarians advantantages will also be better used with magical items. MM's Bow ability will far outstrip the Barbarians all the time, UD isn't so essential when you've got Heavy Armour and can use it well. MM's? Barbs DR will be counter balanced by Adamantine armour . And compare his movement with of a Mitrhil Breast plate wearing barbarian. Now, put the fight on a rough terrain and see the fun. and trap sense is beaten by Lightning Reflexes (not to mention a higher AC). What do you think the Barbarian should have over the Fighter? The Hp's aren't that much further, with one bonus fighter feat from the CW and it's gone,. Two bonnus feats used (sort of). And like I said, I think that the barbarian is much more than a melee wall. Then you have to remember that a Barbarian's Rage will run out, it's not a permenant benefit. I know, but its extremely usefull against that anoing cleric. And in the end, outside direct combat, a barbarian can still pull his weight with skills, much better than the fighter. And I really don't think that UD and IUD are not good advantages. In the end I see no problem if a fighter that specializes in heavy melee-defense surpasses the barbarian in that area, the barbarian still has other advantages outside dealing dmg with his axe.
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 01:33 PM	Sorry I don't get your point. Barbarians advantantages will also be better used with magical items. Depends on the items. If DR-granting items - adamantine armor, stone salve, invulnerability armor, etc - become available, the importance of the barbarian's DR is lessened, since it doesn't stack (it's not 'useless,' since other types of DR can be bypassed, but it's less significant). If movement-boosting items are available the advantage of Fast Movement is less extreme: moving 40 vs 30 is one-third faster, moving 70 vs 60 is almost trivial. If Fortification or Displacement is available, unflankability vs rogues is less significant. If morale bonuses to saves are granted by spells or items, the morale bonus from rage isn't as large a relative advantage. Rage otherwise remains the barbarian's big advantage, though, as it's bonus to STR/CON is unnamed, (though, even unnamed, it presumably doesn't stack with the Rage spell or the Rage granted by a Berserking Sword). Even so, as STR, attack, hps, and damage increase with level (through item accumulation, among other things), it may not be as substantial an advantage, proportionately, as it used to be, even as it becomes easier to use.
Mirror, Mirror 02-25-05, 01:48 PM	A couple of problems with the OOC barbarian: 4 skills are good, but Int is a dump stat and their skill list is not especially unique or important. Any ranger or rogue could do much more of the same. UD and IUD is really to allow the barb to be surrounded and keep fighting. Hvy fortification does the same. So does displacement (for the most part) and invisibility. And it's usefulness is really campaign dependent. If the rogues are avoiding the fighters to kill the casters, that ability is mostly worthless. Trap defense is just pathetic. With almost any skilled character around, there is no real weight to be "pulled" by the OOC barb, making him "just" equal to the fighter. If the fighter was a better combatant, nobody would play the barb. Would play a class that was supposed to be this great warrior, except that someone else is better than you, and has some good skills, except that almost anyone else has better, and has abilities that can be easily replicated by magic items? And if your response to this is "fighter", then you obviously didn't pay any attention to some of my previous posts...
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 01:59 PM	So a fighter that focus in melee is more powerfull because he could have focused on something else? No, the fighter class is balanced, in part, because it allows the player a greater breadth of options in developing his character than a class like barbarian does. A specific fighter who tries to play barbarian is, in effect, ceding the 'choice' advantage of his bonus feats. That's a central problem with many fighter/barb comparisons, the fighter is trying to be a barbarian, instead of a fighter. But, it's so easy to quantify what the barbarian does best (damage), that such comparisons are unavoidable. I actually don't think that a barbarian is such a melee specialist. The best use of the barbarian class is as a melee specialist - specifically, high-damage melee (not even just 'melee' in general). If you deviate from the high-damage melee path, your barb starts 'wasting' or under-utilizing class abilities. A barbarian that prefers range, for instance, wastes his STR bonus to attacks from rage, and under-utilizes that bonus to damage, and, for that matter, CON. One that tries to maximize AC instead of damage under-utilizes his STR bonus to damage while raging (by using a one-handed weapon), and that rage is, itself, counterproductive, since it lowers AC. There's really one prescription for optimal use of a barbarian: Wear light or medium armor, depending on your DEX bonus and Uncanny Dodge to maintain a decent AC, get a two-handed weapon, use your fast movement to close with the enemy, rage, hit real hard, depend on your increased hps, DR, and Improved Uncanny Dodge, to survive being surrounded since you've charged ahead of the rest of the party, beat down the enemy before they beat you down, and seek clerical healing before your rage runs out. That is a pretty narrow focus, and, the barb deserves to be good at it, considering it's almost the only thing he'll ever be doing. What else does he have? Well, you can have some fun role-playing illiteracy, and you can use Survival to find food in the woods (or Track, if you throw one of your 7 feats into that) and Listen to occassionally start an encounter aware instead of flat-footed (not that being flat-footed matters much to you after 2nd level Uncanny Dodge kicks in). Aside from those two skills, you're basically in the same boat as the fighter. If there's a ranger or druid (or scout) in the party, they're covered, anyway.
Scarlet Knight 02-25-05, 03:38 PM	Barbarians can do more in melee than just deal damage. Notice that a lot of so-called "fighter tactics" such as grappling, tripping, bullrushing, ect. involve opposed Strength checks. Raging barbarians have such high Strength scores that they excel at these tactics -- even without the feats.
Mirror, Mirror 02-25-05, 04:01 PM	Barbarians can do more in melee than just deal damage. Notice that a lot of so-called "fighter tactics" such as grappling, tripping, bullrushing, ect. involve opposed Strength checks. Raging barbarians have such high Strength scores that they excel at these tactics -- even without the feats. And without those feats they are only as capable as a regular fighter with the feats, except they provoke AoO and the fighter dosen't. Yeah, that's really great... And if they take the feat? How many feats are you going to get? 8 max, right? PA, cleave, that's 2. Hvy armor prof so you can get the mithral full plate, that's 3. Imp. sunder, trip, grapple, bullrush, that's 7. WF? Bottom line, a fighter is doing all that at 6th level while a barb waits till 20th. Still think a barb is a good "tactical" fighter? Trip monkeys need exotic weapons to make the most of it. The more you need to pull off the tactic, the more likely it is the barb will have something much better to spend his feats on. Str is good for the opposed check, but most feats give a +4, so for any tactic, if the barb has the feat, he is better than the fighter. He cannot, however, get all the tactical feats, nor get them as quickly. Bottom line, if you play a barb, and you go tactical, you are fighting a loosing battle. Your better off dipping into fighter. And does this alt.ftr change that? Not at all. If you only get the levels for the feats, then you only want the feats. If you only want 1 level of wizard for AA, then you only want that 1. After you get what you want, it's no contest...
Borring 02-25-05, 04:06 PM	There's really one prescription for optimal use of a barbarian: Wear light or medium armor, depending on your DEX bonus and Uncanny Dodge to maintain a decent AC, get a two-handed weapon, use your fast movement to close with the enemy, rage, hit real hard, depend on your increased hps, DR, and Improved Uncanny Dodge, to survive being surrounded since you've charged ahead of the rest of the party, beat down the enemy before they beat you down, and seek clerical healing before your rage runs out. That is a pretty narrow focus, and, the barb deserves to be good at it, considering it's almost the only thing he'll ever be doing. It's hard to disagree with you when I do agree. You described almost every barbarian feature of the barbarian working together. A fighter will have a hard time spending feats and money in equipament to fit this role, and aternate or not won't actually be able. Want DR? Forget about moving fast and expect problems in rough terrains. And serious investment in invisibility, dimentional door etc, well, is expensive; he won't be able to do much else and he won't be as good at it as the barb. When I said 'melee specialist' I was thinking of dmg output and how much dmg he can stand (your quantifiable variables), like you posted, and pointed that there is much more to the barbarian. What else does he have? Well, you can have some fun role-playing illiteracy, and you can use Survival to find food in the woods (or Track, if you throw one of your 7 feats into that) and Listen to occassionally start an encounter aware instead of flat-footed (not that being flat-footed matters much to you after 2nd level Uncanny Dodge kicks in). Aside from those two skills, you're basically in the same boat as the fighter. If there's a ranger or druid (or scout) in the party, they're covered, anyway. The last one is a big if. Because there are better classes at survival doen't mean that being just good is a bad thing. barbarian's skill make him a reasonable atlet and a reasonable survival. The last isn't that usefull IF there is a ranger of a druid. But the first combines, more than competes, nicely with a rogue acrobat in lots of situations. Needless to say, I really think INT is not a dump stat for barbarian. (not that I believe in dump stats overall)
Mirror, Mirror 02-25-05, 04:16 PM	Well, you may not think Int is a dump stat, but Str is definitly a primary stat! And in 25 point-buy, it's hard to have good stats without having low ones. More often than not a barb will have an 18 str and a 8 or 6 int. Why? Barb skills are mostly wis based and they get 4; 5 if they are human. That's plenty of skills for a typical damage-dealer. The whole reason, IMHO, barbs get 4+int skills is to compensate for the fact that they will likely be taking an int penalty, and the designers wanted him to have some skills... Is this balanced next to the fighter? Depends on the fighter, which really is the strength of the fighter class...
Scarlet Knight 02-25-05, 05:08 PM	And without those feats they are only as capable as a regular fighter with the feats, except they provoke AoO and the fighter dosen't. Yeah, that's really great... And if they take the feat? How many feats are you going to get? 8 max, right? PA, cleave, that's 2. Hvy armor prof so you can get the mithral full plate, that's 3. Imp. sunder, trip, grapple, bullrush, that's 7. WF? Bottom line, a fighter is doing all that at 6th level while a barb waits till 20th. Still think a barb is a good "tactical" fighter? Trip monkeys need exotic weapons to make the most of it. The more you need to pull off the tactic, the more likely it is the barb will have something much better to spend his feats on. Str is good for the opposed check, but most feats give a +4, so for any tactic, if the barb has the feat, he is better than the fighter. He cannot, however, get all the tactical feats, nor get them as quickly. Bottom line, if you play a barb, and you go tactical, you are fighting a loosing battle. Your better off dipping into fighter. You are not thinking the comparison through. Yes, fighters are indeed better at tripping, grappling and bullrushing than barbarians, IF they take Improved Trip (which requires Combat Reflexes and Intelligence 13+) AND Improved Grapple (which requires Improved Unarmed Strike and Dexterity 13+) AND Improved Bull Rush (which requires Power Attack and Strength 13+). A few fighters actually will take all six of those feats, but many will not. On the other hand, all barbarians can Rage, which grants a bonus to ALL Strength-related attacks. A barbarian would not take the Improved Trip feat: if he wanted to trip someone, all he would have to do is Rage and use a heavy flail (which all tactical barbarians should carry). Rage also gives the barbarian a bonus when he attempts to grapple, bull rush, overrun or sunder, so he could use all those tactics pretty well without even bothering to take all the feats like a fighter. A fighter that took Improved Trip would be better at that specific tactic than a barbarian, but how many fighters have Improved Trip, Improved Grapple, Impoved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, AND Improved Sunder? Probably very few, since that's eight feats counting the prerequisites, which is a big investment even for a fighter. So the fighter is probably much better at one or two of those tactics than the barbarian is, but not at all of them. Fighter specialize at certain tactics, while barbarians are more flexible. So a fighter that dedicates himself to tripping attacks will almost certainly be far better at tripping than a barbarian, but the barbarian will probably be better at most other tactics, since the fighter is not going to have every feat.
Mirror, Mirror 02-25-05, 05:22 PM	You are not thinking the comparison through. Yes, fighters are indeed better at tripping, grappling and bullrushing than barbarians, IF they take Improved Trip (which requires Combat Reflexes and Intelligence 13+) AND Improved Grapple (which requires Improved Unarmed Strike and Dexterity 13+) AND Improved Bull Rush (which requires Power Attack and Strength 13+). A few fighters actually will take all six of those feats, but many will not. On the other hand, all barbarians can Rage, which grants a bonus to ALL Strength-related attacks. A barbarian would not take the Improved Trip feat: if he wanted to trip someone, all he would have to do is Rage and use a heavy flail (which all tactical barbarians should carry). Rage also gives the barbarian a bonus when he attempts to grapple, bull rush, overrun or sunder. A fighter that took Improved Trip would be better at that specific tactic than a barbarian, but how many fighters have Improved Trip, Improved Grapple, Impoved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, AND Improved Sunder? Probably very few, since that's eight feats counting the prerequisites, which is a big investment even for a fighter. So the fighter is probably much better at one or two of those tactics than the barbarian is, but not at all of them. Fighter specialize at certain tactics, while barbarians are more flexible. So a fighter that dedicates himself to tripping attacks will almost certainly be far better at tripping than a barbarian, but the barbarian will probably be better at most other tactics, since the fighter is not going to have every feat. This is the classic mistake the barb proponents make when comparing them to the fighter: the fighter can easily afford the feats; the barb cannot. The fighter will be better because the fighter is MEANT to be better. That's what the fighter feats are for. The barb is not. Str is good for the check, but the tactic is faulty without the feats (AoO usually end the attempt). Str is a component, not the basis, of a tactical fighter. Barb's are not more flexible because their bonuses are more narrowly focused. If you spread them out, the character will be weaker. When a fighter spreads out, he is stronger. And a fighter being able to do almost anything tactical non-mount related is only 6 levels for a human...
fractal 02-25-05, 05:28 PM	A couple of problems with the OOC barbarian: 4 skills are good, but Int is a dump stat and their skill list is not especially unique or important. Any ranger or rogue could do much more of the same. Int is a dump stat? Maybe for some Barbarians, but even so, an 8 Int Human Barbarian gets 4 skill points per level. UD and IUD is really to allow the barb to be surrounded and keep fighting. Hvy fortification does the same. So does displacement (for the most part) and invisibility. And it's usefulness is really campaign dependent. If the rogues are avoiding the fighters to kill the casters, that ability is mostly worthless. Heavy Fortification is extremely expensive. If a Fighter pays for +1 Heavy Fortification armor, then the Barbarian can invest that same money in a +5 enhancement bonus instead. Suddenly the Barbarian's AC is as good as the Fighter's, Rage and all, and he has gold left over! Plus IUD does things that Heavy Fortification does not (and vice versa). It's not that great a comparison. If you weren't wearing magic armor, I suppose you could invest in a Robe of Eyes, that grants (basically) IUD and more. Expensive and with limitations, though. Trap defense is just pathetic. Depends upon what sort of challenges you meet, but no, it's not a major ability. With almost any skilled character around, there is no real weight to be "pulled" by the OOC barb, making him "just" equal to the fighter. Because all you need is one character with good Spot or Listen? Interesting... And the only other class you can count on for Survival is the Ranger (who may not be present). Yes, Druids get it, but Druids have many more important class skills than they get skill points to spend on them. If the fighter was a better combatant, nobody would play the barb. Possibly. However, since I don't think even the Alternate Fighter is a better melee combatant... Would play a class that was supposed to be this great warrior, except that someone else is better than you, and has some good skills, except that almost anyone else has better, and has abilities that can be easily replicated by magic items? You mean like the PHB Fighter? :) And if your response to this is "fighter", then you obviously didn't pay any attention to some of my previous posts... *laugh* Sorry, I couldn't resist.
fractal 02-25-05, 05:44 PM	This is the classic mistake the barb proponents make when comparing them to the fighter: the fighter can easily afford the feats; the barb cannot. The fighter will be better because the fighter is MEANT to be better. That's what the fighter feats are for. The barb is not. Str is good for the check, but the tactic is faulty without the feats (AoO usually end the attempt). Str is a component, not the basis, of a tactical fighter. Barb's are not more flexible because their bonuses are more narrowly focused. If you spread them out, the character will be weaker. When a fighter spreads out, he is stronger. And a fighter being able to do almost anything tactical non-mount related is only 6 levels for a human... A level 6 human Alternate Fighter with WF has 6 available feats. A level 6 human Barbarian with Extra Rage has 3 available feats, and 4xRage and Fast Movement. Both will fight about equally in simple melee (Fighter has better AC, Barbarian has better hp/saves...) If we say that there are several types of melee combat tactics (Mobility, Trip, Sunder, Bullrush, Disarm, Grapple, Cleave), then neither combatant will be able to master all of them. The Fighter will know about twice as many as the Barbarian, however. For the ones that neither master, the Barbarian will be better. For the ones that only the Fighter masters, the Fighter is better. For the ones that both master, the Barbarian is better again. Doesn't this seem to be how things ought to work?
Scarlet Knight 02-25-05, 05:49 PM	This is the classic mistake the barb proponents make when comparing them to the fighter: the fighter can easily afford the feats; the barb cannot.I have yet to see a fighter that took all eight of those feats mentioned in my last post, so I disagree with the claim that it is so easy to afford all those feats. Usually a fighter will specialize in one or two tactics, rather than trying to do everything. Many fighter want to take archery feats, or mounted combat feats, or whirlwind attack, which doesn't leave them much room for many feats dedicated to grapples, trips, bullrushes, ect., so the barbarian will likely be better than those fighters at most of those tactics. Str is good for the check, but the tactic is faulty without the feats (AoO usually end the attempt).An attack of opporutunity that deals damage will only cause a grapple attempt to fail. Provoking attacks of opportunity doesn't affect the chances of success for a trip, overrun, sunder or bullrush at all. In any case, attacks or opportunity are relatively easy to avoid, and hardly even matter, since barbarians can usually afford to take the hit.
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 05:50 PM	It's hard to disagree with you when I do agree. You described almost every barbarian feature of the barbarian working together. A fighter will have a hard time spending feats and money in equipament to fit this role, and aternate or not won't actually be able. Well, Fractal's alternate can accumulate a big enough hit/damage bonus to do the high damage melee thing about as well as a raging barbarian (within a point or two, one way or the other, depending on level), while having 10 feats, and quite a bit of AC over him, as well. But, yes, the point is that all the barbarian's class features come together to make him very good at /one/ specific thing - it's a specialized class with few choices in how it developes - while the fighter's features, after a certain point, aren't all focused that narrowly at all (just on combat, in general) - and where, and to what degree you do focus those abilities is up to you. The last one is a big if. Because there are better classes at survival doen't mean that being just good is a bad thing. Well, the usual assertion is that a barbarian is just that teeny bit better (+2 hit/damage at 20th, raging vs specialization) at dishing damage with a greatsword than the fighter, and that, therefore, the fighter is worthless. The barb can put ranks in survival, and, if he invests a feat in tracking is still a pretty distant second to the ranger, who has stealth skills and spot, to go with it. And, just think about how often you make survival and listen checks vs attack rolls. It's just not that big a deal. Rage and high-damage melee is the barbarian's thing. Survival and Listen are like cupholders in an Indy car compared to Rage. Needless to say, I really think INT is not a dump stat for barbarian. (not that I believe in dump stats overall) The Barb's priorities are pretty much STR, DEX & CON, in that order. The Barb simply can't have too much STR, he needs a good DEX to maintain a non-suicidal AC in light/medium armor, and though he has plenty of hit points, he can always use more. WIS, INT and CHA are all low-priority. WIS helps his WILL saves, Listen & Survival, but he can put ranks in those, and has a Morale bonus to the former when raging. INT boosts his skill points, and, Craft skills, if he takes any - but he already has 4 skill points/level, and 3 good class skills (Intimidate, Survival, Listen). His other skills? Handle Animal & Ride? He has built-in fast movement. Jump/Climb/Swim? They're STR-based and he likely has a low ACP, anyway. Craft? In-character but doesn't really do /that/ much. A barb can take an 8 INT and still have max ranks in his best skills. CHA boosts his Intimidate, which might be worthwhile if he has Intimidating Rage, but, Core, it's no biggy. The 'big dumb barbarian' isn't just a stereotype, it's optimized. ;)
Scarlet Knight 02-25-05, 05:58 PM	A level 6 human Alternate Fighter with WF has 6 available feats. A level 6 human Barbarian with Extra Rage has 3 available feats, and 4xRage and Fast Movement. Both will fight about equally in simple melee (Fighter has better AC, Barbarian has better hp/saves...) If we say that there are several types of melee combat tactics (Mobility, Trip, Sunder, Bullrush, Disarm, Grapple, Cleave), then neither combatant will be able to master all of them. The Fighter will know about twice as many as the Barbarian, however. For the ones that neither master, the Barbarian will be better. For the ones that only the Fighter masters, the Fighter is better. For the ones that both master, the Barbarian is better again. Doesn't this seem to be how things ought to work?Definitely. :D Very good analysis fractal.
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 06:03 PM	An attack of opporutunity that deals damage will only cause a grapple attempt to fail. Provoking attacks of opportunity doesn't affect the chances of success for a trip, overrun, sunder or bullrush at all. It /can/, though. If you attempt a sunder, and you're disarmed, you can't finish the sunder. If you attempt an overrun or bullrush and you're tripped, the attempt is over. And, while you might be able to succeed with a trip regardless of provoking an AoO with it, you're still not performing nearly as well as the guy that can follow up on that trip with a free attack. All the 'Improved' feats give you /more/ than just a +4 bonus. And, the barb only matches that +4 bonus part when raging, at 20th level. :rolleyes: For that matter, not all the 'Improved' feats negate AoOs. Improved Overrun, for instance, doesn't, it just denies the target the option of letting you pass. Anyway, the upshot is, if you don't have the apropriate Improved feat, you're not likely to use the corresponding manuever very often, if at all. Being 'better' at something you'll likely never do, is not that meaningful.
Scarlet Knight 02-25-05, 06:14 PM	No one's arguing that the Rage alone makes you as good at those tactics as a character with the feat. I'm just pointing out that the barbarian has a pretty good advantage at a lot of tactical attacks without the feats, which a lot characters -both fighters and barbarians- probably won't have.
fractal 02-25-05, 06:19 PM	The Combat Stylist's progression is even more uniform than the PH fighter's. 1st Combat Style at 1st, advancing every 3 levels; 2nd combat style at 2nd, advancing every 3rd level; Alternating Battle Instincts/Discipline starting at 3rd and every third level thereafter. Yeah, although I have issues with your fixed feats, I think your class progression is pretty good. Since I consider the PH fighter balanced (though, a class can be balanced and seem underpowered in specific comparisons), that's even more of a concern for me. The Combat Stylist, like the barbarian, comes up with more 'power' than the fighter - he has the equivalent 14 feats, 4 of which are high-level abilities inaccessible to the fighter, instead of 11, and progressive save and other bonuses (earlier than the fighter, if they're shared out to the basic fighter, as well) - and, like the barb 'pays' for it by having less flexibility and customizeability in it's progression. Except that note that in the case of the Barbarian, less flexibility in the progression is matched by greater flexibility in many other ways, such as out of combat skills. Regarding the value of customizability, this is really only a power consideration if there exist choices that are superior to those forced upon the less flexible class. For example, if TWF is often more useful than THF, then it's a disadvantage to be required to select THF. On the other hand, if THF beats TWF every time, then there's no real value to the option of selecting TWF over THF.
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 07:43 PM	Yeah, although I have issues with your fixed feats, I think your class progression is pretty good. I'd be happy to hear ways to improve those. I'm not too happy with all of them, myself. In a number of cases, the level at which the next feat was gained didn't mesh well with the level it would become available (or meaningful, for that matter, in the case of ITWF, for isntance - ITWF at 4th would make no sense, at 7th, it's 'late'). Regarding the value of customizability, this is really only a power consideration if there exist choices that are superior to those forced upon the less flexible class. It's always a balance consideration, though. Having a choice between two options that are equal, power-wise, is still better than not having a choice. This is especially true when you consider that various combos make it impossible to really judge that any two options are of /exactly/ the same value to every character that might be faced with the choice between them. Then, of course, there are subjective judgements as to which choice is really better. If you actually did have a case where the class with choices was able to pick a set of abilities that were superior to the fixed abilities of another class, that fixed-ability class would /never/ be played. Even in the less extreme case of the flexible class having the option of making the exact same choices as the less flexible class, the less flexible one is obviated - it has no purpose in existing when another class can choose to duplicate it's powers. For a class with a fixed progression to be balanced against other classes that have flexible progressions, the fixed class must be compensated with more or greater (and preferably, unique) abilities, or it has no reason to exist. For example, if TWF is often more useful than THF, then it's a disadvantage to be required to select THF. On the other hand, if THF beats TWF every time, then there's no real value to the option of selecting TWF over THF. Of course, neither of those premises is true. TWF can be more useful than THF - but it depends on the other abilities the character who takes it has. If you can choose your abilities, you can pick a set of abilities that complement TWF, and it becomes the superior choice, or you can pick a set of abilities that complement the THF option, in which case, it's the better choice. The Barbarian, for instance, has a set of fixed abilities that greatly complement the use of two-handed melee weapons. Most barbarians, then, choose to use such weapons, and choose feats for leveling that further complement that style of combat. Fighters, OTOH, have a few starting abilities that encourage them to choose heavy armor & shields, but, beyond that, can be developed in any basically-combat-oriented direction desired.
Nyferto 02-26-05, 09:51 AM	I should really make that topic on Redgars on "How to kill everyone". First off. Trip - You need either a trip weapon (damage down) and expertise +improved trip to make it workable as a part way tactci (part way because you won't be killing everyone with it exclusively, but you will be using it on those who are vulnerable to it). For that a Barb needs 13 int ( a waste) and Expertise (which they can't use whilst raged). Without that you've got a good chance you might be able to trip a suitably sized foe, except you lost an attack to pull it off, so you're better off just hitting them really hard with a none trip weapon. The Fighter however gains a skill point (hardly a waste), the requirements for a number of good feats (through expertise), expertise (a good feat they can actually use that has it's own tactical advantages, can you aid another with expertise?), and a better chance to trip those who they want to trip with a weapon they can make more use out of (because they like to trip) and they regain the attack they lost, and gain a +4 on the follow up attack. What's more, they can use it with Spring attack or Combat Relfexes or Power Attack to their advantage. Then they can use the right trip weapon (like a Guisarme) with their other feats (Combat Reflexes and Spring Attack) to better effect than a Barbarian could. This way they're focing the enemies hand to counter respond to whatever tactic is being played against them (Trip in this case). A Mage might have to cast a prepared teleport spell or risk being power attack grappled on the follow up attack (though they'd probably get that anyway). The Fighter gains from evey feat he gets as he can use it with every other feat he has to great effect (like WWA and Expertise and Trip followed by Combat Reflexes and Cleaves). The Barbarian looses out whenever he doesn't synergise his combat abilities, whilst the Fighter can get the better bridge feats and turn out attack forms from his selection. For example, mixing TWF with Thrown weapons or as attacks with suitable weapons (or offhand unarmed, etc). This is how the Fighter can easily compensate for damage down from not taking WF or being a Barbarian, by doing damage and causing harm when the Barbarian simply couldn't.
Gunrock 02-27-05, 02:58 PM	I keep watching this thread and I'm realizing that it's turning into a Fighter vs Barbarian vs Alt.Ftr dsicussion. All of the mentioned classes have something going for them. They all have something going against them. An intelligently built Fighter can murder a normal Barbarian build every day of the week and twice on Sunday (about 80% of the time). That is a verifiable fact. A Barbarian built to kill Fighters murders every Fighter he meets about 80% of the time (proven with playtesting and including the dice being extreme). Given those two facts (and they are facts) and their general party roles and usefulness, I am forced to conclude that the two classes are balanced as given in the PHB. As such, I am forced to call Fractal's beautiful build over-powered. IF the Fighter were at all under-powered, then I would proclaim this to be the ultimate fix, and one that everyone should adopt. Since the Fighter is not under-powered, I am forced to say that this intelligent and elegant build is unbalancing. This is a fault of its basic premise and is no reflection on the skill or thought that was put into it. I look forward to more from Fractal.
fractal 02-28-05, 03:04 AM	I keep watching this thread and I'm realizing that it's turning into a Fighter vs Barbarian vs Alt.Ftr dsicussion. All of the mentioned classes have something going for them. They all have something going against them. An intelligently built Fighter can murder a normal Barbarian build every day of the week and twice on Sunday (about 80% of the time). That is a verifiable fact. A Barbarian built to kill Fighters murders every Fighter he meets about 80% of the time (proven with playtesting and including the dice being extreme). I guess you have to look at the sorts of opponents faced, particularly after the first few levels. Against classed opponents, a well-built typical Fighter is more likely to beat warrior types (with combat tricks), a typical Barbarian is more likely to beat rogues (Listen and Uncanny Dodge), and either might be better against spellcasters (using only the PHB, the Barbarian is better imo). Against monsters, a Fighter is more likely to present a viable defense (defend until the spellcasters can take down the foe), a Barbarian is more likely to present a viable offense (many of the Fighter's tricks are useless against big monsters). It depends upon what you meet the most of, and what your party composition looks like. My experience has been that situations favoring Barbarians are more common than those favoring Fighters, that's all. From reading the forums, it seems that many other people have had this same impression. If in half of all campaigns, the Fighter is weaker than the Barbarian, and in the other half, Fighters and Barbarians are equal, doesn't that mean that overall the Fighter is a weaker class then Barbarian? Given those two facts (and they are facts) and their general party roles and usefulness, I am forced to conclude that the two classes are balanced as given in the PHB. As such, I am forced to call Fractal's beautiful build over-powered. There are certainly times when each class is better, a necessary but not sufficient requirement for balance. I simply happen to feel that the PHB Fighter is less useful, more often, than is the Barbarian. This implies that the PHB Fighter is underpowered (compared to the Barbarian), and that improvement is justified and even mandated, so long as the Barbarian itself is not overpowered (as I believe it is not, at least not after about level 2). IF the Fighter were at all under-powered, then I would proclaim this to be the ultimate fix, and one that everyone should adopt. Since the Fighter is not under-powered, I am forced to say that this intelligent and elegant build is unbalancing. This is a fault of its basic premise and is no reflection on the skill or thought that was put into it. I look forward to more from Fractal. Thanks! If all you're objecting to is (one of) my clearly-stated premises, that doesn't seem like a problem to me at all. My goal was to build as good a class as possible, given my premises and the constraints (to maintain the same flavor/strengths as the PHB Fighter). Obviously if you don't agree with the premises, then you wouldn't want to use the class. :)
Nyferto 02-28-05, 03:20 AM	If a campaign favours/disfavours anyone, then it's more likely an unfair campaign or ill-balanced. How far behind would you say the Fighter is, when it comes to challenges that the Barbarian can more easily face (in your opinion). Because I've usually found that they're nearly always slightly behind someone who specialises, but at the same time they nearly always better at everything else in combat. So naturally, whatever flaws the specialist has, are negated because they aren't a weakness of this more generalist combatant. The reasonable Archer just happens to double up as a powerful Tank and melee hitter, the Powerful Tank has mobility options if they're geared up for it, etc.
fractal 02-28-05, 04:15 AM	If a campaign favours/disfavours anyone, then it's more likely an unfair campaign or ill-balanced. This assertion could be true, if it had previously been proven that the classes were balanced against each other (in general). In order to accomplish that proof, however, it is ineffective to assume that that campaigns favoring one class must be unfair. How far behind would you say the Fighter is, when it comes to challenges that the Barbarian can more easily face (in your opinion). This is a difficult question to answer in general, since of course Barbarians vary, and Fighters vary widely. A Fighter built to be like a Barbarian, would be worse at what they did most often, better at some less common things, and worse at some other less common things. A Fighter built as, say, an Archer, would be much worse at some things, and much better at other things. Because I've usually found that they're nearly always slightly behind someone who specialises, but at the same time they nearly always better at everything else in combat. So naturally, whatever flaws the specialist has, are negated because they aren't a weakness of this more generalist combatant. The reasonable Archer just happens to double up as a powerful Tank and melee hitter, the Powerful Tank has mobility options if they're geared up for it, etc. Yes. This unfortunately leaves the question of how much better the specialist is at specialist things, how much better the generalist is at everything else, and how often the specialist can find opportunities to use his specialty. To mix metaphors: If the man with a hammer can frequently make the square peg look like a nail long enough to force it into the round hole, then the specialist is probably going to be more effective than the generalist.
Nyferto 02-28-05, 07:49 AM	Well the ultimate down fall of many specialists is: How effective do they need to be? Each campaign will differ, and some might even reward the uber specialist, but in this case of combat - you're doing the same thing in effect, it's just the method of achieving the goal that's different. In your example, you only have one piece that doesn't fit, but if that one man with a hammer takes ages when it comes to fitting the star shapped and the triangle into the box (this is an odd metaphore), then how much value is he. Then what happens if you need him to put the square through the square? This is a refference to a childrens toy, isn't it? You know, the one with the box that has different shaped holes and suitably shaped holes in it?
Nyferto 02-28-05, 07:51 AM	This assertion could be true, if it had previously been proven that the classes were balanced against each other (in general). In order to accomplish that proof, however, it is ineffective to assume that that campaigns favoring one class must be unfair. If people can play them balanced and have no issues, and understand the differences and issues that come up. Then those that don't must (by default) be doing something wrong (or just have different tastes).
Waylander 02-28-05, 09:16 AM	I keep watching this thread and I'm realizing that it's turning into a Fighter vs Barbarian vs Alt.Ftr dsicussion. All of the mentioned classes have something going for them. They all have something going against them. An intelligently built Fighter can murder a normal Barbarian build every day of the week and twice on Sunday (about 80% of the time). That is a verifiable fact. A Barbarian built to kill Fighters murders every Fighter he meets about 80% of the time (proven with playtesting and including the dice being extreme). Given those two facts (and they are facts) and their general party roles and usefulness, I am forced to conclude that the two classes are balanced as given in the PHB. As such, I am forced to call Fractal's beautiful build over-powered. IF the Fighter were at all under-powered, then I would proclaim this to be the ultimate fix, and one that everyone should adopt. Since the Fighter is not under-powered, I am forced to say that this intelligent and elegant build is unbalancing. This is a fault of its basic premise and is no reflection on the skill or thought that was put into it. I look forward to more from Fractal. You're right on the money... people just don't want to get it... the fighter and barbarian classes are like clay... you shape them how you want.... If I start picking up grapple feats and a belt of spell resistance and Iron will as a feat.... I am the antispellcaster from hell. If I start picking up the expertise, improved expertise, high armor enhancements and things like cloak of displacement... i becomes the antibarbarian from hell. It's like clay people.... you shape it how you want it. Pick up a special mount, pick up mounted feats, pick up a reach weapon and now you are a monster.... but a simple hold person can take you down. Pick up ring of blinking, pick up a composite longbow and pick up various archery feat and now you will scare the living hell out of every wizard. If you still dont know how to make an effective combo with the fighter, you need to visit a min/max forum.... Don't blame the class for your lack of experience in min/maxing a fighter or a barbarian.
Creeg 02-28-05, 10:58 AM	I agree I think the fighter is pretty much fine the way it is. If you still dont know how to make an effective combo with the fighter, you need to visit a min/max forum.... Don't blame the class for your lack of experience in min/maxing a fighter or a barbarian. Okay that's just wrong because not everyone is out to Min/max a character if you have to be a min/maxer then perhaps there is a problem.
Nyferto 02-28-05, 12:16 PM	It's not min/max, just making effective use of your abilities. Min/Max forums just give ideas of how to be powerful, some of the advice you might glean from any number of tactical players will deal with getting the most from everything you could do. If you make an ineffective character, then you've made an ineffective character, some might be more fool proof, but ones that might require more thought aren't broken or underpowered. It's fairly simple to make an effective Fighter, even if you just follow the Redgar Greatsword and Bow example. If you wanted to make a great and spectacular (yet competative) Fighter, it can be more complex depending on the set-up your dealing with.
Zergplex 02-28-05, 09:24 PM	Hey everyone! One mention I felt I had to make to all those who believe that the weakness that is percieved in the fighter is due to not using it's versatility correctly. I agree that the fighter is like clay, as is the barbarian in some ways and it requires skill to mold the class correctly. The problem is that the fighter is lower quality clay (in my opinion) then the barbarian, this is where the imbalance comes into play. A skilled player can make a great statue even out of flawed clay, but does that change the fact that at the base the clay is stilled flawed? Yes everyone has seen a fighter slaughter a barbarian, but that is due to a skilled player making the best of a flawed class rather then an accurate portayel of the balance of these two classes. Ok I think I'm done for the moment. -Zergplex
Waylander 02-28-05, 10:51 PM	Hey everyone! One mention I felt I had to make to all those who believe that the weakness that is percieved in the fighter is due to not using it's versatility correctly. I agree that the fighter is like clay, as is the barbarian in some ways and it requires skill to mold the class correctly. The problem is that the fighter is lower quality clay (in my opinion) then the barbarian, this is where the imbalance comes into play. A skilled player can make a great statue even out of flawed clay, but does that change the fact that at the base the clay is stilled flawed? Yes everyone has seen a fighter slaughter a barbarian, but that is due to a skilled player making the best of a flawed class rather then an accurate portayel of the balance of these two classes. Ok I think I'm done for the moment. -Zergplex Sigh.... I think you are just not seeing the clay... Barbarian..... Rage +6 strength... means +4 damage with a two handed weapon, more abilities but only a handful of feats. Fighter.... lotsa feats, uses two to get GWS for +4 damage... still has plenty of feats (12 feats technically since 2 for weapon focuses) to mold himself but doesn't have abilities. I see two classes that are super flexible... Barbarian enables you to be free of a weapon but pushes you to two handed weapons. Fighter forces you to love 1 weapon style and center life around it. Both classes are clay.... and practically equal.
Waylander 02-28-05, 11:04 PM	I agree I think the fighter is pretty much fine the way it is. Okay that's just wrong because not everyone is out to Min/max a character if you have to be a min/maxer then perhaps there is a problem. Min/Maxing a fighter wrong? Mr. Mercenary... yes you sir... i want you to have this job... where your butt is on the line.. in the front... and guess what... I want you to suck at it... no, you should just take all Skill Focus feats.. that way all the goblins would walk all over you. No offense man... it's a FIGHTER! It's ment to FIGHT!... to WIN! It's completely within your role to go after the _BEST_ feats that suit your fighter theme... Sure.. pick a THEME first .... but once you have a theme... you are doing the class a disfavor by picking up not so good feats...
Creeg 02-28-05, 11:24 PM	Min/Maxing a fighter wrong? Mr. Mercenary... yes you sir... i want you to have this job... where your butt is on the line.. in the front... and guess what... I want you to suck at it... no, you should just take all Skill Focus feats.. that way all the goblins would walk all over you. No offense man... it's a FIGHTER! It's ment to FIGHT!... to WIN! It's completely within your role to go after the _BEST_ feats that suit your fighter theme... Sure.. pick a THEME first .... but once you have a theme... you are doing the class a disfavor by picking up not so good feats... As Nyferto said "It's not min/max, just making effective use of your abilities." there is a difference. Making the most of your abilities is one thing.. min/maxing is a different creature all together
fractal 03-04-05, 04:00 AM	As Nyferto said "It's not min/max, just making effective use of your abilities." there is a difference. Making the most of your abilities is one thing.. min/maxing is a different creature all together Yes. It is human to play to your strengths. It is human to wish you had no major weaknesses. In general, it is not human to actually not have any weaknesses. What's the baseline of power that characters should be balanced to? If the effectiveness of Fighters varies more depending upon player min/maxing than the effectiveness of Barbarians does, then, so long as this is true, it won't be possible to balance the two classes everywhere. So, do you balance the most thoroughly optimized Fighters and Barbarians? (Making Fighters underpowered the rest of the time.) Do you balance the average Fighters and Barbarians? (Allowing the best min/maxed Fighters to outclass any Barbarian.) Do you try to lower the variability of the Fighter class (or increase that of the Barbarian)? These questions seem like a real problem to me, especially when everything gets re-skewed as soon as the next splat book is released. How can you best resolve these issues?
Nyferto 03-04-05, 07:59 AM	Where are you jumping off on this "Min max" issue? Min max is where you down play the irrelevent sections and focus on the bits you actually need. For instance, a Fighter dumping Cha and maxing Str is Min Maxing (if he doesn't need Cha and is Str Focused). It only occurs with point buy systems. What you're complaining about (or so it seems), is some claim that people need to power game to get anything good out of the Fighter. This isn't true, knowing the rules and how the mechanics work and the limitations of all the feats you've taken is nothing to do either Min/Maxing or Powergaming, it's the equivelent of a Wizard knowing what their spells can do and using each one to it's most optimal advantage. If you're not going for a simplistic Fighter with 1 or 2 focuses, then it doesn't require that much brain power, but if you're going for an all out Fighter with no focus other than combat, then you might want to read up one what you can do. The Barbarian is simpler than the Fighter, but that doesn't make it better or more powerful, just easier to use (and of course easier to kill). Every class can be played to certain levels of sophistication, for example a good Sorc player can match up their spell selections with their level and make a strong character, whilst a Sorc player who isn't so knowledgeable might end up making bad choices and start to look bad. Why should characters be made easier to use, when at the sametime you just power up those who knew how to make a good one already?
Tony Vargas 03-04-05, 10:59 AM	What's the baseline of power that characters should be balanced to? If the effectiveness of Fighters varies more depending upon player min/maxing than the effectiveness of Barbarians does, then, so long as this is true, it won't be possible to balance the two classes everywhere.That does make it hard to assure that every fighter is balanced with every barbarian - but then, it's pretty hard to assure that every barbarian will be balanced with every other barbarian, so that hardly matters. The fact is that the fighter simply presents the player with more choice (and, many less obvious choices) than the barbarian. That does mean it's more amenable to powergaming, it also means it's a better building block in multiclass builds and a better starting place for a build-to-concept (for any concept other than 'uncivilized berserk warrior'). Balancing that means giving the barbarian some extra goodies. So, do you balance the most thoroughly optimized Fighters and Barbarians? (Making Fighters underpowered the rest of the time.) Not quite, but close. You need to balance the upper end of what can normally be done with a fighter, with the other classes - because, barring player stupidity or obstinance, that's what the fighter will tend to gravitate towards. There /will/ be 'under-powered' fighters, because some players will simply choose less powerful options, because they fit thier concept better (or because they don't have the mad powergaming skillz to do better, yet) - that's the price you pay for avoiding.... Do you balance the average Fighters and Barbarians? (Allowing the best min/maxed Fighters to outclass any Barbarian.) No, you don't, not unless you consider 'average' to be pretty well-opitimized (just not to the point of blatant rulesploitation). Obviously, some optimization goes on in just about every game, and if it's fairly easy to min/max a fighter to outdo a barbarian, then barbarians will get shown up pretty often. Obviously, this gets back to the power of 'choice' in a character class. Min/maxxing or powergaming may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some, but it's really just one kind of choice you can make with a more flexible class. Even as the fighter is currently balanced, a determined powergamer can abuse it (usually just not by taking 20 levels of it) - making it more powerful makes it easier to abuse, and makes the impact of such abuse more profound. Do you try to lower the variability of the Fighter class (or increase that of the Barbarian)? The latter will just make the fighter more like the barbarian, while the former would kill some character concepts. You could try to balance all the classes at the same level of customizeability, so as to avoid having to factor in differences in customizeability - but, it's such a fuzzy concept that pegging it to the same level for every class would be almost as hard as simply factoring it in, anyway. :shrug: These questions seem like a real problem to me, especially when everything gets re-skewed as soon as the next splat book is released. How can you best resolve these issues? If your concern is balance, first, play core-only, and without prestige classes. D&D is list-based, and the more you add to it, the harder it is to balance. Second, when you do find a problem with one class being more powerful than another - always 'nerf' the more powerful class to avoid 'power creep.'
fractal 03-05-05, 05:17 AM	If your concern is balance, first, play core-only, and without prestige classes. That's kind of begging the question. What if you want both balance and a lot of choices? Anyway, while perfect "balance" is difficult to achieve, it's not difficult to picture a rough balance, where each character class has its own niche, and slight additions to one don't perturb the niches of the other classes. For example, I would consider the Rogue and the Barbarian to be balanced with each other. They each have their own strengths, and can coexist happily together. If almost any new feat came out for the Rogue, the Barbarian would still be worth using, and vice versa. D&D is list-based, and the more you add to it, the harder it is to balance. Second, when you do find a problem with one class being more powerful than another - always 'nerf' the more powerful class to avoid 'power creep.' And if you have a problem with several classes being more powerful than another? Do you nerf them all, or do you just change the one "problem class"? Anyway, no amount of nerfing of the Barbarian or any other class can change the front-loaded nature of the Fighter. When a class would rather multi-class with itself than continue to advance, you know something is very wrong.
Nyferto 03-05-05, 08:03 AM	When you complain about Fighter Multiclassing, are you complaining about all instances of a Fighter taking levels of another class, when another class takes levels of Fighter, or some combination? Because it's complete bunkum that a Fighter needs to multiclass, it's just better if you want to something other than Fighting ability. Other types of Fighter multiclassing include powergaming, which is irrelevent. Then there are PrC's, there are no directly more powerful Fighter PrC's, there are only more specialised ones. If people want that power, they will take it, otherwise they won't bother and they'll be fine.
Mirror, Mirror 03-07-05, 10:09 AM	The best way to achieve a semblance of "perfect balance" is to have only 1 class that fills each function. That, however, was 1st Ed. and we all remember how that went. Even with many PrC's, it's boring to start as just the "warrior" or the "wizard" if those are your only choices. Add in "thief" and "cleric" and things are a bit better. But, of course, that leaves out barb, bard, ranger, paladin, bard, monk, and sorcerer. In other words, all the hybrid classes and varients. Now if you really wanted to balance the game this way, and add in lots of PrC's to cover all possible concepts, that's fine. It will just be a giant leap backwards in the development of the game (which, depending if you think the game is fendamentally flawed, may not be a negative...) The reason I say this is because of: For example, I would consider the Rogue and the Barbarian to be balanced with each other. They each have their own strengths, and can coexist happily together. If almost any new feat came out for the Rogue, the Barbarian would still be worth using, and vice versa. Note the Barb and the rogue are not only completly different meta-classes (warrior vs. rogue in 2nd Ed), they fulfill completly different roles. If all the classes were entirely independent, there would be no argument about balancing the classes against each other except the "clerics are uber" kind of arguments.
Tony Vargas 03-07-05, 05:13 PM	That's kind of begging the question. What if you want both balance and a lot of choices? Then you want to pick a system that isn't list-based, and can handle a lot of choices without breaking down. For example, I would consider the Rogue and the Barbarian to be balanced with each other. I'd consider them too different for easy comparison. And if you have a problem with several classes being more powerful than another? Do you nerf them allYes. But, first question the conclusion that the 'weak' class is all that weak. There are a lot of factors that affect the power and desireability of a particular class. Think about it this way. Perfect balance is impossible, so there will always be a 'weakest' class. If you constantly boost the power of the weakest class (which keeps changing), all you get is power inflation. Anyway, no amount of nerfing of the Barbarian or any other class can change the front-loaded nature of the Fighter. If it's that horriffic, you could always drop the 1st level fighter bonus feat, making it a consistent 1 feat/2 levels.
fractal 03-08-05, 03:34 AM	Then you want to pick a system that isn't list-based, and can handle a lot of choices without breaking down. That's easily said, but D&D is a fun game, with a lot of work put into it (balanced or not). It's a shame to throw that all away. Think about it this way. Perfect balance is impossible, so there will always be a 'weakest' class. If you constantly boost the power of the weakest class (which keeps changing), all you get is power inflation. Perfect balance may be impossible, but you can get close enough so that the differences between classes are dwarfed by the variations between campaigns. I don't think the PHB Fighter and Barbarian are at that stage, which is why I suggested my Alternate Fighter. If it's that horriffic, you could always drop the 1st level fighter bonus feat, making it a consistent 1 feat/2 levels. True, you could do that, and it would (mostly) fix the front-loaded nature of the Fighter. Unfortunately, if you do that, two other things have gone wrong. First, you've underpowered the Fighter still further. Second, there is a reason that the designers keep being tempted to front-load classes. That's because class features also give class flavor, and you want classes to have flavor as soon as possible. (Take a look at Ranger Favored Enemy/Track/Combat Style or Barbarian Rage/Fast Movement/Uncanny Dodge.) If the only real class features of the level 1 Fighter are proficiencies with protective items he can't even afford yet, that's pretty sad. For this reason, the power/level of a class cannot be dropped too low, or else there will be too little room to add flavor. For example, you could have a Fighter that received a bonus feat at levels 10 and 20, and a Barbarian that got 1 Rage/day at levels 10 and 20, and assuming everything else was equal, these classes would be reasonably balanced. However, there would be a significant lack of flavor, as the classes are identical to each other until level 10, and almost the same even after that.
Nyferto 03-08-05, 03:39 AM	If he's underpowered the Fighter by dropping a feat, then you either power up the feats he can take (I could go on about this, but there's a topic on Redgars). Or you could just add more feats (or more powerful bonus abilities) at higher levels. If the first 10 levels (or less) are only good for PrC's, then maybe the later half of the Fighter should act like one?
fractal 03-08-05, 03:42 PM	If he's underpowered the Fighter by dropping a feat, then you either power up the feats he can take (I could go on about this, but there's a topic on Redgars). Or you could just add more feats (or more powerful bonus abilities) at higher levels. If the first 10 levels (or less) are only good for PrC's, then maybe the later half of the Fighter should act like one? Yeah, you could back-load the Fighter class. However, I think an evenly distributed class can be at least as favorable, as long as you're careful about it. I even tried making a Fighter variant with that in mind. It's described in the first post of this thread. :)
Tony Vargas 03-08-05, 04:15 PM	That's easily said, but D&D is a fun game, with a lot of work put into it (balanced or not). It's a shame to throw that all away. There are a lot of other fun games out there, too, that people have put a lot of work into - and some of them are a lot better balanced than D&D could ever be, simply because they use design philosophies that didn't exist when D&D was first concieved. Perfect balance may be impossible, but you can get close enough so that the differences between classes are dwarfed by the variations between campaigns. Considering how much campaigns can vary, I'd say we're already there. I don't think the PHB Fighter and Barbarian are at that stage, which is why I suggested my Alternate Fighter. Oh, I'd say they certainly are - if for no other reason than that some campaigns might not have a place for the barbarian, while the fighter is basic and generic enough to be included in any campaign at all. Not that such a wild swing between campaigns is needed - they're really pretty closely balanced, if you take all the balancing factors into account, that is. Second, there is a reason that the designers keep being tempted to front-load classes. That's because class features also give class flavor, and you want classes to have flavor as soon as possible. Well, if you think the front-loading is justified, keep it, if not, dump it. For this reason, the power/level of a class cannot be dropped too low, or else there will be too little room to add flavor. True, but expect the downward spiral of 'power deflation' created by adopting a policy of correcting imblance with the nerf stick would be far less persistent than the 'power inflation' spiral that's provoked by using power-ups to fix percieved class imbalances...
Krynus Ogrebane 03-09-05, 02:42 PM	There are a lot of other fun games out there, too, that people have put a lot of work into - and some of them are a lot better balanced than D&D could ever be, simply because they use design philosophies that didn't exist when D&D was first concieved. Such as? I might be interested in something with good balance through-out, rather than redesigning/house-ruling D&D to suit my needs (a lot of work involved). ... PnP games, preferably something with a D&D (sword/sorcery), Wheel of Time, Arcanum, or Fantasy Steampunk feel to it... balanced, of course, even if that means a classless system, d20-based, or whatever. A brief synopsis of any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Tony Vargas 03-09-05, 04:01 PM	Such as? I might be interested in something with good balance through-out, rather than redesigning/house-ruling D&D to suit my needs (a lot of work involved). My personal choice has been Hero for quite some time. Though I started with AD&D, and have been enjoying D&D since 3E came out, for the sheer nostalgia (including a lot of the 'imbalanced' and 'crazy' legacy stuff that people complain about), Hero is still the better system. Fantasy Hero has all the genre stuff, and there's an actual setting, too, called 'The Tarakian Age' or something (I'm not big into published settings). The core rules for Hero are all (and I mean, all, way too many, really) in the Hero System 5th Ed book, which is just huge. There's also a pared down, (and really, quite good) version called 'Sidekick' which is only 10 bucks, and a lot easier to digest. Hero is a classless, effects-based, point-build system that can handle any genre or setting, and has genre resources for sci-fi, fantasy, supers, martial arts, and modern games already out, plus some specific setting materials, if you like such things. I'm sure others can chime in with thier favorite non-d20 systems...
Nyferto 03-10-05, 03:54 AM	The biggest threat in hero is a combat intesive campaign, not to your characters - just to your mental state.
Tony Vargas 03-10-05, 01:26 PM	Heh. A buddy of mine recently ran a Fantasy Hero game at a local con - a D&D style adventure. 7 combats in 8 hrs. Hero combat /can/ be very time intensive, but can also be pretty cool - it's never just, "your initiative comes up, roll to hit, roll damage, next..."
fractal 03-20-05, 11:20 PM	Heh. A buddy of mine recently ran a Fantasy Hero game at a local con - a D&D style adventure. 7 combats in 8 hrs. Hero combat /can/ be very time intensive, but can also be pretty cool - it's never just, "your initiative comes up, roll to hit, roll damage, next..." Hmm, I've never played Fantasy Hero, but plenty of Rolemaster combat. Talk about time-consuming... (Not that the critical tables aren't fun.)
Nyferto 03-21-05, 07:44 AM	Whilst we're off topic, IIRC isn't Fantasy Hero (just saw it in a shop recently, didn't check it, 5E) design your own character based, so technically there is no Fighter to complain about?
Chimaera2000 03-21-05, 01:10 PM	I do think that this is a good variant, though I think that its Achilles Heel is the requirement that one-quarter of its class features are dependent on taking Weapon Focus. It was mentioned earlier in the thread that it's similar to requiring that a barbarian take a feat before he can rage, and I think that's a very accurate analogy. A feat is, ideally, something that is meant to customize and differentiate a character. If a class requires a particular feat to function effectively (like Weapon Finesse for a swashbuckler or Track for a ranger), then that feat should probably be given as a bonus feat or a class feature. With that in mind, I came up with a couple of ideas for consideration. 1) The fighter receives Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at an appropriate level. It'd require juggling the progression a bit (which I'd leave to you, fractal, considering it is your variant ;) ) and it is workable, though it would likely reduce the fighter's customization a bit. 2) Change the text of the greater weapon focus and weapon specialization to something along these lines: "Choose one weapon with which you are proficient. You gain this benefit with that weapon, as well as with any other weapon for which you possess the Weapon Focus feat." The second one is a bit more radical, obviously, and it might require some flavor changes. However, it is an efficient way of eliminating the Weapon Focus requirement problem. Just a couple of ideas to think about....
Tony Vargas 03-21-05, 01:47 PM	Whilst we're off topic, IIRC isn't Fantasy Hero (just saw it in a shop recently, didn't check it, 5E) design your own character based, so technically there is no Fighter to complain about? Exactly. There are no classes in the Hero System, you build exactly the character you want. You want to fight, you take 'combat skill levels' and weapon familiarities. You want to be dependent on some magic items, you put points into those, instead of into your skills & abilities. You want to cast spells, you design the spells with 'powers' based on the effects the spell has. You want to memorize spells and forget them when cast, you take limitations on them, you want to cast a spell with no restrictions, you just pay full price for it. It's not /simple/ by any stretch, but it's darn good if you want to customize characters, and it sidesteps all the major balance problems in list-based systems like d20 (but effects-based systems have thier own, different balance problems). ;)
Nyferto 03-22-05, 03:39 AM	Whilst Chimera2000 has a good suggestion for fractal. Is the downside the old Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric issue? It can be better to be a bit of everything you need, rather than a specialist? Or is there some other issue.
pheonixfrostmourn 03-23-05, 02:54 AM	this is a cool take on the fighter, good job.
fractal 03-25-05, 02:52 AM	1) The fighter receives Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at an appropriate level. It'd require juggling the progression a bit (which I'd leave to you, fractal, considering it is your variant ;) ) and it is workable, though it would likely reduce the fighter's customization a bit. Thanks, I've considered doing something along these lines. But then, you could picture the Fighter as already being like that, except that you can choose any or all of your bonus feats to select Weapon Focus with. This flexibility seems better than requiring a Fighter to take Weapon Focus on any particular level. 2) Change the text of the greater weapon focus and weapon specialization to something along these lines: "Choose one weapon with which you are proficient. You gain this benefit with that weapon, as well as with any other weapon for which you possess the Weapon Focus feat." I don't really understand what you're describing. Phoenixfrostmourn - Thank you. Anyone who's been trying the class - how is it working? A player in our group has been using it, but he's only up to level 4, so it's not really noticeably different from the PHB Fighter so far.
Borring 03-25-05, 09:59 AM	If I understood Chimaera2000, what he is saying is that besides the standard bonnus feats he would gain "another bonnus feat" that would be necessarily a weapon focus. So every fighter would have at least one WF. If he decided to specialize in other weapons he would have to spend feats normaly. I think that the logic is that any fighter must gain the benefits of the class, without using any of his custemiseble options. If he wants more, then he spends the feat (similar to the extra rage feat).
Chimaera2000 03-25-05, 01:54 PM	2) Change the text of the greater weapon focus and weapon specialization to something along these lines: "Choose one weapon with which you are proficient. You gain this benefit with that weapon, as well as with any other weapon for which you possess the Weapon Focus feat." Sorry if I was a bit vague. Here's what I meant: when gain the appropriate ability (Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, etc), you choose one weapon and apply the benefits of that ability to it, regardless of whether or not you have Weapon Focus with that weapon. However, the benefits of the ability also apply to any weapons that you have the Weapon Focus feat for. Like I said before, it'd require changing up a bit of flavor, but there are a couple of advantages to this: first, you don't have to change the class progression at all, and second, a fighter isn't required to take a feat to gain access to one of its main class features. That being said, though, I'm not sure how much I like this idea. I think it would much simpler overall just to give Weapon Focus as a bonus feat (either in place of or in addition to bonus feats elsewhere), then run with it. As I stated in my last post, it simply doesn't make sense for a class to have to spend feats to gain the benefits of class features. Does a cleric need to take Extra Turning before he can turn undead? Does a barbarian need to take Extended Rage before he can rage in the first place? Does a specialist wizard need to take Spell Focus before he gets extra spells in his school? Of course not! With that in mind, why should a fighter need to take Weapon Focus before he gains Weapon Specialization? The counterargument might be that Fighters have lots of feats in the first place; even if they don't pick up Weapon Focus initially, surely they'll pick it up later. Fractal mentioned this earlier: But then, you could picture the Fighter as already being like that, except that you can choose any or all of your bonus feats to select Weapon Focus with. This flexibility seems better than requiring a Fighter to take Weapon Focus on any particular level. However, the premise of the argument is invalid. Not having Weapon Focus as a bonus feat doesn't improve your flexibility, it restricts it. If a character is required to take a feat simply to make use of a class feature, you're actually reducing the customizability of the character. That's what feats are for: customization. Feats are not used to enable class features, as shown in the examples above. If a feat is required for a class concept to function (such as Track for a ranger or Weapon Finesse for a swashbuckler), that class receives the feat for free. It simply doesn't make sense for the fighter not to follow suit. Even if Fighters have a lot of feats to spare, well, so does the ranger. Still, we don't see them having to spend a feat to take Track, do we? ;) Of course, it doesn't do much good to complain about a problem without doing something about it. I thought I'd expand on my first suggestion earlier: 1) The fighter receives Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at an appropriate level. Obviously, if the fighter receives Weapon Focus as a bonus feat, it should be in one of the first three levels so that they receive it before Weapon Specialization. The big question, of course, is whether or not they receive it alongside another ability or in the place of. Thematically, it would make sense to put it at first level, though multiple feats at 1st level might be too much (otherwise, we have the 3.0 ranger all over again). If it was to go alongside another ability, Armored Efficiency at 2nd level would be a good choice, since it doesn't contribute a lot power-wise to the class, though it still provides a temptation of a two-level dip. Having it at third level (in place of or in addition to the bonus feat there) would make less sense thematically, and it just doesn't look as elegant on paper. After weighing all of these factors together, here's an idea to consider: remove the bonus feat at 1st level, make Weapon Focus a bonus feat, then provide the fighter with another miscellaneous ability at that level. One idea that I had was to provide them with something along the lines of the Weapon Groups system in Unearthed Arcana; namely, you can apply the benefits of Weapon Focus (as well as Weapon Specialization and their improved versions) to particular group of weapons, rather than only one at a time. It'd help thematically, since it builds the image of a fighter as a versatile combatant, and it also helps mechanically, since they need to spend less feats on Weapon Focus and can spend more building up feat chains. Sorry for the length of this post, but you can't say that I wasn't thorough. :)
Chimaera2000 03-28-05, 11:25 PM	I had an idea recently that can keep this class' progression more or less intact while solving the Weapon Focus problem AND building up the idea of fighter versatility. Basically, at 2nd level, remove Armored Efficiency and provide the abilities Weapon Focus and Weapon Familiarity. The abilities read as follows: Weapon Focus: At 2nd level, a fighter gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. Weapon Familiarity (Ex): A fighter's long training with arms and armor provides him with considerable versatility in combat. At 2nd level only suffers a -2 penalty to wield a weapon with which he is not proficient, including improvised weapons. In addition, he may apply the benefits of his Weapon Focus feat to weapon groups, as with the Unearthed Arcana variant.* *Optional text Another thought.... compared to the Armor Optimization feats in Races of Stone, the armored efficiency bonus would be reduced by one and armored defense abilities really aren't that great. Rather, a better way would be to integrate the two into a single ability, then provide something else (like a bonus to AC on top of it. Compiling my suggestions together, here's how the class would look: Table: The Fighter Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat 2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Weapon focus, weapon familiarity 3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Bonus feat 4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Weapon specialization +2 5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat 6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Armored efficiency +1 7th +7/+2 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat 8th +8/+3 +6 +2 +2 Improved weapon focus +2 9th +9/+4 +6 +3 +3 Bonus feat 10th +10/+5 +7 +3 +3 Armored defense +1 11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat 12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +4 Weapon specialization +4 13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +4 Bonus feat 14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +4 Armored efficiency +2 15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +5 Bonus feat 16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +5 Improved weapon focus +3 17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +5 Bonus feat 18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +6 Armored defense +2 19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat 20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +6 Weapon specialization +6 Class Features Bonus Feat: As per the 3.5 Player's Handbook, but at every odd level. Weapon Focus: At 2nd level, a fighter gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. Weapon Familiarity (Ex): A fighter's long training with arms and armor provides him with considerable versatility in combat. At 2nd level, he only suffers a -2 penalty to wield a weapon with which he is not proficient, including improvised weapons. In addition, he may apply the benefits of his Weapon Focus feat to weapon groups, as with the Unearthed Arcana variant.* *Optional text Weapon Specialization (Ex): At level 4, a Fighter improves her mastery of the weapons she has focused upon. Whenever a Fighter makes an attack with a weapon for which she possesses the Weapon Focus feat, it deals an additional 2 points of damage. This bonus damage improves to +4 and then +6 at Fighter levels 12 and 20. Armored Efficiency (Ex): At 6th level and again at 14th level, thereafter, a fighter's long familiarity with armor allows him to reduce the penalties of its use. He decreases his total armor check penalty by one and increases the maximum dexterity bonus of any armor he wears by one. Improved Weapon Focus (Ex): At level 8, a Fighter's accuracy with her focused weapons improves further. The attack bonus granted by Weapon Focus feats improves from +1 to +2. At level 16, it improves again, to +3. Armored Defense (Ex): At 10th level, a fighter's tactical experience provides him with a +1 competence bonus to AC. This bonus increases to +2 at 18th level.
fractal 04-03-05, 07:56 PM	I had an idea recently that can keep this class' progression more or less intact while solving the Weapon Focus problem AND building up the idea of fighter versatility. Basically, at 2nd level, remove Armored Efficiency and provide the abilities Weapon Focus and Weapon Familiarity. The abilities read as follows: Well, I was going to say that I was concerned that you've front-loaded the Fighter. However, thinking about it more, I realize that you haven't, because you've also powered-up the Fighter. The competence bonus to AC seems unnecessary, however - Fighters have armor and Dex for AC, just like all of the other classes (other than Monk). If I were to do something similar, I think I would grant Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at levels 2, 10, and 18, and put Armored Efficiency at levels 6 and 14, and make it improve both ACP and Max Dex (as you did). However, this is almost 3 bonus feats up from the Alternate Fighter proposed at the beginning of the thread, and I think it's pushing the power level just a bit too high.
Chimaera2000 04-03-05, 09:23 PM	To each his own, I suppose. I wrote Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense as written for a couple of reasons, the first being that that was how I used it in an alternate fighter fix that I wrote (renaming them Armor Specialization and Armor Focus, respectively) and also because they work much akin to the Heavy Armor Optimization feats in Races of Stone. As written in this fix, it's simply my opinion that the Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense abilities simply weren't strong enough when compared to the aforementioned Armor Optimization feats (if you don't have access to the book, the two feats together reduce armor check penalties by three and increase the armor bonus by two), so I re-wrote the abilities as a suggestion. If you think that's overpowered, that's no problem. The abilities were written as such merely as suggestions, nothing more. However, the overall point of my previous posts remain; if the class is going to require Weapon Focus for class abilities, then it should gain Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. Weapon Familiarity was included in there primarily for flavor and also to provide something other than just Weapon Focus at a given level. Still, if you wanted to pare down my fix to its bare minimum, I'd recommend providing the alternate fighter with Weapon Focus as a bonus feat at second level. That's the only suggestion that I'd stress; anything else can be taken at your discretion.
fractal 04-04-05, 05:44 AM	As written in this fix, it's simply my opinion that the Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense abilities simply weren't strong enough when compared to the aforementioned Armor Optimization feats This is true, however, I don't view this as a problem. For one thing, the class features apply to all armor, not just heavy armor. For another, the abilities would stack with the feats. Finally, the abilities aren't supposed to be individually as powerful as feats. I intended for Armored Efficiency and Armored Defense to be minor beneficial and flavorful abilities, something more classes should have instead of empty levels. However, the overall point of my previous posts remain; if the class is going to require Weapon Focus for class abilities, then it should gain Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. Thanks, I understand the point. I even agree with it. Unfortunately, I'm hard-pressed to find a good place for it that doesn't either: a. mess up the symmetry, b. reduce flexibility further, c. increase the power level higher than I'd like, or d. several of the above. Given that the class does receive bonus feats that can be used to select Weapon Focus, I don't see it as a significant problem. Bards have Bardic Music as a class feature, which they can't take advantage of at all unless they make the optional decision of putting ranks into Perform. Rangers get Track as a bonus feat, but they're not forced to put ranks into Survival to make it useful.
Chimaera2000 04-04-05, 06:56 AM	Thanks, I understand the point. I even agree with it. Unfortunately, I'm hard-pressed to find a good place for it that doesn't either: a. mess up the symmetry, b. reduce flexibility further, c. increase the power level higher than I'd like, or d. several of the above. Given that the class does receive bonus feats that can be used to select Weapon Focus, I don't see it as a significant problem. Bards have Bardic Music as a class feature, which they can't take advantage of at all unless they make the optional decision of putting ranks into Perform. Rangers get Track as a bonus feat, but they're not forced to put ranks into Survival to make it useful. True enough. Certainly, the symmetry of the class progression is very nice as written. We can agree to disagree, and that's certainly not a problem. It's still a very nice fix overall, and definitely an improvement over the PHB fighter.
NehpetsTtocs 04-04-05, 07:25 AM	I read the first page, but skipped the next seven; my apologies if I state the obvious. Anyway, I really liked the idea of armor profinciency, and I have to say that this alone would probably solve the fighter issue for me. That and the fighter's need to have minimum stat requirements for feats, especially when the ranger doesn't for those in his combat style. Oh well...
Tony Vargas 04-04-05, 03:04 PM	Unfortunately, I'm hard-pressed to find a good place for it that doesn't either: a. mess up the symmetry, b. reduce flexibility further, c. increase the power level higher than I'd like, or d. several of the above. Given that the class does receive bonus feats that can be used to select Weapon Focus, I don't see it as a significant problem. A solution that gives you "both b. & c." would be fine. Trading flexibility for power is generally OK in terms of balanced - if you're confident you have a balanced variant, it could work.
Chimaera2000 05-09-05, 07:01 PM	Thought I'd post this fighter variant here, since it's heavily based on fractal's ideas. It's similar to the fix that I posted earlier, though there's tweaking here and there. We're currently using this fix in the game we're running at the moment, and it's received a lot of positive feedback. It is a power-up of the old fighter, though it's still balanced with the other fighting classes. Besides, a class that has nearly half of its progression being dead levels sorely needed a boost anyway. ;) Table: The Fighter Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat 2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Weapon focus, armored efficiency 3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Bonus feat 4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Weapon specialization 5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat 6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Armor focus 7th +7/+2 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat 8th +8/+3 +6 +2 +2 Greater weapon focus 9th +9/+4 +6 +3 +3 Bonus feat 10th +10/+5 +7 +3 +3 Armor specialization 11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat 12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +4 Greater weapon specialization 13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +4 Bonus feat 14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +4 Greater armor focus 15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +5 Bonus feat 16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +5 Supreme weapon Focus 17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +5 Bonus feat 18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +6 Greater armor specialization 19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat 20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +6 Supreme weapon specialization Class Features Skills: Add Knowledge (War) as a class skill. Bonus Feat (Ex): At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at every odd level thereafter. These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats. Weapon Focus (Ex): The fighter gains this as a bonus feat at 2nd level. Furthmore, he gains increased benefits with from this feat as he gains levels. At 8th level, the bonus to attack rolls provided by the Weapon Focus feat ncreases to +2 and reaches to +3 at 16th level. Armored Efficiency (Ex): At 2nd level, a fighter becomes more comfortable with the use of armor. As such, he reduces his total armor check penalty by one. Weapon Specialization (Ex): At 4th level, the fighter's skill with his chosen weapons increases. He adds a +2 bonus to damage rolls for all weapons for which he possesses the Weapon Focus feat. This bonus to damage rolls increases to +4 at 12th level and reaches +6 at 20th level. Armor Focus (Ex): At 6th level, the fighter gains this as a bonus feat (see below), reducing the armor check penalty and increasing the maximum Dexterity bonus by one for one armor type, such as chain mail. The armor check penalty reduction stacks with that provided by Armored Efficiency. At 14th level, the armor check penalty of that armor type is decreased further by one, and maximum Dexterity bonus is further increased by one. Armor Specialization (Ex): At 10th level, a fighter's skill with his chosen armor increases. He gains a +1 competence bonus to AC when wearing armor for which he possesses the Armor Focus feat. This bonus increases to +2 at 18th level. New Feat ARMOR FOCUS Your long familiarity with armor allows you to reduce the penalties of its use. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected armor, fighter level 6th Benefits: Choose one type of armor, such as studded leather or breastplate. You reduce the armor check penalty and increase the maximum Dexterity bonus of that armor by one. Hope you like it. It'll give the thread a bump, if nothing else. :)
Kynn Elfson 05-10-05, 12:37 AM	Okay, I like your variant Fractal, very nice. Thought I'd post this fighter variant here, since it's heavily based on fractal's ideas. It's similar to the fix that I posted earlier, though there's tweaking here and there. We're currently using this fix in the game we're running at the moment, and it's received a lot of positive feedback. It is a power-up of the old fighter, though it's still balanced with the other fighting classes. Besides, a class that has nearly half of its progression being dead levels sorely needed a boost anyway. ;) Table: The Fighter Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat 2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Weapon focus, armored efficiency 3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Bonus feat 4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Weapon specialization 5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat 6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Armor focus 7th +7/+2 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat 8th +8/+3 +6 +2 +2 Greater weapon focus 9th +9/+4 +6 +3 +3 Bonus feat 10th +10/+5 +7 +3 +3 Armor specialization 11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat 12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +4 Greater weapon specialization 13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +4 Bonus feat 14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +4 Greater armor focus 15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +5 Bonus feat 16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +5 Supreme weapon Focus 17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +5 Bonus feat 18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +6 Greater armor specialization 19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat 20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +6 Supreme weapon specialization Class Features Skills: Added Knowledge (War) as a class skill. Bonus Feat (Ex): At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at every odd level thereafter. These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats. Weapon Focus (Ex): The fighter gains this as a bonus feat at 2nd level. Furthmore, he gains increased benefits with from this feat as he gains levels. At 8th level, the bonus to attack rolls provided by the Weapon Focus feat ncreases to +2 and reaches to +3 at 16th level. Armored Efficiency (Ex): At 2nd level, a fighter becomes more comfortable with the use of armor. As such, he reduces his total armor check penalty by one. Weapon Specialization (Ex): At 4th level, the fighter's skill with his chosen weapons increases. He adds a +2 bonus to damage rolls for all weapons for which he possesses the Weapon Focus feat. This bonus to damage rolls increases to +4 at 12th level and reaches +6 at 20th level. Armor Focus (Ex): At 6th level, a fighter's expertise with a particular type of armor allows him to reduce the penalties of its use. Choose one particular type of armor, such as studded leather or breastplate. You reduce the armor check penalty and increase the maximum Dexterity bonus of that armor by one. The armor check penalty reduction stacks with that provided by Armored Efficiency. At 14th level, the armor check penalty of that armor type is decreased further by one, and maximum Dexterity bonus is further increased by one. Armor Specialization (Ex): At 10th level, a fighter's skill with chosen armor increases. He gains a +1 competence bonus to AC whenever he wears armor that he for which he possesses the Armor Focus ability. This bonus increases to +2 at 18th level. Hope you like it. It'll give the thread a bump, in any case. :) I like this variant, which, I think should be used in conjucture with Fractal's because their are warriors out there that arent specialised in a certain armour, they were lethal in whatever they wore, but on the other hand their were warriors who excelled in a certain type of armour (ie: European Knights)
jaerad 05-10-05, 03:50 AM	Well Fractal, I have to hand it to you. I think you've really done a good job with this variant. I'm still debating on whether or not to use it, though. On one hand, I do agree that the PHB Fighter is not underpowered. It can be, and it may even have a greater potential to be, but it can be just as viable. Your variant essentially gives you the WS tree for free, without taking away from your Bonus Feats - which gives you a lot of feats. On the other hand, wanting to be good* with more than one weapon (or weapon group) often severly gimps you with regards to tactical feats. Your variant bypasses this by just giving you WS, without limiting your Bonus Feats**. I also like how it incorporates the concept of having weapon specific feats apply to all weapons you have WF in. I love that in fact, as it lets you beef up a few weapons while still being able to take a lot of tactical feats related to the weapons (for instance range, or tripping weapons). I was planning on houseruling that anyways. I am also starting to come around to the idea that class specific feats should just be class abilities. *Note, I don't think you have to have WF, WS, GWF, etc to be good with a weapon, but aside from that I think you get my point. **Yes, I know I used this as a pro and a con. I'm not sure which it is yet. :) As far as the armor abilities go. Hmmm, I like 'em. Not too powerful, but a nice bit of fluff. Oh ya, as far as the rest of this thread goes... man. You guys really went off on some tangents. :) Barb. vs Fighter debates are funny to me. Barb. are designed to outshine melee Fighters, and if they didn't there'd be problems. That's not to say that I think the Fighter shouldn't be good in melee, but a Barb. in Rage should do more damage than a Fighter. That's what Rage is for. :) Out of Rage, Barbs. shouldn't drop too far behind, but should do less damage than Fighters. Of course, this is just comparing raw damage - which is hardly the only aspect of character balance.
Chimaera2000 05-14-05, 07:23 PM	I just made a small change to my fix that I posted on this same page, turning the Armor Focus ability into a bonus feat so you could specialize in multiple types of armor. Now, if you really want to specialize in multiple types of armor, you have that option.