Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ashanti 07-04-06, 07:48 AM	My group is getting to higher levels now (14th ish) and we are beginning to find the warrior types are having less to do. I can't remember where I read it but someone on these boards mentioned having the iterative attacks of warrior types being of all the same value. So a 20th level fighter would be +20/+20/+20/+20 if he used a full attack option and +20/+15/+10/+5 if he used a standard attack option. Of course this means that the warrior type does much more damage than before and is more 'worth' having as a party member. This would also put paid to a pet beef of mine : Clerics and Druids out tanking warrior types. Has any noe done this before? Are then any hidden pitfalls to using this. I fully intend to play test it but if you guys out here have done this before or have some point of view for or against this move I would be interested. I'm quite up to making changes in my game in the name of balance and if ths is a move too far I will be happy to junk it, but I also have no 'sacred cows' within the rule set. Any views?
nastynate 07-04-06, 08:21 AM	I could see a full attack +20/+20/+20/+20, being a nice boost, but more than one attack on the standard attack action is asking for trouble. I would not recommend the standard attack bonus, because it could potentially cause more harm than good (like multiclassing into scout and/or highland stalker). How about something like this... Savage Power [General] Prerequisites: Fighter 10 Benefit: During the full attack action, you gain a +5 bonus on your attack roll with your first iterative attack, a +10 bonus on your attack roll with your second iterative attack (if any), and a +15 bonus on your attack roll with your third iterative attack (if any). Special: A fighter may select savage power as one of his bonus fighter feats -Peace Out-
Ashanti 07-04-06, 10:07 AM	@ Nastynate Having it as a feat was not some thing I concidered. It certainly looks like a way to go. Although I was kind of thinking more of a 'Warrior Type' boost to equalise the caster vs non caster power differential. I'm afraid that the problem with the scout/highland stalker is rather lost on me as we play core only (with the netbook of feats and psionics) and don't use funky builds (in fact I could not tell you what either of those two prestige classes are). As far as the standard action having more attacks I'm not sure that (in a core environment) it will in fact cause game breaking problems. Sure it means that up close a warrior type is vastly more powerfull in terms of damage, but I see that as the aim of the exercise, rather than an emergent problem. That said I will put the feat approach to my players and see what they say, if they like it I may go with that. Cheers for the input mate.
Morwen 07-04-06, 11:36 AM	If you want the feat to be for warrior types in general, you can have the prereq be something like "10 levels of classes with full BAB progression".
DarkKestral 07-04-06, 12:53 PM	Actually, as it is, I'd go Fighter 10, then probably a total of 10 levels of Dervish or Swashbuckler if this was instituted, since it heavily favors Dex fighters for damage, if they are well built. Sword-and-boards would get very little at all useful out of this so you'd have to pump ACs up to compensate, and THF would get bonuses, but lose out the bonus damage from enchantments, which is realistically the way to go. This way, I'd hopefully get 20/20/20/20/20/20/20/20/20 when hasted, and if I'm lucky, be able to weapon finesse a larger-than-normal weapon with a large crit threat range and use it in a TWF scheme, allowing me to focus my attack bonus to damage as a normal THF does. If you're pumping up overall ACs, THF loses out, since they won't be able to hit as often for the big damage, but TWF becomes commensurately stronger, since they hit so much more often. Fighter, or even possibly Barbarian 10's would suddenly become the maximal level to go to before going to schemes that increase chances to hit as fast as possible.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-04-06, 11:45 PM	Making ititerative attacks as good as the primary seems too powerful to me. Instead why not give characters another simple option. For example, if your BAB is +6 you can make two attacks during a full round action but at a -2 to all attacks. For each attack, add another -2 penalty. This also has the benefit of making rolling simpler: no more "Ok my red dice is +17, blue is +12, white is +7 and green is +2" or rolling one die at a time.
Szatany 07-05-06, 12:58 AM	I've been using another yet similar house rule, with no noticable problems. It went like this: There are no iterative attacks. Every class gives simply BAB from +0 to +20 (not +20/+15...etc). Instead, whenever any character/creature achieves BAB +6, it gains special ability called Full Attack. When a creature gains BAB +11, it receives Greater Full Attack, and with BAB +16, it receives Supreme Full Attack. Those abilities are not feats, more ilke inherent ability bonuses: as soon as you have required level you simply get them. They go like this: Full Attack: You can make 2 attacks as a full round action. All your attacks suffer -2 penalty to hit until end of round. Full Attack, Greater: You can make 3 attacks as a full round action. All your attacks suffer -4 penalty to hit until end of round. Full Attack, Supreme: You can make 4 attacks as a full round action. All your attacks suffer -6 penalty to hit until end of round. Without any of those abilities, a player cannot make a full-round action to attack.
Ashanti 07-06-06, 06:51 AM	@ Szatany I think your idea is a good one (another one), I will give it a wirl. @ DarkKestral My group only uses core rules. I am sure there are a load of funky PrC that could take advantage of this change but it won't be our problem. @ Tequila_Sunrise You say that full iterative attacks would be too powerful. Why?
Tequila_Sunrise 07-06-06, 05:07 PM	@ Tequila_Sunrise You say that full iterative attacks would be too powerful. Why? Normally, a high level warrior taking a full attack action will likely hit a tank baddie 75%/50%/25%/0%. Your method changes the odds to 75%/75%/75%/75%; I don't have to do the math to know that there's a VAST damage gap between core and what you're suggesting!
Ashanti 07-07-06, 04:37 AM	@ Tequila_Sunrise You are indead correct that the damage is more. How is it too powerfull when you compare it with the level of damage a full caster can dish out? I don't doubt it is a vast increase, my question is: what is wrong with that?
Gazza555 07-07-06, 05:08 AM	How is it too powerfull when you compare it with the level of damage a full caster can dish out? A caster is limited by the amount of times per day he can dish the damage out. The fighter can basically go all day. ;) Regards Gary
nastynate 07-07-06, 05:59 AM	A caster is limited by the amount of times per day he can dish the damage out. The fighter can basically go all day. ;) This is a misleading concept that is often pointed out as a balance issue. This is also why people think warlocks are over-powered (when in fact they are below average). How many rounds of combat do you actually have in a single day? Assuming the average 4 encounter day, each of which takes 4 rounds (on average) to resolve, you're actually talking about 16 rounds of combat total. While I know that this fluctuates to a degree, it is important to consider the actual impact made each round. You eventually reach a point, where every spell a wizard actually casts during those 16 rounds of combat has a greater impact than the attacks made by warriors-type and non-casters. Typically this is around level 10-12 (again a rough estimate, not an exact figure). A well built fighter can come close to the total impact of a spell-caster only when he gets a full attack, which does not happen every round of combat. (this is why I really like the spring attack/bounding assault/rapid blitz line of feats) I guess, given the fact that for levels 1-7 or so, the fighter dominates the show, it's only fair that wizards get to have their turn too. Personally though neither of these scenarios please me. Wizards should have more low-level impact, and fighters should have more high-level impact. Just my opinion though. -Nasty-
Ashanti 07-07-06, 07:23 AM	@ nastynate I concur. Wizards in theory can go for as long as warriors unless you have more than about 5 encounters. That said, when the wizard does run out its time to rest. My group always rests when the casters say so, but rarely if a warrior is low, simply because at the level we are (12th) the casters are starting to do the lions share of the battle filed work. This is fine for skill monekys (who can funtion outside of combat) but bad for warriors (espesially fighter). Giving them meaner close combat skills that get better and better at higher and higher levels seems fair to keep them almost instep with the Wish wielding, Reality Revising, Divine Might tanking, Natural spelling full casters out there.
DarkKestral 07-08-06, 12:40 AM	My group only uses core rules. I am sure there are a load of funky PrC that could take advantage of this change but it won't be our problem. Actually, that WAS core, minus the swash/dervish parts (and the two mentioned non-core classes are base classes anyway), no PrCs, nothing that doesn't come from the PHB/DMG/MM. It's REALLY still quite broken, but the INT to damage and whatnot just makes it more lethal for the dex fighters out there. They already end up being quite lethal relative to sword and board and even THF. 60d6+200 without a crit without adding strength damage (average dmg per round is 450 or so, not counting crits) or more per round single target damage with unlimited uses per day? HIGH END 9th level evocations do maybe 30d6 AoEat 20th level, and casters probably are only getting 4-5 at 20th level. Using Cleave/Great Cleave, (and if you're a level 20 fighter, you'll have the feats to spend on dealing this sort of damage easily enough) you'll be able to do that AoE if you kill something with an attack. If you're instituting the rule, I suggest ramping up ACs something fierce, or limiting PA heavily. Save-or-dies will be the only things wizzies and clerics would be good for. Granted, they'd be good at save-or-dies.
Nazzareth 07-08-06, 03:38 AM	I have also considered do something along similar lines. I would limit it only to fighters making it a series of three fighter only feats, one feat for each iterative attack and only usable with weapons that you have weapon focus with. I was thinking of making the feats available at each new iterative attack so the first could be taken at BAB 6+, the feat second at BAB 11+ and the feat third at BAB 16+. I would also create another feat that allows fighters to give up iterative attacks to do extra damage with one massive strike (as a full attack), you treat the weapon as one size larger for each iterative attack. Another way I thought of increasing the BAB of iterative attacks was with another feat that works off using your attacks of opportunity. For this feat you take a combat stance that would allow you to use up one of your attacks of opportunity to make one iterative attack at full BAB, you can spend one AOO for each iterative attack, when using this feat you can not make AOO for any other reason.
Ashanti 07-09-06, 07:45 AM	@ DarkKestral They already end up being quite lethal relative to sword and board and even THF. 60d6+200 without a crit without adding strength damage (average dmg per round is 450 or so, not counting crits) How would a PHB fighter do that amount of damage?
DarkKestral 07-09-06, 02:27 PM	9-10 attacks (hasted, plus GTWF) with a weapon that does 2d6 (you can pretty much assume the fighter's gonna get himself enlarged) and flaming, shocking, acid, holy weapon (now meaning a total of 7d6 per hit, plus the approxmately +25-30 minimum (very possibly closer to +50, realistically, especially if you're a level 20 Barb.) you'll have fighters capable of doing at that level, assuming PA is in place, and if they all hit (and a fighter's likely to have most of them deal some damage, because of the sheer amount of damage, you'll get over 60d6+200 (probably more like 70d6+350 single target, with some drop off elsewhere) on a target. That's likely to ensure a kill, which will trigger cleave/great cleave. If you drop a creatures that you cleave attacked, you'll then trigger great cleave. The more creatures you drop, the more attacks you get, and you'll have a lot of chances to drop targets, since you don't have to full attack a single creature, you can drop one, move to another, drop it.. move to another, drop another... and so on, till you finally run out of attacks. The lower the AC of the monsters faced, the more effective this strategy is, and the less THF benefits. Since Player races rarely get more than approximately 25 or so AC at level 20 without some heavy AC optimization, and BAB will cover most of that along with any strength bonuses to attack and damage (if you don't have +8 through +10 by 20th level, you're running a low money game) you're pretty much bound to hit with every attack, and can put a hefty amount of AB into PA without hurting the actual chance to hit. Wizards could use save-or-dies like wierd but even in AMFs, you're still punching out 20d4+300 with a high level of regularity. (Mind you, this would make clerics never use AMFs as a result, so that wizzies can kill the melee monsters with save-or-dies) Unlike wizards though, you can keep GOING, meaning no matter how big the horde, you can can continue to plow through them as long as you have hps left, without stopping, if they keep coming at you. Wizards have a few chances to do that a day before they just have to give it up. Sorcs aren't that much better, comparatively.
CryoSilver 07-09-06, 05:12 PM	I don't see this as too overpowered; as I see it, it is like taking all your Whirlwind Attacks against one target.
Wayside 07-09-06, 06:12 PM	9-10 attacks (hasted, plus GTWF) with a weapon that does 2d6 (you can pretty much assume the fighter's gonna get himself enlarged) and flaming, shocking, acid, holy weapon (now meaning a total of 7d6 per hit, plus the approxmately +25-30 minimum (very possibly closer to +50, realistically, especially if you're a level 20 Barb.) you'll have fighters capable of doing at that level, assuming PA is in place, and if they all hit (and a fighter's likely to have most of them deal some damage, because of the sheer amount of damage, you'll get over 60d6+200 (probably more like 70d6+350 single target, with some drop off elsewhere) on a target. That's likely to ensure a kill, which will trigger cleave/great cleave. If you drop a creatures that you cleave attacked, you'll then trigger great cleave. The more creatures you drop, the more attacks you get, and you'll have a lot of chances to drop targets, since you don't have to full attack a single creature, you can drop one, move to another, drop it.. move to another, drop another... and so on, till you finally run out of attacks. The lower the AC of the monsters faced, the more effective this strategy is, and the less THF benefits. Since Player races rarely get more than approximately 25 or so AC at level 20 without some heavy AC optimization, and BAB will cover most of that along with any strength bonuses to attack and damage (if you don't have +8 through +10 by 20th level, you're running a low money game) you're pretty much bound to hit with every attack, and can put a hefty amount of AB into PA without hurting the actual chance to hit. Wizards could use save-or-dies like wierd but even in AMFs, you're still punching out 20d4+300 with a high level of regularity. (Mind you, this would make clerics never use AMFs as a result, so that wizzies can kill the melee monsters with save-or-dies) Unlike wizards though, you can keep GOING, meaning no matter how big the horde, you can can continue to plow through them as long as you have hps left, without stopping, if they keep coming at you. Wizards have a few chances to do that a day before they just have to give it up. Sorcs aren't that much better, comparatively. :banghead: :rant: There is no way a 20th level fighter will be pumping out that much damage. The mere idea someone could consider it a possibility rends my brain. For one thing each of those enchancements must be activated on your weapon, flaming, frost, and shocking. There is no way in hell you will have a +30 bonus to damage when two-weapon fighting. Here, i'll be generous, lets assume you put all those buffs on your weapon, and the dm doesn't point out the obvious fact that the flaming and frost won't operate together. Lets also assume for your sake he has...a 30str. he of course has weapon specialization, and greater specialization. and, why not, his weapon will be +5 as well, both of them. that grants him a +24 bonus to damage, with his PRIMARY HAND. his off hand is at half strength. giving him a +16 with his offhand. and how the hell do you figure a CR 20 monster having a 20-25 armor class.... A black dragon wyrm has a +33 from natural armor alone, 39 total. Yes, a 20th level fighter is quite powerful, but not 70d6+350 powerful, not by a longshot.
Ezell Pike 07-09-06, 07:44 PM	How do the warrior classes do in combat? Is the fight usually over by the time they get their turn, due to a caster putting the enemies in the dirt or crippling them? I ask because the times I have seen characters that level fighters did fine in fights. Maybe tweaking encounters in some way could make the difference.
Ashanti 07-10-06, 08:55 AM	@ Darkkestral I have to say I tend to agree with Wayside here. You warrior build is pretty tight and relying on a hell of a lot of coincidental factors. You also load him out with a trully impressive weapon (with the observed logical problem of frost and fire). You point about AC is surley a stretch (again pointed out) as we are not simply talking about player races. I don't doubt that in exactly the right circumstances your senario is posible, but not in normal play. I would concede that my group would never use the amount of dilligence you have shown here and wonder whether this may be where my confusion rest. Our style is low treaure and as such the pcs tend to have less chance of aquiring funky swords doing uber damage. This is why I concidered 'upping' the warrior combat prowess, so they to rely less on twinked out equipment drops. We have no magic shops either. Hope this puts my position into greater perspective.
Nelagend 07-10-06, 06:06 PM	Energy weapons also aren't that potent at high levels in practice, especially if your DM likes demons. Most of the time the damage gets reduced to 0 anyway.
Wayside 07-10-06, 06:17 PM	@ Darkkestral I have to say I tend to agree with Wayside here. You warrior build is pretty tight and relying on a hell of a lot of coincidental factors. You also load him out with a trully impressive weapon (with the observed logical problem of frost and fire). You point about AC is surley a stretch (again pointed out) as we are not simply talking about player races. I don't doubt that in exactly the right circumstances your senario is posible, but not in normal play. I would concede that my group would never use the amount of dilligence you have shown here and wonder whether this may be where my confusion rest. Our style is low treaure and as such the pcs tend to have less chance of aquiring funky swords doing uber damage. This is why I concidered 'upping' the warrior combat prowess, so they to rely less on twinked out equipment drops. We have no magic shops either. Hope this puts my position into greater perspective. Yeah, i have this problem as well with higher level D&D. Once you get to a certain point your character becomes your items. I generally play my games as much lower magic than D&D says (and of course have to be careful of what i put up against the group because of damage reduction and such). Once you get up into the higher levels the fighter just can't do much of anything impressive. The rogue has massive sneak attack, special abilities, trapfinding, other classes have spells, the monk has some trully impressive abilities at his hands, and the fighter, well the fighter fights. I agree that the fighter needs something to distinguish him other than feats and give him that boost at higher levels, but i'm leaning more towards special abilities at higher levels rather than maximum attack bonuses with secondary attacks. Most of the time the fighter feels like nothing more than a method of gaining the requirements for prestige classes while still gaining other feats.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-10-06, 11:14 PM	I don't have a problem with warriors dishing out less damage than other characters at high levels, for three reasons: 1: Warriors deal out raw damage that can't be reduced (except minimally by barb-type DR). The AB:AC ratio at high levels is so high that a warrior will be able to hit again and again. 2: Character types that deal more damage than warriors at high levels are situation-dependant. Rogues such against constructs, plants, oozes... while casters suck against dragons, outsiders... Warriors are not situation-dependant: even if they for some reason can't get at a foe (a flying dragon perhaps), their mage buddies can get them at their foe. 3: Dominating powerful casters are a part of fantasy tradition. Pick up just about any fantasy novel and chances are, there will be some nigh-untouchable mage-guy. The fact about d&d is that this archetype is somewhat lessened; like I said, casters just plain suck against certain monster types (you may remember Gandalf saying that "only heroes slay dragons, not wizards" in The Hobbit). With a decent DM, every character gets to shine.
nastynate 07-11-06, 01:07 AM	I don't have a problem with warriors dishing out less damage than other characters at high levels, for three reasons: ...but that's all fighters do (no spells, no skill points). 1: Warriors deal out raw damage that can't be reduced (except minimally by barb-type DR). The AB:AC ratio at high levels is so high that a warrior will be able to hit again and again. I have to disagree here. DR/ Piercing, Good, Cold Iron, Silver, Bludgeoning, all come up at higher levels, and it can seriously cut-down a fighter's damage dealing potential. And the AB:AC ratio is not that favorable. Some monsters and npcs are really difficult to hit (have you actually seen the ACs demons, devils, and dragons before?) 2: Character types that deal more damage than warriors at high levels are situation-dependant. Rogues such against constructs, plants, oozes... while casters suck against dragons, outsiders... Warriors are not situation-dependant: even if they for some reason can't get at a foe (a flying dragon perhaps), their mage buddies can get them at their foe. 3.5 edition spell resistance is a joke...you can easily overcome it with a good primary casting stat, and a high level spell. If you are concerned take a feat, and buy a stat boosting item (that's not much of an investment). Spell-casters are never situational; not only that but spell-casters have loads of utility spells that come in handy even when out of combat situations. Rogues are situational though, no disagreement there. But rogues own the spot light in non-combat situations, when the fighter is almost completely useless. 3: Dominating powerful casters are a part of fantasy tradition. Pick up just about any fantasy novel and chances are, there will be some nigh-untouchable mage-guy. The fact about d&d is that this archetype is somewhat lessened; like I said, casters just plain suck against certain monster types (you may remember Gandalf saying that "only heroes slay dragons, not wizards" in The Hobbit). With a decent DM, every character gets to shine. Well in a novel that's fine...but when playing a game, everyone should have equal opportunity to make a difference. If the DM has to create special opportunities just so the other characters can feel important, then the game is seriously flawed. It should be designed in such a way, that the DM need not concern himself with with a Gandalf in the party...oh boy, I get to play Pippen...lucky me...I'm comic relief...and otherwise completely useless. Seriously in a novel this is fine, but a character that cannot meaningfully contribute in any other way is not worth having in your party...they are a liability to the well being of the whole group, and they are not fun to play. Also if one character is vastly more powerful than any of the others it is not fair. Try giving double the XP to one specific player every session. Tell me what happens to your game...when things are unfair players notice; they feel irrelivant, spiteful, and unhappy...and they should! The DM is allowing one player to have all the fun, while the rest of them get the shaft. Anyway (now that I have that off my chest). The game balance is not sooo out of wack that things cannot be fixed. All it takes is a few good high level feats designed for fighters, and a sufficient number of encounters per day to drain the wizard/cleric of their magic. (ban rope trick in your games!). keep the pressure on, and exhaust the spell-casters of their spells; otherwise they can just go nova (meaning they only need to use their 16 most powerful spells, and they never need to fall back on lower level ones). That's all it takes. -Peace Out-
Tequila_Sunrise 07-11-06, 08:05 PM	Also if one character is vastly more powerful than any of the others it is not fair. Try giving double the XP to one specific player every session. Tell me what happens to your game...when things are unfair players notice; they feel irrelivant, spiteful, and unhappy...and they should! The DM is allowing one player to have all the fun, while the rest of them get the shaft. -Peace Out- Maybe this is areflection on the DM's poor choice to give individual XP--it hurts all defensive characters. I get the idea that you really like playing fighters or are really disdainful of them. Try thinking of them this way: they are the party rock. When things get rough quick, having a damage sucker often breaks a TPK. If you don't like defensive characters, don't play a fighter. As for me, I love to play a fighter than can draw a dragon's full ire (your mamma was a wyvern!) and live through it. It's very satisfying to tell the frailer charcters 'you're welcome' as they know they could never live through such an ordeal. As to feats, I'm all for giving the fighter more high level options (I even created a couple myself) but having three full-power ititerative attacks is way too much.
Ashanti 07-13-06, 04:58 AM	A lot of good points. This is what I have decided to do: Not go with altering the core mechanic fro BAB. Allowing Fighters (and only Fighters) to ignore the statistic requirement of Fighter Bonus Feats. Stealing some special abilities from Szatany's Ultimate fighter (thanks again mate)and using them a la Rogue Special Abilities. Allow all warrior types to use scrolls (another nod to Szatany). My group seem to be cool with this now and I want to thank you all for your help in making our game a bit different.