Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Tharag_Bocc Oct 19, 2008 3:54:48	I recently got a little carried away in a thread over on the Rules Q&A forum. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1102732 Long story made short: I don't like that the Fighter class feature Combat Challenge grants an attack that is like an opportunity attack but is not actually an opportunity attack. I asked weather or not it would be broken to just make Combat Challenge grant a opportunity attacks. After being pointed out that it was and crunching some numbers, I suggested one way of fixing that (post #15). Having since realized that I probably went to far off the topic in that thread, I decided to bring my desires over to this board were they belong. I also after additional thought decided to revise my changes as follows... Combat Challenge: Attacks granted by combat challenge are opportunity attacks. This means the fighter can make multiple attacks as a result of Combat Challenge, but is still limited by the number of enemies he can both mark and threaten at a time. The fighter also gains any opportunity attack based benefits when attacking as a result of his Combat Challenge. It is no longer possible for a single enemy to provoke multiple attacks from a single fighter by a single action. Combat Superiority: Grants a Wisdom as a bonus to damage rolls instead of attack rolls. It still halts movement as normal. This prevents opportunity attacks from becoming an automatic hit, but still keeps the idea that a fighter's opportunity attacks are dangerous. (Edit: for the pruposes of this variant it does not prevent an opponant from shifting) Also while crunching the math for just how close to an automatic hit a fighter could get with their OA's, I realized that having two feats that cover the same type of action, and stack, is a mild problem of its own. So I also am considering the following... Blade Opportunist: No longer exists, but is folded into Combat Reflexes. Combat Reflexes: gives a +2 bonus to opportunity attack rolls (instead of +1) while wielding a heavy/light blades. (EDIT: it still grants the normal +1 bous with all other weapons)
#2 kouk Oct 19, 2008 13:13:51	Why exactly? Normal: OAs are limited to once per enemy's turn. So the Fighter can't make more than one at a time against a single enemy (page 268 and 290 PHB) with his Combat Superiority feature. Immediate Interrupts, like from Combat Challenge, are even more limited. You can only take 1 a round (page 268). So, while an enemy might trigger any number of possible reprisals from the Fighter, the Fighter can act on only a single one of them a round. Proposed: Your rules make the fighter potentially much more offensive, being able to hit every enemy once instead of just one enemy a round. They also make the Fighter's OAs somewhat less accurate, and thus less "sticky," but further pushes their damage ability. Honestly I've never known a fighter to have more than a +2 Wisdom bonus, so I definitely would not consider an OA an "automatic hit" -- I've seen my party's fighter miss many times on OAs. The changes appear to be at cross purposes to the normal rules, so what was wrong with the normal rules? I also don't understand why you would make Blade Opportunist and Combat Reflexes into one feat. All you are really doing is removing Combat Reflexes from the game for non blade-users.
#3 Tharag_Bocc Oct 19, 2008 17:44:12	Why exactly? As I explained before, I don't like the currant official version were a fighter has two different types of reactive attacks. The official version seems, to me, to be counter intuitive. On first read my group and my self all assumed that Combat Challenge granted OAs and would have played it as such if not for the WotC message boards. I want to ship my home game to better reflect my initial, and what I still feel is a organic, interpretation. Normal: OAs are limited to once per enemy's turn. So the Fighter can't make more than one at a time against a single enemy (page 268 and 290 PHB) with his Combat Superiority feature. Immediate Interrupts, like from Combat Challenge, are even more limited. You can only take 1 a round (page 268). So, while an enemy might trigger any number of possible reprisals from the Fighter, the Fighter can act on only a single one of them a round. True, but it is general hard to make an OA against a target except on that target's turn. Proposed: Your rules make the fighter potentially much more offensive, being able to hit every enemy once instead of just one enemy a round. Making Combat Challenge attacks happen 1/turn instead 1/round is an intentional goal for me, as is eliminating the ability for a fighter to get both Combat Challenge and a normal OA on the same turn. They also make the Fighter's OAs somewhat less accurate, and thus less "sticky," but further pushes their damage ability. Honestly I've never known a fighter to have more than a +2 Wisdom bonus, so I definitely would not consider an OA an "automatic hit" -- I've seen my party's fighter miss many times on OAs. Two days ago I would have agreed with you about auto-hit not being a problem. Then the problem was pointed out to me so I crunched some numbers. A fighter that starts with 18 STR and 16 WIS (and boosts them both every chance) who wields a long sword has an average accuracy over his entire career of around 78.2%, without accounting for feats, path, or destiny. By adding Blade Opportunist, Combat Reflexes, Kensai, and Demi-God that accuracy improves 94.2%. While it takes a specialized build to abuse the OA accuracy of a fighter, its existence presents a problem that should be accounted for. As for the proposed increase to the fighters damage output, while it is true that it improves the fighters damage per hit (DPH), it actually lowers his damage per attack (DPA). The above two examples have (78.2%: DPH 15.9, DPA 12.4) and (94.2%: DPH 16.1, DPA 15.1). With my proposed changes those two builds become (54.3%: DPH 20.4, DPA 11.1) and (69.3%: DPH 21.2, DPA 14.7). I also don't understand why you would make Blade Opportunist and Combat Reflexes into one feat. All you are really doing is removing Combat Reflexes from the game for non blade-users. That was not my intent. My intent was to fold the two feats into one. Under my proposed change I meant for Combat reflex to get +2 with heavy/light blades, but still get the normal +1 with all weapons. Sorry for that confusion, I'll make an edit to clear it up.
#4 arlen Oct 21, 2008 0:47:55	Question: If an opponent attempts to shift away from the fighter, does this mean that both Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority activate? In other words, since Combat Challenge allows opportunity attacks on shifting and Combat Superiority stops enemies from moving on a successful opportunity attack, does that mean shifting and moving away from the fighter have little significant difference?
#5 Tharag_Bocc Oct 21, 2008 1:09:32	Question: If an opponent attempts to shift away from the fighter, does this mean that both Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority activate? In other words, since Combat Challenge allows opportunity attacks on shifting and Combat Superiority stops enemies from moving on a successful opportunity attack, does that mean shifting and moving away from the fighter have little significant difference? As far as this variant goes, yes shifting away from the fighter would trigger an OA from Combat Challenge so Combat Superiority would also apply. However, the opponent's shift would not be canceled, because Combat Superiority only stops an opponent's move.
#6 axterix Oct 21, 2008 12:24:33	Shift is a move, just a move that type doesn't provoke OAs most of the time. With your wording as is, it would indeed stop a shift, unless you modify the Combat Superiority to exclude shifts, in which case it no longer stops certain types of shifts that it used to stop, like diagonal movement that passes through your square.
#7 Tharag_Bocc Oct 21, 2008 15:05:05	Shift is a move, just a move that type doesn't provoke OAs most of the time. Originally published in Player's Handbook page 76 Combat Superiority You gain a bonus to opportunity attacks equal to your Wisdom modifier. An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the opportunity attack. If it still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving. Emphassis mine. Shifting is a type of movement and it is often part of a move action but it is not the same as moving. This interpretation is perhaps more literal than the authors intended but it seems to be perfectly valid under RAW. Regardless of what is RAI, for the sake of this variant I am choosing RAW. It has been pointed out that to me elsewhere that my variant would make it very difficult to impossible for an opponent to escape a fighter. This interpretation alleviates that. If you don't agree with my interpretation than at least consider it a trade. Combat Challenge gets improved (mostly) in exchange for a somewhat reduced version of Combat Superiority.
#8 urzafrank Oct 22, 2008 0:41:42	Emphassis mine. Shifting is a type of movement and it is often part of a move action but it is not the same as moving. This interpretation is perhaps more literal than the authors intended but it seems to be perfectly valid under RAW. Regardless of what is RAI, for the sake of this variant I am choosing RAW. It has been pointed out that to me elsewhere that my variant would make it very difficult to impossible for an opponent to escape a fighter. This interpretation alleviates that. If you don't agree with my interpretation than at least consider it a trade. Combat Challenge gets improved (mostly) in exchange for a somewhat reduced version of Combat Superiority. I think it would be massively broken to alter the fighter so. Also you are changing something to fit what you feel and then when someone points out a flaw you fall back on RAW (which this case is incorrect). Seems like a straw man.
#9 axterix Oct 22, 2008 0:58:09	If you don't agree with my interpretation than at least consider it a trade. Combat Challenge gets improved (mostly) in exchange for a somewhat reduced version of Combat Superiority. I don't agree with your interpretation. Shift, pull, push, slide, teleport...all these things are a move. That's why the rules for those particular types of moves all say they don't provoke. Also worth noting that you won't find "Move" in the index, just Move Action. There is no such thing as Move. What most people refer to as Move is actually Walk (pg 289). And what provokes isn't movement, but rather leaving an adjacent square. Certain types of move actions do stipulate that they don't provoke OAs. As do the rules for OAs. Moving Provokes: If an enemy leaves a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy. However, you can't make one if the enemy shifts or teleports or is forced to move away by a pull, a push, or a slide. That said, I wasn't commenting on whether or not it is a fair trade, just correcting your interpretation of the rules, so that you can either decide that it is fine that your house rule lets Combat Challenge stop shifts or so that you can modify your version of Combat Challenge or Combat Superiority to address this situation so it doesn't stop shifts.
#10 Tharag_Bocc Oct 22, 2008 1:40:59	I think it would be massively broken to alter the fighter so. Also you are changing something to fit what you feel and then when someone points out a flaw you fall back on RAW (which this case is incorrect). Seems like a straw man. Are personal attacks really necessary? I have a change I want to make. I came here to get impute from others so as to make that change while maintaining some amount of balance. If you don't have anything constructive to point out, beyond "it's broken ... don't do it", please stay out. I will admit that using an interpretation of the RAW to defend a proposed house rule might not be entirely kosher, but its hardly a straw man tactic. Also I admitted that my interpretation might not be RAI but I was choosing it anyway for the purpose of this variant. As such weather the interpretation I choose to use is correct or not is irrelevant. As for this variant being over power, its not that much worse than a level 16 Fighter War Priest under the normal rules. It might be over the top for the first 15 levels, but becomes less so after that. I don't agree with your interpretation. Shift, pull, push, slide, teleport...all these things are a move. That's why the rules for those particular types of moves all say they don't provoke. Also worth noting that you won't find "Move" in the index, just Move Action. There is no such thing as Move. What most people refer to as Move is actually Walk (pg 289). And what provokes isn't movement, but rather leaving an adjacent square. Certain types of move actions do stipulate that they don't provoke OAs. As do the rules for OAs. You're probably right, but than again move is referenced in powers such as the rogue's Deft Strike. Anyway thanks for pointing it out. I was already aware of such, but in doing so you made me see the need to clarify my original position.
#11 urzafrank Oct 22, 2008 9:57:22	To Bocc: I was not attacking you at all and if it felt that way i apologize. My issue with the change is that having played fighter a lot under this system (i have the good fortune of being able to play about 3 times per week for about 4-6 hours per time). This is an unnecessary distinction that results in the fighter getting a very massive boost in power. There are 12 fighter powers that have multiple targets and 2 fighter paragon paths powers that do so. That is to say nothing of Dragonborn breath weapon or action points. Another understanding of mine is that to fix your proposed rules so that the above is not a concern requires much more rules text than the current system...; in effect all this appears to do is make the fighter much better or make the same distinction in different language.
#12 Tharag_Bocc Oct 22, 2008 13:36:36	I was not attacking you at all and if it felt that way i apologize. My issue with the change is that having played fighter a lot under this system (i have the good fortune of being able to play about 3 times per week for about 4-6 hours per time). It's okay. I was more warning for future reference than responding to an offense, though I may have vented a little of my other frustrations in doing so. I've met more resistance to this concept than I would have ever expected. It has been a good thing, as it has allowed me to refine my adjustment and account for details I might not otherwise have, but it has also left me feeling a little defensive. Anyway, congratulation on having so much opportunity to play. I have a lot of spare time on myself at the moment and only wish the rest of my group did as well (not yet ready to try finding any other groups to play with). I am aware that that the fighter does get a decent selection of multi-target powers, and for me that is actually part of the reason I want to do this. On rounds were the fighter does get to mark multiple enemies I want all of those enemies to feel the full threat of the fighter, beyond simply being marked. I have considered restricting the fighter's ability to mark to exclusively to weapon attacks, which would keep certain overpowered racial features, such as the afor-mentioned dragonborn, out of picture (and yes I am aware of the irony of declaring that power to be overpowered in thread involving what many seem to be find an overpowered variant, so save it). As DM, if this means I have to alter my monster's tactics and or the way I build encounters, that a change I'm willing to address as needed, though my first desire is to get this change as close to balanced as possible. Also, not to open another can of worms but fighter isn't the only class with a once per round limitation I'm considering removing. I don't care for it with striker extra damage abilities either. I realize that lifting such restrictions from fighters and strikers could overbalance them compared to other classes. I am considering how to compensate for classes without such restrictions to lift, or whose restrictions I don't intend to lift (swordmage). Other classes are however a discussion for another time. This something I want to do, not have to do. Technically speaking I'm not 100% committed to making this change (though for the purpose of this thread feel free to treat me as if I were). Please point out all the problems my variant will cause. There are factors I have already accounted for, either by making changes to accommodate the variant or determining I'm fine with the result, but there have been and likely still are variable I haven't accounted for.