Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 158
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Dralnu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Fighters are trained in physical combat. Because of their physical training, they're good at taking physical damage, which explains their high health and high Fort. They don't train with magic. Spellcasters train with magic, and because of that training they're more adept at defending themselves against magic. They don't do physical training, hence their low hp and fort saves.

    If a fighter is interested in better defending himself against magic, he should be specifically training for that (PrC's like Witch Hunter, or invest feats for it). He shouldn't get a great Will save just 'cause. Just like an adventuring sorcerer doesn't just get a high Fort save just because he "probably trains skills against physical damage."

    Just my two cents.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Hiro Protagonest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Dralnu View Post
    Fighters are trained in physical combat. Because of their physical training, they're good at taking physical damage, which explains their high health and high Fort. They don't train with magic. Spellcasters train with magic, and because of that training they're more adept at defending themselves against magic. They don't do physical training, hence their low hp and fort saves.

    If a fighter is interested in better defending himself against magic, he should be specifically training for that (PrC's like Witch Hunter, or invest feats for it). He shouldn't get a great Will save just 'cause. Just like an adventuring sorcerer doesn't just get a high Fort save just because he "probably trains skills against physical damage."

    Just my two cents.
    Magic is an integral part of the game. It's common, and fighters have to be able to do their job. Now, they can't do their job if they get dominated, charmed, or tricked by an illusion.
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Dralnu View Post
    Fighters are trained in physical combat. Because of their physical training, they're good at taking physical damage, which explains their high health and high Fort. They don't train with magic. Spellcasters train with magic, and because of that training they're more adept at defending themselves against magic. They don't do physical training, hence their low hp and fort saves.

    If a fighter is interested in better defending himself against magic, he should be specifically training for that (PrC's like Witch Hunter, or invest feats for it). He shouldn't get a great Will save just 'cause. Just like an adventuring sorcerer doesn't just get a high Fort save just because he "probably trains skills against physical damage."

    Just my two cents.
    By that logic anyone without magical training should have ALL weak saves. After all, spells target fort at LEAST as often as they do Will, and Reflex saves are generally either traps or spells (and most of those traps are magical).
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Dralnu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Magic is an integral part of the game. It's common, and fighters have to be able to do their job. Now, they can't do their job if they get dominated, charmed, or tricked by an illusion.
    Isn't that how it's supposed to work? A physically dominating warrior's weak spot is his mind. Again, it's a classic weakness. If the fighter wants to shore up his weaknesses, he should invest in magical defenses accordingly via feats and PrCs.

    By that logic anyone without magical training should have ALL weak saves. After all, spells target fort at LEAST as often as they do Will, and Reflex saves are generally either traps or spells (and most of those traps are magical).
    Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but spells with Fort saves generally attack the target physically. A Fighter would therefore do well against this. Reflex save spells have the "dodge this" factor. Will save spells effect the mind. Spellcasters are good against mind stuff. They need a strong mind for their magics. They're not so good at saving against poisons and stuff that requires a physically tough body.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but spells with Fort saves generally attack the target physically.
    Depends, do you consider being turned into a frog being attacked physically? Cause I'd definitely consider that more of a magical attack personally, but you never can tell.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by jiriku View Post
    I have a number of additional Watchful Fighter feats in development which will focus on carving out a tanking role. Development has just been... delayed slightly because Steam network is evil and offered me amazingly good prices on video games I'd always wanted to buy and now I have all these video games and there's just so few hours in the day and... you know how it is.
    Hah, yes, I understand. Still, it's good to hear you're considering that as a viable point.

    About the Will save: I would argue not from a fluff point of view but from a mechanical balance. The three main classes (rogue, fighter and wizard/sorcerer) excel at one area, to the detriment of the other two. That is reflected on their saves. If the fighter has a high Will save, it stops being a paragon of Fortitude, grit and physical prowess and starts resembling a cleric with no spellcasting.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Dralnu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    Depends, do you consider being turned into a frog being attacked physically? Cause I'd definitely consider that more of a magical attack personally, but you never can tell.
    Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but spells with Fort saves generally attack the target physically.

    Emphasis mine. I was careful to use that word because I knew someone would say, "well, XYZ spell doesn't seem to fit the criteria!"

    But in your example, yes, I can see that being a fort save. It's a physical change. Most stuff that require will saves generally prey on the target's mind. Fear effects, enchantments, mind tricks, etc.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Gideon Falcon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Really, the good Will save doesn't represent anti-magic training on the part of the fighter, it represents FIGHTAN SPIRIT! It just represents that he could care less about your silly things like Dominate Person and such. That's the idea behind True Grit.

    Anyway, let's not turn this into a flame war or anything, okay?
    Last edited by Gideon Falcon; 2011-05-19 at 06:43 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    The ongoing fighter vs mage problem is that the melee's job is to be a buffer between the party mages and the bad guys. The problem in 3e is that this theory lasts until the first dominate person is thrown. And a lot of higher level creatures can do this sort of stuff. while you're at it, there's a lot of save-or-suck in the world. I'm in a campaign where my level 5 paladin has been blinded by glitterdust 3 times already. And his saves are fantastic. If I only failed due to chronic bad luck, imagine where the Fighter would be.

    Still, I like the idea of giving Fighters a weak will save but a bonus on saves against mind-affecting and fear effects, for example. Perhaps the Watchful Fighter should add half his bonus to Will Saves against the above, as it's particularly bodyguards who you don't want mind controlled, Professor-X-vs-Sabertooth style, and used against the party mage (Magneto in this instance).

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Okuno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Before I get into the real response, it'd be good to clear up the obvious terminological confusion: weak against mental does not equal weak against spells. There are two classifications going on: firstly, mental(enchantment)-physical(blasting and transmutation) and secondly, magical(spells)-physical(stabby-crushy). Some users are messing this up, figure it out.

    Onwards:
    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow
    Depends, do you consider being turned into a frog being attacked physically? Cause I'd definitely consider that more of a magical attack personally, but you never can tell.
    Considering that polymorph leaves the mind alone and changes the body, it seems like a spell that affects the body. In that case fort is probably a good choice.

    Of course, I agree that it's a little counterintuitive. IIRC (I was rather young playing AD&D), there used to be a specific save vs. polymorph. Still, I doubt we want to go to those tables again <.< So I'll settle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swiftmongoose View Post
    Magic is an integral part of the game. It's common, and fighters have to be able to do their job. Now, they can't do their job if they get dominated, charmed, or tricked by an illusion.
    Ahem, stabbing is an integral part of the game. It's common, and mages have to be able to do their job. Now, they can't do their job if they get stabbed to squishy death.

    I love copy-paste as much as the next guy, but no one advocates a d12 hit die for a mage, ever. For that matter, few advocate even letting the mage cast in heavy armor. (Morrowind does, btw, so check tradition at the door, kthx) Still, somehow an argument this silly is used to give the fighter the best will save in the game? <.<


    However, there seems really to be a bigger problem with saves: too much coarse-graining. And this manifests in a couple ways:

    A) There are only two types of saves, worst and best. Why no middle ground? (perhaps 1+5/12*level) Still, that's a question that goes beyond this homebrew, and so shouldn't be handled here.

    B) All of the fighter kits exposited (why can't I think of a smaller word!? 0.0) here get the same saves. The cunning fighter should have better reflex saves, right? The disciplined fighter, trained in the mental art of bushido, obviously shouldn't get the worst will save, right? That's something this homebrew might address. On the other hand, it's such a small modification that anyone using can easily change those numbers as the copy-paste the rules.

    I personally think that True Grit was designed to emulate this fighting spirit and reduce the gulf between poor and good saves. Topping that off with good will saves actually makes fighters better than mages at resisting mental effects. Hence, giving the fighter the best will save progression is reduced to absurdity in my mind.

    C) I know I said "a couple", but this is another coarse-graining problem. There aren't enough types of saves. I don't advocate bringing back save vs. wands, but a save vs. polymorph and some related effects like dominate (the polymorph of the mind) maybe wouldn't be bad. All that's a problem at a lower priority than the carwreck that is ability scores, and again is beyond the scope here.


    There is still the question of dominate person &c. My party (already at reduced strength) got wiped when our dps got dominated. Sun Tzu says that turning an enemy against his former compatriots is far more effective than simply destroying them. Does the system rate dominate spells much higher than hold spells? For dominate vs. hold person, we have Sor/Wiz 5 vs. Sor/Wiz 3 - that is CL 9 vs. 5: less than twice the strength. And if you instead compare it to finger of death, Sor/Wiz7, CL13, dominate is grossly underestimated.

    This is not a problem with the fighter. The problem lies in the disconnect between the stated strength of the spells and the true strength thereof. Again, this problem goes beyond the scope of this homebrew.


    I am interested to know why jikiru gave the fighter the will save he did. I am more interested in getting him to type up those feats to fill out his fighter system, so I won't press him on it. Especially if he's thinking with portals ^.^ I'm really annoyed at my post-graduation poverty, but I guess i can be thankful my DMing isn't suffering >,>

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Rhyvurg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    This...is awesome. It addresses almost all the complaints I've had about Fighters since I started playing 3.0. To many classes had everything the fighter had, and something more.

    Paladins had spells, healing, mount, and turning.

    Rangers had spells, skills, companion, and favored enemies.

    Barbarians had HP, speed, rage, and more skill points.

    Fighters had the least skill points, underpowered feats (at first), no magical defenses, and the highest dependency on magic items. Now, I was of the opinion that if those other full BAB classes had all that going for them, fine, I have no problem with it. If every other class is going to have a horde of out-of-combat options, that's just dandy. But if that's the case, then the Fighter should be the unquestioned BEST at fighting. If the Fighter can do nothing well but fight, then when the initiative dice hit the table, it's the Fighter's world, y'all just live in it. This should include casters, by the way. I said it addressed almost all my complaints. The one it missed is this. If the fighter is (in a fair world) the BEST in a fight, then things like Weapon Supremacy should be something he gets at like level 12, not 18. And before you say that would be broken, pause and ask yourself this. Is it still broken when you compare it to a wizard, druid or cleric? I'm betting everyone would say no.

    That being said, I don't have a problem with fighters having good Will saves. Yes, they're trained to deal with physical threats, while casters deal with the esoteric. But, not everything that provokes a Will save is a spell. Yes, casters should be better able to deal with magic, as it's their bread and butter. But that is expressed by countermagic and abjurations, not just saving throws. Is it better to have a saving throw that has a decent chance of protecting you from that Dominate Monster spell, or be able to negate the magic completely and still get a save if you fail? Because that's what casters can do. Even if everyone had a high Will save, countermagic and defensive spells still give casters the antimagic edge.
    Last edited by Rhyvurg; 2011-05-22 at 05:38 AM. Reason: spelling
    "Can you do science to it?"
    "I can do science to anything."


  12. - Top - End - #72
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ursus the Grim's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY/NJ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    I'm in the camp protesting the good Will save. If you're striving for balance between fighter and mage they should each have their tradeoffs. A mage doesn't get fortitude bonuses, even though its likely they've got arcane magic flowing through their blood. A fighter shouldn't get good Will. It would negate a huge weakness that they should possess.

    If it were JUST the Will Save, I wouldn't consider it an issue. But combined with True Grit AND Combat Aura (Resilient Troops), you've got a beast with +17 to Will Saves and can reduce status effects before even taking into account magic items and wisdom scores.

    I would recommend the Will Save be dropped. Combat Aura (Resilent Troops) nearly brings it back up to Good, in addition to buffing the other two saves. That's more than enough mitigation against spells, IMHO. If it still isn't good enough, perhaps grant an inherent bonus against certain effects (ie, compulsions, fear, etc).

    I agree that the Fighter needs a boost, but negating things that should be weak points isn't the way to do it, unless its the focus of a particular combat style, such as (perhaps) Watchful or Disciplined.

    That being said, the rest of the class looks really good. I don't think its on par with Wizards or Clerics, but its getting closer here. Most of the styles look balanced against each other, with the possible exception of Commanding (requires Cha, thus perhaps nearing MAD). The Bonus Feats complement the class abilities quite well, too.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Okuno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    ...when the initiative dice hit the table, it's the Fighter's world, y'all just live in it. This should include casters, by the way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    Is it still broken when you compare it to a wizard, druid or cleric? I'm betting everyone would say no.
    While I agree with just about everything you pull out (and it's kinda hard to get that across when there's so much more to be said about what I don't agree with), these are kinda weird claims.

    Wizard, druid and cleric are all T1, and we're not trying to build a T1 fighter. Comparing a fighter to any T1, or even T2 for that matter, is just a bad basis for argument. This is especially the case when we consider the existing fantasy literature, though from this perspective, it might not be a bad idea to tone down the T1s and T2s and leave all the classic Gandalfs and Sarumans in major epic artifact territory (you know, like play E6 or something).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    Even if everyone had a high Will save, countermagic and defensive spells still give casters the antimagic edge.
    Good point, I'ma have to retract my overly straightforwardly put statement about good will+true grit > mages vs. magic. Although to be fair, there are plenty of defensive spells that can be cast on others, such as Spell Immunity. Furthermore, True Grit always just works, and passively at that, counterspell requires a readied action, a skill check and an opposed caster level check. Still, counterspell can work on anything once your sor has dispel magic. The waters are a little muddied over which is better until some math is done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ursus the Grim
    Combat Aura (Resilent Troops) nearly brings it back up to Good, in addition to buffing the other two saves. That's more than enough mitigation against spells, IMHO.
    I definitely missed this, not something I think about as fighter-y, but I guess I'm too used to the existing system x.x Except for Lv2, a fighter with resilient troops will bring the whole party's bad saves within 2 points of a good save. At lv9+, they're always exactly equal to or one less than a good save. The only two points of contention with regards to whether the fighter's will should be higher I see are that the fighter probably won't always want to have that aura up and that the aura will probably be boosting the mage's will save too.

    Really, it is perhaps good to point out that the existence of fighter auras will change the dynamics of combat into the PCs favor at least somewhat. Before, we needed a 5th player to use a bard and sing whilst fighting; now every group has such a buffer. I don't immediately see a big problem, but I'm not terribly good at op, so someone else will see problems better. If a problem does exist, it's a fairly simple solution to nerf Resilient Troops down to just one save being boosted, which looks closer to what the bard does. (fracking the only thing the bard can do for saves is boost them vs. charm and fear effects) Oh, and bard and fighter both give morale, right? The fighter's aura might not want to step on too many toes, or we might need a bard remix to go along with. Sure, the bard is meant to get his toes stepped on a lot, but he could at least buff. Meh, I'm of the opinion the bard needs a little remix anyway to support the added existence an Agent class.


    Finally, and I think it's in the background already, but it's good to say it explicitly: D&D combat is based around the idea of combined arms. In a wargame, you send up the armor to hold the line, support them with some fast-moving skirmishers to shore up the weak points, and leave the squishy artillery in the back. Sounds like fighters, rogues, casters to me, and we should respect that balance of forces, no matter how much we like some archetype. The fun comes from figuring out how the pieces fit together. When the initiative dice hit the table, to steal Rhyvurg's expression, everyone does their thing. I'd like to see the fighter do stuff out of combat more than I'd like to see more combat abilities added on, and that's what all the skill stuff jikiru included is supposed to handle.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Rhyvurg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    While I agree with just about everything you pull out (and it's kinda hard to get that across when there's so much more to be said about what I don't agree with), these are kinda weird claims.
    Fair enough.

    Wizard, druid and cleric are all T1, and we're not trying to build a T1 fighter. Comparing a fighter to any T1, or even T2 for that matter, is just a bad basis for argument. This is especially the case when we consider the existing fantasy literature, though from this perspective, it might not be a bad idea to tone down the T1s and T2s and leave all the classic Gandalfs and Sarumans in major epic artifact territory (you know, like play E6 or something).
    I actually agree with you, but my points about what I feel fighters should be is only in regards to the combat ability of the classes. A wizard can still make walls, charm enemies, facilitate travel, craft items, and a thousand other things that can be done out of combat. And that list only got bigger with every splatbook. In my opinion, a fighter should be T2 during combat, but T3-4 out of combat. The balance comes from their lack of out-of-combat options. Sure they have Intimidate, but no other reason to boost Charisma and not enough skill points to make real use of it.

    Good point, I'ma have to retract my overly straightforwardly put statement about good will+true grit > mages vs. magic. Although to be fair, there are plenty of defensive spells that can be cast on others, such as Spell Immunity. Furthermore, True Grit always just works, and passively at that, counterspell requires a readied action, a skill check and an opposed caster level check. Still, counterspell can work on anything once your sor has dispel magic. The waters are a little muddied over which is better until some math is done.
    Yes, but to get access to those defensive spells the fighter still needs a caster around. The best magic defenses are still the caster's domain.

    Finally, and I think it's in the background already, but it's good to say it explicitly: D&D combat is based around the idea of combined arms. In a wargame, you send up the armor to hold the line, support them with some fast-moving skirmishers to shore up the weak points, and leave the squishy artillery in the back. Sounds like fighters, rogues, casters to me, and we should respect that balance of forces, no matter how much we like some archetype. The fun comes from figuring out how the pieces fit together. When the initiative dice hit the table, to steal Rhyvurg's expression, everyone does their thing. I'd like to see the fighter do stuff out of combat more than I'd like to see more combat abilities added on, and that's what all the skill stuff jikiru included is supposed to handle.
    I agree completely, but when one of those pieces can't hold it's end up the plan falls apart. An entire class should not be eclipsed by the class feature of another. A druid's companion should not be able to replace a fighter.
    "Can you do science to it?"
    "I can do science to anything."


  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    I take issue with the fact that this not only subsumes the existing Fighter, Barbarian, and Samurai, but also (in many ways) the Paladin, Rogue and Bard.

    The Paladin's class features are completely subsumed by the varying auras available to this new Fighter; Smite Evil x/day becomes totally irrelevant when you can give the entire party +x damage without dumping a stat, and that +x damage applies to every roll, ever, because the aura doesn't have a duration (whereas Smite Evil has a plethora of limits, including alignment limits, uses per day, reliance on a particular attribute, etc). The resilience aura is also stronger than the Paladin's Divine Grace ability, combined with the Gift of Grace feat without the drawbacks of that feat, not counting the fact that Divine Grace is dependent on WIS or CHA. The Fighter also, inexplicably, gets better Will saves than a Paladin, Divine Grace or otherwise. True Grit imitates (but does not completely) subsume the Paladin's Divine Health, which remains the only unique ability that wasn't completely outclassed by a single class feature of the new Fighter. If you wanted to switch from this Fighter to a Paladin, you'd lose a step in hit dice, two skill points per level (not counting competence bonuses), a good save, and a plethora of awesome abilities for... A slightly better True Grit, and weaker Undead Turning and divine spells than a Cleric.

    The Bard's Bardic Knowledge is subsumed by the "key skill" competence bonuses (which apply also to "key skills" gained through feats). Inspire Courage's features are subsumed by individual auras (which produce a single effect of Inspire Courage, but stronger; for instance, instead of getting a +4 to saves involving fear-based effects, the party instead gets +5 to all saves; furthermore, this is a permanent effect that exists as long as the aura, which doesn't take up standard actions like Bardic Song does). Inspire Competence is subsumed by Follow My Lead (which, again, is gained as a swift action that occurs constantly, and has none of Inspire Competence's limitations). Suggestion isn't subsumed, but Suggestion-equivalent applications of epic Diplomacy checks are easily reachable when Diplomacy is a key skill of your fighting style (and it's always a key skill of your fighting style, if you choose to expend a feat on it). Components of Greatness and Heroics are subsumed by auras. Since the auras themselves have no limitations (swift action to change, no action to maintain, no time limit, no usage limit), being able to copy even one quality at a time for 24 hours a day is better than spending three full rounds to give worse versions of two qualities at a time for... Three hours. With a usage limit, and ranks in Perform (didgeridoo).

    Skills aren't to the Bard's advantage either, because they only gain two more skill points per level than new Fighter, but new Fighter gets a +20 competence bonus on four skills, plus a +5 bonus with the right aura (given that they stack). For a single feat, the Fighter gets +20-25 on two more skills, since they also count as "key skills". Example: I play a "Social Rogue" Fighter and take the Commanding style. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive become "key skills" for me, and I get the appropriate skill bonuses to each. I decide I want to be stealthy, so as one of my standard feats I take Stealthy Commando--and instantly gain the same competence bonus to Hide and Move Silently (which, at level 17, is +20). Finally, I decide that I also want to become a survivalist, so I take Savage Warrior, for another +20 bonus to Knowledge (nature) and Survival. I then use my 4+Int+Misc skill points/level on a bunch of other skills, like Jump, Tumble (it's cross-class, but who cares, I just got eight +20 bonuses, so I have skill points to spare), Knowledge (dungeoneering), Ride, and, just so the Bard doesn't feel at all useful, Perform (didgeridoo). My party enjoys the +5 bonus to every skill that is a "key skill" for my martial class (a list which includes Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Hide, Move Silently, Knowledge (nature) and Survival), even if it's explicitly ruled that I don't (because of stacking issues or whatever). Don't worry, I won't feel terribly bad about using two feats on "skill monkey" feats, because Martial Aptitude means I don't ever have to be judicious with the eleven bonus feats Fighters already get, and besides, I'm the "skill monkey" of the group anyway. That's right--Fighters are doing "skill monkey" better than Rogue or Bard, so instead of picking Rogue or Bard, I picked "back-up Fighter/skill monkey variant". I'm not even sure if I get competence bonuses from the second and third fighting styles with an 8- and 16-level delay, but if I do, it's just worse.

    To play a Bard, I am trading three levels of Hit Dice, one level of BAB, no saves (I lose Fort but gain Ref), a plethora of good class features (which subsume my relatively bad features) and skill proficiency to cast spells worse than a Cleric or Sorcerer, which makes me a slightly durable, but otherwise much worse version of the Mystic Theurge.

    With the exception of trapfinding and trapsense, Rogue is completely subsumed by Cunning Fighter; you can use one of the eleven bonus feats you get over Rogue to take Martial Study for something killer, then take Martial Stance for Assassin's Stance. Congratulations--you now have Sneak Attack +8d6, plus a cool Martial Strike from Martial Study, and you're still nine feats up on the Rogue (and those feats can all be retrained with Martial Aptitude). Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge are Fighter bonus feats now, so if you thought those class features were worth anything, congratulations! You've successfully imitated another Rogue trait, and you're still up seven feats (remembering that these can be retrained anyhow).

    Rogues don't even get the benefit of having better skill choices. If you're making a "skill monkey" Rogue Fighter, take Cunning Rogue for Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (local) and Sleight of Hand, then take Fighting Commando for Hide and Move Silently, and, if you want to go social, Noble Knight for Diplomacy and Knowledge (nobility & royalty). You no longer have to invest in these skills (and can even let other people ride sidesaddle thanks to auras), so you can take Disable Device or Open Lock cross-class (or just invest another feat from a non-core book to make them class abilities) and congratulations! You're a Rogue, with better armor and martial abilities. Also, for some reason, you have a better Will save than the guy whose only job is to be cunning and intelligent. Stronger mind?

    To switch from this Fighter to a Rogue, I lose three levels of hit dice, one level of BAB, one good save, a plethora of class skills, and skill proficiency (!!!!!) and gain... Trapsense. Oh, and 2d6 Sneak Attack, technically (though a Rogue is never able to feint as a free action as a class ability, so Sneak Attack comes less freely; oh, and a Rogue doesn't get an aura that increases damage for itself and others for free, or free unlimited access to Tome of Battle's martial abilities for extra delicious damage).

    Really, the only reason that this Fighter doesn't simultaneously subsume the Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade from Tome of Battle, what with its ability to select as many (or as few) Martial Strikes, Boosts and Counters with repeated use of Martial Study and judicious use of Martial Aptitude is because, technically, the Fighter still only gains half progression on initiator levels (meaning you only get eleven free Martial Strikes/Boosts/Counters a day from the fifth level and lower), so there may be three or four people left in this world who would trade the unprecedented power of the Fighter in order to get Time Stands Still for two full attack actions (which Swordsage gets at level 17 from the Diamond Mind school)... Though these people aren't getting full attack actions as standard actions, or feints as free actions, or access to three different types of rage (interchangeable as a swift action with Martial Aptitude and Change of Tactics), or any of the other goodies that Fighters get.

    I can't help but commend the sheer amount of thought and effort that obviously went into this whole thread, but... Was balance ever a concern for you?

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Gideon Falcon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    To be fair, He's already fixed the rogue to be more powerful. The Paladin already needed fixing, as well. I do, however, agree that the combat aura might need definitely needs a bit of powering down. I myself think the Bard needs a fix anyway, despite how it's supposed to be back on its feet after CA, CS and such.

    Additionally, the Cunning Fighter is kind of superfluous, since you already made a rogue fix. Just give it some of the Cunning Fighter abilities, and there you have it. I also think that the Marshall is well taken care of with T.G. Oskar's fix, so the Commanding Fighter might not be necessary either. Indeed, the Combat Aura might just be an obstacle in the way of this class being at its best.

    Although, I must point out that Martial Study can only be taken three times. It specifically says so in the description in ToB.
    Last edited by Gideon Falcon; 2011-05-23 at 07:33 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Hiro Protagonest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Gideon Falcon View Post
    To be fair, He's already fixed the rogue to be more powerful. The Paladin already needed fixing, as well. I do, however, agree that the combat aura might need definitely needs a bit of powering down. I myself think the Bard needs a fix anyway, despite how it's supposed to be back on its feet after CA, CS and such.
    Yeah, the bard does need a homebrew from Jiriku. He gave the rogue, swashbuckler, paladin, knight, monk, and fighter some serious upgrades, and while this evens them out with the full casters, the bard is lagging behind.
    Last edited by Hiro Protagonest; 2011-05-23 at 07:04 PM.
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Okuno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    In my opinion, a fighter should be T2 during combat, but T3-4 out of combat.
    Firstly, the tier system doesn't discriminate by activity performed, but let's go with your plan anyway, for the sake of argument. A T2-in-combat fighter would be around sorcerer. A sorcerer can Love's Pain a dragon to death without even ever being on the same plane. That's not something I want the fighter to do. Bring the casters down, not the fighters up. In fact, this is the idea behind jikiru's homebrew system: get the PCs at T3 or 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    I agree completely, but when one of those pieces can't hold it's end up the plan falls apart. An entire class should not be eclipsed by the class feature of another.
    Yeah, thus I still need to find an elegant workaround for dominate so the fighter can hold the line. This doesn't mean let the fighter massacre orcs from afar like a caster (though he could massacre them up-close and personal).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    Yes, but to get access to those defensive spells the fighter still needs a caster around. The best magic defenses are still the caster's domain.
    Yep, they do require casters, and that's part of the combined arms. If a wizard is gonna fight the big illithid, he may want to consider what would happen if his trusty fighter gets mind-controlled... perhaps some generosity is in order. Considering the best (non-broken) wizards are area control and buff, it falls to the fighter to kill stuff, not go all T2 and wreck the battlefield with self-generated immunity. It's not like T1 is any more powerful than T2, just T2s have strategies that are more predictable, hence better handleable by the DM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyvurg View Post
    A druid's companion should not be able to replace a fighter.
    There is not better agree. Except that shapeshift is bad too. Fun, but yucky for the fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonlley Tylenol
    I take issue with the fact that this not only subsumes the existing Fighter, Barbarian, and Samurai, but also (in many ways) the Paladin, Rogue and Bard.
    Yeah, the paladin which was always part of the fighter class (but sucks 3.0+), the rogue, which is mainly supposed to be an out-of-combat skillmonkey, not a dps with its sneak attacks, and the bard, which I agree with.

    Good homework, though. It really points out what needs to be done to ensure roles.

    A defense of the skill bonii, however: they're competence bonuses, so they don't stack with magic items; they're meant to reduce the fighter's reliance on magic, which the vanilla fighter is notorious for having to do. So you don't need Boots of Jumping and a Nosering of Cartwheels? Great, spend that gold on a weapon, like a fighter's supposed to.

    Now, the feats are tl;dr, so I'm surprised to find you can just add key skills with them. Regardless of balance, which sure looks silly, it degrades your choice of combat style. Why should Heimdall get to sneak about at level 1? It seems like the system should make cunning fighters into the stealth commandos, not the other styles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonlley Tylenol
    Bardic Knowledge is subsumed by the "key skill" competence bonuses
    Qua...? Bardic knowledge doesn't simulate any skill, it's like its own skill that no other class can get (even cc), and you don't have to buy.

    ---
    Now, though I see the problem of fighters sloshing over each other, and then over other classes, I'm going to take a stand on the number of skill points:

    Ever boost a fighter's int to gain more skill points? Unlikely, so a fighter can max a whopping two skills. Let's see what that fighter might like to do, to even be fighter-y: climb, jump, intimidate, ride, maybe swim. And if you want to have a backstory like being a farmer or stablehand, then you're really screwed.

    Here's the deal: the difference between lowest and highest skill points is a factor of 4. The factor for average hp is 2.6. For saves and BAB it's 2. What gives skills such a wide variance compared to other numbers? Nothing rational, that's for sure. If you give the rogue 8-10 skill points per level (plus int, which rogues actually use), then no class should have less than 4+int per level.

    Oh, and
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonlley Tylenol
    Was balance ever a concern for you?
    I know you probably don't background check people, but jikiru has a massive overhaul. Balance, especially feat balance) for him is going to be different than core.

    Still, as I copy text into word, I'm trying to bring the class into a better alignment with core so that it can be used more modularly with other rules.

    Here's some changes I'm making now: only two key skills per combat style. You might as well be handing some of the styles no-slot, no-pain relics x4.

    I say, the barbarian gets Knowledge (nature) and survival (you see Aragorn listen to the ground, but that seems survival-y, not listen-y; not all barbarians jump around). Commnader gets Sense Motive and a choice of intimidate or diplomacy (Sun Tzu says you need to know and control your troops, but bluff? no general controls his armies with bluff (though he might make his counter-intel control his opponent)). It's hard to decide for the cunning fighter, but I'm thinking Bluff and Sleight of Hand (the former for feint and the latter for palming those shivs; leave the info gathering to the secret agent-y class). For the Disciplined fighter, remove spot (it's weird, and concentration and iaijutsu focus come up only so often that he can have both for the price of one). I'll have to figure out the watchful fighter, but at least (and maybe just) remove intimidate. If I'm reading right (actually, I'm not, but it still doesn't seem like their scaling stuff is up to snuff) the weapon master doesn't get anything that scales like the skill boosts. I'd say "In addition, you may choose one of your class skills as a key skill."

    I've already dropped the will save, but that's contentious anyway. I've dropped the hit die to d10 except for barbarian ansd watchman (oh, I guess I should say I'm massaging the names for easier use). Changes I'm planning to make are rework the cavalry mount to something that has good RAW, probably enhance True Grit to deal with enchantments until I find a way to nerf the enchantments themselves. I've yet to sift the feats, but I know those add key skill feats will be dropped along with anything else that destroys each style's niche too much.

    I vote to nerf the aura a bit, but bring the bard up to compensate, too, so that's a complex task. Here's what I'm thinking for a rough pass: (1) bring range down to 5ft per class level; (2) uses per day roughly equal with bard's (maybe equal to (2*auras known) + cha bonus minimum 2 or 3, which might be complicated/MAD/weak, but it might let me keep roughly the same math for the specific auras); (3) give them a time limit, or to mix 2&3, give a number of minutes per day that the auras can be active; (4) Resilient Troops = bonus to one save, not all of them; (5) not let Hardy Soldiers stack the DR; (6) you might double the bonus from Follow my lead if it were competence, and circumstance is a weird modifier type considering the fluff screams morale and/or competence; (7) some bard stuff.

    Remember also that already the bard can use any music, but the fighter has to choose carefully which auras he knows. If the fighter chose the wrong aura for the situation, it's like the ability isn't even there. Which reminds me, (8) give some of that stuff level requirements. Say your first aura must be one of Weather the Storm, Resilient Troops, Motivate Urgency or Follow my Lead. Then you can't take Motivate Care or Motivate Ardor (possibly also hardy Soldiers) until your third aura. I wouldn't reduce the math because of it though.

    Now, if it seems like nerfing the auras (a fairly major class feature) nerfs the class down below target tier, I vote we extend Exceptional Strength to even better bonuses. That won't step on any toes (I'm starting to hate that expression).

    Questions: projecting a combat aura is a swift action, does this mean initiating it or also sustaining it? I vote sustain for tactics: then the fighter has to choose between his swift/immediate action options and improves the relative value of the capstone.
    Nitpicks: Under Weather the Storm, you have "all... energy types:... or sonic". Definitely supposed to be "and".

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Dralnu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    I think many people would agree that they'd love to see all the core classes remastered so they're both fun and balanced. Personally, however, I keep an eye on what power level they're balanced. I'd like to keep things upper tier 4 to low tier 3.

    Why this balance? For the DM's sake. That power level, in my opinion, is fairly easy to build encounters around. You can pick up classic premade campaigns like Red Hand of Doom and run it no problem. I've ran, and participated in, RHOD games played straight out of the box with a mix of t4 and low t3 classes (Barbarian, binder, duskblade, rogue, completely unoptimized healing druid, scout) and the experience was smooth as butter. It doesn't matter that a class is "tier 4" if they're all the same power level, they'll all feel equally badass.

    At the same time, I've seen what the upper tier 3 classes can do to campaigns. Warblade and Dread Necromancer specifically. It's not pretty. As the DM, you really need to sit down and spend a lot more time crafting challenges for these characters. Some DMs simply can't do it, especially the newer ones, and it's very discouraging when that happens. I shudder to think what an optimized tier 1-2 class does to a campaign when they have all their toys available. I thankfully never had to experience such a thing in a real session.

    Therefore, my personal design philosophy when approaching homebrew:
    1) Is this class fun?
    2) How much of a potential headache is this class for a DM?


    I understand that some people want their homebrew at the upper tier 3, or even tier 2 level. They may have high-powered gaming sessions and want to bring something competitive to their tables. That's absolutely fine. I'm just saying that personally, this is what I'm looking for. Something my players can bring to one of the premade campaigns I bought and fit in smoothly.

    A final note: switching tiers is fairly easy, in most cases. You keep all the abilities and just tweak the numbers. Blahblah aura is tier 3 when it gives +6? Make it give +3 instead.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Okuno View Post
    Yeah, the paladin which was always part of the fighter class (but sucks 3.0+), the rogue, which is mainly supposed to be an out-of-combat skillmonkey, not a dps with its sneak attacks, and the bard, which I agree with.
    If this Fighter can do it better, it subsumes it. As far as I can see, Fighter does an exceptional job of out-of-combat skillmonkey here, so Rogue is subsumed by it. (Note that I made reference to my complaint about skills with the Bard when listing complaints about the Rogue; I just didn't feel like repeating myself.)

    A defense of the skill bonii, however: they're competence bonuses, so they don't stack with magic items; they're meant to reduce the fighter's reliance on magic, which the vanilla fighter is notorious for having to do. So you don't need Boots of Jumping and a Nosering of Cartwheels? Great, spend that gold on a weapon, like a fighter's supposed to.

    Now, the feats are tl;dr, so I'm surprised to find you can just add key skills with them. Regardless of balance, which sure looks silly, it degrades your choice of combat style. Why should Heimdall get to sneak about at level 1? It seems like the system should make cunning fighters into the stealth commandos, not the other styles.
    I'm aware that they don't stack with magic items. The fact that you don't need Boots of Jumping or Nosering of Cartwheels or Frilly Pink Blouse of Balance just means that any such money will instead be spent on magic items that accentuate their strengths. That's all fine and dandy, but it seems to do two things to me: First, it devalues the magic item system (magic items for skill bonus on Jump? I've got magic feet for that), and second, it devalues the skill system. Here's what I mean.

    At level 17, the Fighter gains Mastery VI of his style. It is at this point that any of the four (count 'em, four) skills that are key class skills for this style get a +20 bonus, and furthermore, the Fighter can "take 20" on these skills without increasing the time of use, even under averse conditions. That means that, even under extreme conditions, a Commander can be assumed to have a result of at least 39 on every Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive check (untrained, 8 CHA/WIS, no synergies), and a Watchful Fighter can be assumed to have a result of 39 on their Intimidate, Listen, Sense Motive and Spot checks (untrained, 8 CHA/WIS, no synergies), and so on.

    To put things in perspective, here are things that a Fighter will be able to do by level 17, as a result of class abilities, skill synergies, or decent stats:

    Diplomacy:
    Change a Hostile person's attitude to "friendly" or an Unhelpful person's attitude to "helpful": A Fighter with Diplomacy as a key skill can do this automatically.
    Change a Helpful person's attitude to "fanatic": 10 ranks (or the equivalent in stat bonus to CHA, or skill synergies to Diplomacy, of which there are many, or 5 + aura) + free "take 20" + 20 competence bonus = 50 DC check auto-passed
    Change a Hostile person's attitude to "helpful": 10 ranks (see "Helpful" to "Fanatic") = 50 DC check auto-passed
    Change a Friendly person's attitude to "fanatic": 20 ranks (or equivalent in bonuses) + free "take 20" + 20 competence bonus = 60 DC check auto-passed

    Gather Information:
    Avoid arousing suspicion: Assumed to always have a result of at least 20 (free "take 20" + 20 competence bonus - 20 penalty to check to avoid suspicion, plus ranks/stat bonuses). With the aura, this result is 25.

    Handle Animal:
    Rear and train a magical beast: Can always do this as long as the total bonuses to the skill are equal to the creature's HD (for example, to be able to rear and train a Displacer Beast, the Fighter's skill ranks and bonuses must equal +6). The DC for rearing is 30+HD, and the DC for training is 40+HD. With the skill bonus from the aura, a Fighter with 1 rank in Handle Animal can rear and train a Displacer Beast.
    Rear and train vermin: Can always do this as long as the total bonuses to the skill are equal to 10 + the creature's HD (to train a Giant Ant queen, for instance, the Fighter's skill ranks and bonuses must equal +14). The DC for rearing is 35+HD (the Fighter can more or less do this for free), but the DC for training is 50+HD.
    Rear any creature: Can do this under any circumstance where a Fighter can train a magical beast, since the DC is also 40+HD. Training is difficult; the DC is 60+HD.
    Reduce training time to 1 month (any skill): The Fighter can do this automatically, as the DC is 25 + existing DC of task, except for combat-related activities, in which case the Fighter needs at least a +5 bonus from skill ranks (remember that swift action aura!). Reducing training time to 1 day is possible, but not likely (the DC is 50 + existing DC of task).

    Hide:
    Hide another: The Fighter can hide another with a -30 penalty to his check, and so can be assumed to have a result of 10 with no stat bonuses or ranks (15 with aura).

    Intimidate:
    Intimidate a fanatic: The Fighter can automatically Intimate a Fanatic for which the DC check would normally be less than 20 (Fanatic's DC modifier is +20).

    Jump:
    Jump has no epic uses, but a Fighter can automatically jump 10 feet vertically, or 40 feet horizontally, without ranks or aura (11 vertical and 45 horizontal with aura).

    Ride:
    Stand on mount: A Fighter can automatically do this ("take 20" + 20 competence bonus = DC 40).
    Unconscious control: A Fighter can do this with 10 ranks, or the equivalent in DEX bonuses, skill synergies, and auras. (DC 50)
    Attack from cover: A Fighter can do this with 20 ranks, or the equivalent with DEX bonuses, skill synergies, and auras. (DC 60)

    Sense Motive:
    Discern partial alignment: A Fighter can do this with 20 ranks, or the equivalent in WIS bonuses, skill synergies and auras. (DC 60)

    Sleight of Hand:
    Steal weapon: A Fighter can steal a creature's weapon without them knowing it as long as the Fighter has at least 10 ranks, or the equivalent in DEX bonuses, skill synergies and auras. (DC 50)

    Spellcraft (requires Arcane Hunter feat):
    Identify item: A Fighter can identify magical properties of an item, as with the identify spell, with a DC check of 50 + caster level (and so needs a total of 10 + caster level ranks, synergies, etc).
    Quick identification of potions: A Fighter can identify a potion's properties as a full-round action without an alchemical lab with 10 ranks, or the equivalent in INT bonuses, skill synergies, and auras.

    Spot:
    Detect invisible creature or object: A Fighter can automatically detect the presence of an unmoving, non-living, invisible creature or object. Further, a Fighter can pinpoint the exact location of an active invisible creature automatically, or the exact location of an unmoving (but living) invisible creature with 10 or more ranks (5 with aura). The DC for detecting an active invisible creature is 20; immobile invisible creature, 30; and inanimate invisible object (or unmoving, unliving creature), 40. Pinpointing the exact location can be done if you beat the DC by 20.
    Read lips while moving at full speed: A Fighter can automatically read a subject's lips (increase DC check by 20).
    Pronounce unfamiliar language: A Fighter can automatically do this (increase DC check by 20).

    Survival:
    Get along in the wild at full speed: A Fighter can automatically provide himself food and water while moving at full speed (no impairment of movement). A Fighter can extend this benefit to 1 party member for every two ranks, or equivalent in bonuses to Survival. The DC is 40 + 2/person.
    Automatically pass Fortitude saves for weather, and ignore movement penalties: A Fighter can do this with 20 ranks in Survival (or the equivalent in bonuses, yada yada).

    These were taken from the Epic Skills page of the SRD. Anything less than an epic-level check is pretty much automatically passed; I checked.

    Many epic-level skill checks (like turning someone into a Fanatic), a Fighter with that skill as a key skill can just automatically "do" by taking 20 for free, even if it's an untrained skill. At level 17, when you first get the ability, you can start turning people into fanatics, which seems a little... Off. Further, if you really wanted to delve into epic-level skill uses, you could actually invest some ranks into these epic skills, grab skill synergies, etc. Then, you can Spellcraft better than your party Wizard, Move Silently better than your party Rogue could ever hope to do, and so on. Really, anything with a DC of 65 or less (counting skill ranks and aura, but not counting skill synergies and attribute bonuses) is an "auto-pass" if you invested maximum ranks in that skill; by level 20, anything with a DC of 70 or less is an "auto-pass" if you have +2 in skill synergies or an attribute bonus of +2, with maximum ranks.

    Qua...? Bardic knowledge doesn't simulate any skill, it's like its own skill that no other class can get (even cc), and you don't have to buy.
    EDIT: I kerfuffled. A Fighter can "take 40" on half the core Knowledge checks (and often overlap Bardic Knowledge with things like local and nobility/royalty), but cannot ever directly emulate Bardic Knowledge.

    Now, though I see the problem of fighters sloshing over each other, and then over other classes, I'm going to take a stand on the number of skill points:

    Ever boost a fighter's int to gain more skill points? Unlikely, so a fighter can max a whopping two skills.
    Assume I'm making a "skill monkey" updated Fighter, instead of a "skill monkey" Rogue. Just go with me here on this. I'm Human both ways, and I have an INT of 16. (Great, but not caster-equivalent.) We won't take Nymph's Kiss, even though it's good for skill monkeys.

    "Skill monkey" Rogue gets 12 skill points per level, and a wide range of skills with which to apply them. Great for "Skill monkey" Rogue; I mean, he's not that great in combat, but at least he's got this going for him, right?

    "Skill monkey" Fighter gets 8 skill points per skill level, and his range of applicable skills is limited. But wait! We're making an optimized Skill Monkey, and we want him to be "roguish", so I choose Cunning Fighter, and gain Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local) and Sleight of Hand as key skills. Along the way, I pick up Noble Knight (Diplomacy and Knowledge N&R), Quickdraw Duelist (Iajitsu Focus and Sense Motive), Savage Warrior (Knowledge Nature and Survival), and Stealthy Commando (Hide and Move Silently) as core feats, knowing that I've got 11 Fighter feats to worry about all the fighting stuff (unlike a Rogue, who... Doesn't). I may have four fewer skill points per level than "Skill monkey" Rogue, but unlike the Rogue, I will never need to put points into Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge (Local), Sleight of Hand, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty), Iajitsu Focus, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Nature), Survival, Hide or Move Silently, because the bonuses scale with me as competence bonuses, and I can take 10 and even 20 with them as I level through. I also always have the skill aura on while out-of-combat, because I'm the "skill monkey". By level 17, I already "take 45" on all these skills, with attribute being the only variant, so instead of investing skills in them, I invest in utility skills that a Roguish character might need (as I've got more skills to invest cross-class, and can ignore 12 skills that I'll be "taking 45" on) or just grab whatever I feel like.

    I'm doing more "skill monkey" stuff than a Rogue ever could. If I wanted, I could take Disable Device, Open Lock and Disguise cross-class, thus eating up all the key skills for Rogues, and still have more skill utility than a Rogue with only my Fighter bonuses to go on.

    Oh, and I also have Sneak Attack +8d6 and can feint with "take 40" on Bluff as a free action, so I'm even doing the Rogue's one combat trick better than a Rogue ever could (though I was doing more damage than the Rogue ever could anyway).

    While I'm talking about skills in combat... I suppose I could do some pretty stupid things in combat too. If I choose Disciplined or Weapon Master, I gain Concentration as a class and key skill; I can then pump ranks into Concentration (this probably isn't the "Skill monkey" Fighter talking, but just any Fighter in general), take a one- or two-level dip into Swordsage (for the double progression in initiator level) and take a feat for Martial Study, granting myself Greater Insightful Strike and doing twice my Concentration check roll in damage. Since I had planned for this strategy through to level 20, I put 23 points in Concentration, have a good CON modifier (let's say it's +7 after item bonuses, because I like round numbers), am using the skill aura (which is an equivalent to the +damage aura, but applies to this strike), and I "take 20" with the +20 competence bonus and no other modifiers. My strike will be doing an automatic 150 damage. Even if I don't dip into Swordsage or Warblade, I can still grab Insightful Strike for an automatic 75 damage. If I'd like, I can do both (taking Martial Study twice). If I get bored, I can waive them away with Martial Aptitude and bring them back whenever I want with... Martial Aptitude.

    Here's the deal: the difference between lowest and highest skill points is a factor of 4. The factor for average hp is 2.6. For saves and BAB it's 2. What gives skills such a wide variance compared to other numbers? Nothing rational, that's for sure. If you give the rogue 8-10 skill points per level (plus int, which rogues actually use), then no class should have less than 4+int per level.
    The level of importance placed on skills pales in comparison to the level of importance placed on HP and BAB. Ask yourself this question: Which is better, a Fighter, or a Fighter with a Rogue's BAB and skill points/level (nothing else changed)? How about a Fighter with a Rogue's HP and skill points/level?

    My guess is that you're going to choose straight Fighter, because giving up HP or BAB for skill points is counter-intuitive to being a fighter. I mean, great, you can pick locks, but now you can't take a hit from the troll with the club, or land a hit against the backside of a gazebo.

    EDIT: I should probably note that I am not opposed to having a Fighter get 4 + INT bonus skill points per level, normally. What I am opposed to is the Fighter getting 4 + INT bonus skill points per level, plus a way to get more than a dozen skills treated as class skills and "key skills", plus the insane competence bonuses and the "Improved Skill Mastery" benefit for your "key skills". You should never, ever be allowed to "take 40"/"take 45" on a dozen different skills as a class feature/class feature plus "class-only" feats, especially when that's only a secondary feature of a single class ability on a class which gets six or seven even better class abilities. No thanks.

    I know you probably don't background check people, but jikiru has a massive overhaul. Balance, especially feat balance) for him is going to be different than core.
    Then I hope he comes up with epic revisions for the Paladin, Rogue and Bard, because I see no reason to play them over Fighter unless they're scaled up drastically.
    Last edited by Lonely Tylenol; 2011-05-24 at 05:12 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    On the subject of Will saves for fighters: I think the idea that "fighters traditionally have weak mental saves" and "fighters should have weak will" and so forth is complete and total bunk. I don't mean from a pop-cultural perspective--though pop culture certainly disagrees as well, take a look at Conan, Aragorn, and most other hit-things-with-metal protagonists--I'm just talking about D&D tradition here.

    In 1e, the fighter's base "Will save" (save vs. spells/save vs. rod) was only 3 points behind his base "Fort save" (save vs. polymorph/save vs. death magic) on average at 1st level, and only 1 point behind on average at the highest levels. In fact, starting around level 10ish, a fighter's "Will saves" pulled ahead of the cleric's, and his base "Reflex save" (save vs. breath weapons) was better than the thief's by level 5! Fighters started out with poor Will saves, sure, but their saves advanced fastest (every 2 levels, as opposed to every 3 for the cleric, every 4 for the thief, and every 5 for the magic-user) and by the endgame (levels 17 and up) they had among the best saves.

    If you look at all the last numbers on the saving throw chart (level 17+ for fighters, 19+ for clerics, and 21+ for thieves and magic-users), fighters had 4 of their 5 base saves better than clerics (all but Death Magic) and 3 of 5 better than thieves and magic-users (Rod and Spells)--and if you just look at level 17-18, the fighter had saves equal to or better than every other class in every single category. In the first five levels, when the fighter and its subclasses have traditionally been better than the other classes for the most part, yes, the fighter has weak Will saves; it's a good weakness in an otherwise-amazing class. When dominate person comes online at level 9, however, the fighter has as good a save as the cleric and thief (only worse than the magic-user by 2), and by the time the truly dangerous Will-targeting Enchantment and Illusion spells come online (mass versions of hold X and dominate X, the power words, and so forth), it's actually the clerics and thieves you need to worry about until you hit "epic levels" at 21st.

    So if this fix is actually "doin' it old-school," the fighter should not only have a better-than-poor Will, he should have better-than-poor Ref as well. Granted, it should probably be done through a Grace- or Battle Fortitude-type ability to approximate a medium save (so he ends up with +12 Fort, +9 Ref, +9 Will), rather than giving good Ref and Will, since all good saves is one of the few things the monk has and otherwise the fighter becomes a bit too dippable with the new class features and all. Whether you go with good or medium saves, though, the fighter should not have, and never has had, exceptionally poor reflexes and strength of will.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Gideon Falcon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    He already has. Check his Signature. He combined the Knight and Paladin into a class, the Rogue and Swashbuckler into one class, and the Ranger and Scout into one class, for one thing. Although, again, he should probably just get rid of the Cunning Fighter and export its features onto the rogue/swashbuckler, as it still needs a bit more crunch. In addition, I like other Paladin fixes better than his. The Ranger, though, was possibly his first masterpiece IMHO.

    Also, the 'take 20' is only usable once per encounter. I myself also don't see much wrong with devaluing the magic item system. Really, most (not all, but most) of the things that you're complaining about with the ultra-high DC's are not that big a problem. Also, keep in mind that Spellcraft is not a key skill for any fighting style, and as such it can't benefit from the bonuses or 10's and 20's. In addition, the +20 bonuses can be easily gained from magic items.

    Still, I do think that Combat Aura is too much.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Gideon Falcon View Post
    He already has. Check his Signature. He combined the Knight and Paladin into a class, the Rogue and Swashbuckler into one class, and the Ranger and Scout into one class, for one thing. Although, again, he should probably just get rid of the Cunning Fighter and export its features onto the rogue/swashbuckler, as it still needs a bit more crunch. In addition, I like other Paladin fixes better than his. The Ranger, though, was possibly his first masterpiece IMHO.
    I will check them out then; however, it's important to note that I still think this class is imbalanced, and would not pass the DM test of "would I allow this to be houseruled in?"

    Also, the 'take 20' is only usable once per encounter.
    That's still a free free-action feint (bluff with Sneak Attack) or one-shot kill (Concentration and Insightful Strike/Greater) once per encounter, and with the +20 competence bonus, you're still going to pass most in-combat checks for free. I don't see any out-of-combat restrictions.

    I myself also don't see much wrong with devaluing the magic item system.
    It takes away the element of choice. "Skills or battle prowess?" becomes an irrelevant choice, because skills in their totality are covered by class features, meaning all your magic items are going to focus on combat prowess. When you are a combat-oriented class that gets "half your skills are auto-pass" as a class feature, it skews the balance away from emphasizing some talents over others.

    Imagine if, instead of having to choose between combat prowess and magic, they house-ruled True Strike to be 1hr/lvl self-buff that gave +1 BAB/2 levels and an extra iterative attack every ten levels! Now you can eat cake AND ice cream!

    Really, most (not all, but most) of the things that you're complaining about with the ultra-high DC's are not that big a problem.
    They're not a problem because they imply an epic-level difficulty. Being able to turn someone into a fanatic is one thing if it's something that is appropriately difficult, requires a lot of concentrated effort, and is perhaps even impossible without a number of circumstance bonuses and the like; it's another thing entirely when you can, as a secondary class feature that requires no investment, wave your over someone's eyes, say "you're my fanatic," and have them respond (without fail) with "I'm your fanatic." The concept of "skill difficulty" is devalued entirely. (I'm ignoring skills that aren't epic-level, because all of them are auto-pass simply by virtue of the competence bonus.)

    Also, keep in mind that Spellcraft is not a key skill for any fighting style, and as such it can't benefit from the bonuses or 10's and 20's.
    The Arcane Hunter feat.

    In addition, the +20 bonuses can be easily gained from magic items.
    But now, doesn't need to be. Instead of wasting your boot slot on Boots of Jumping in order to perform epic-equivalent Jump checks, you equip "Boots of Kicking Rear Really, Really Hard +6" and make epic-level checks as a secondary class feature.

    Still, I do think that Combat Aura is too much.[/QUOTE]

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Okuno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    I should probably note that I am not opposed to having a Fighter get 4 + INT bonus skill points per level, normally. What I am opposed to is the Fighter getting 4 + INT bonus skill points per level, plus a way to get more than a dozen skills treated as class skills and "key skills", plus the insane competence bonuses and the "Improved Skill Mastery" benefit for your "key skills". You should never, ever be allowed to "take 40"/"take 45" on a dozen different skills as a class feature/class feature plus "class-only" feats, especially when that's only a secondary feature of a single class ability on a class which gets six or seven even better class abilities. No thanks.
    Then you probably should have looked at the extent of my argument. Granted, some of those bounds were unstated, like ceteris paribus, but they often were quite clear.

    E.g. perhaps you remember when I said "I'm surprised to find you can just add key skills with them"? If it wasn't clear, lemme translate that: "What is this load? And why?"

    I proposed roughly halving the number of key skills, and removing the feats which add new key skills (a single feat for two good magic items? Yeah, that does devalue the magic item system, no argument there). I bet jikiru had it already, so I didn't mention it, but let's get a spiffy feat in there for Improved Skill Mastery (and restrict who can take it). And that's just skills, I say nerf the aura as well.

    Now, you wanna lower the bonuses? Fewer class skills? restrictions on what activities the bonus count for? Free ranks instead of competence bonuses? Fair enough, but let's get the obvious stuff (which btw, goes beyond skills) out of the way and re-evaluate as we go.

    If you really want a coronary over bonuses, check out jikiru's monk. ^o^

    Throw a bunch in a spoiler 'cause it's fairly unimportant:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Now, a couple random bits: You're often not addressing me, though you quote me. It's a strange argumentative style to use me as a vicarious target, but whatever, I'll shoot back.

    My "Qua?" stands. Throw away the key skill feats, the fighter doesn't get any special bonuses on knowledge, no overlap with bardic knowledge.

    Then, along the same lines, considering the skill monkeys comparison, the fighter I'm considering gets two skills he can ignore. The rogue uses gold to supplement because he doesn't need to concentrate on his weapon and armor.

    Along other lines, give the rogue 10 + int skill points per level. That's par for the course with this system.

    Then to fighter capabilities, you claim a 17th level fighter can attack from cover while riding a mount. I bloody well hope so. I might appreciate your honesty if you hadn't obscured that little fact in giant absurdity tags. Same with jump. Most of the rest disappear when you actually consider what I'm arguing.


    Now, you've listed a ton of things the fighter can do with it's bonuses. I'm going to take the shorter, more informative route of seeing what the fighter can do with the recouped opportunity cost. Remember, I'm considering the fighter with two key skills.

    Here's a table that shows how much the fighter's skill bonuses are worth in gp at important levels. In other words, this is how much he can improve other items he has (you know, because the point is to reduce magic item dependence). Let's also have some info about WBL and a comparison column to show the percent saved.
    {table=head]Lv|Bonus|Equiv. Cost|WBL|Saved|Notes

    2|+2|200|900|22%|this one can be done w/ tools

    5|+5|10000|9000|111%|

    9|+10|40000|36000|111%|

    13|+15|90000|110000|81%|

    17|+20|160000|340000|47%|
    [/table]

    That's all you had to show. No one here wants to double (quadruple with jikiru's RAW) the assets of a 5th level fighter, even if some of those assets aren't liquid. Verdict: reduce bonuses. Incontrovertible, really. This even explains why four key skills is too much, and it explains why two key skills per feat (or even one) is also too much.

    Here's something I might use {formatted to "(level, bonus)"}: (2, +2), (8, +4), (13, +8), (15, +12), (18, +16). How did I find this? I took bonus^2*100 from the DMG table 7-33, times two for no slot dependency and another two for two key skills, times four because a 25% reduction in magic item use is nothing to scoff at, and looked up what that number most closely resembled in the WBL table.

    My motto: no made up numbers!

    More spoilers, 'cause it's boring:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    If I choose Disciplined or Weapon Master, I gain Concentration as a class and key skill; I can then pump ranks into Concentration (this probably isn't the "Skill monkey" Fighter talking, but just any Fighter in general), take a one- or two-level dip into Swordsage (for the double progression in initiator level) and take a feat for Martial Study, granting myself Greater Insightful Strike and doing twice my Concentration check roll in damage.
    Ooh, that's interesting. I'm not gonna comment much, since ToB was pretty much a fighter fix itself. OTOH, Weapon Master doesn't get any key skills (unless you're still for some reason allowing the add key skills feats), so I'm not sure where some of that is coming from. Ah, yes, and let's not forget the uberchargers.

    Optimizers can wreck everything. A homebrew should spend more time worrying about the average user, you know, the ones with their ideas boxed in by names AKA the ones having fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol View Post
    Then I hope he comes up with epic revisions for the Paladin, Rogue and Bard, because I see no reason to play them over Fighter unless they're scaled up drastically.
    Honestly, I've never seen reason to play paladin, particularly over cleric. And why choose bard? Because you're the fifth member and don't know what role to fill, so you just play back-up when the main drops. Rogue? Ah, well, I've handled what I think enough.

    The fact is, if you're looking at a high-level vanilla campaign, just take a party of wizards and you're done. Even just plugging in jikiru's fighter as-is at time of post means you can afford a fighter in your 20th-level party, but you'd still be better off with a wizard. Now to make the rest of the classes sorta relevant for that kind of play. You make a lot of reference to the 17th level fighter; keep your pants on. Especially while we hear from more people. The creator hasn't even posted in days.



    Alright, now to something that demands serious argument and not just a bunch of arithmetic ^.^

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
    In 1e, the fighter's base "Will save" (save vs. spells/save vs. rod) was only 3 points behind his base "Fort save" (save vs. polymorph/save vs. death magic) on average at 1st level, and only 1 point behind on average at the highest levels. In fact, starting around level 10ish, a fighter's "Will saves" pulled ahead of the cleric's, and his base "Reflex save" (save vs. breath weapons) was better than the thief's by level 5! Fighters started out with poor Will saves, sure, but their saves advanced fastest (every 2 levels, as opposed to every 3 for the cleric, every 4 for the thief, and every 5 for the magic-user) and by the endgame (levels 17 and up) they had among the best saves.
    Yep, the 3.Xe system has simpler saving throw progressions. Fix that, and you can bring the saves in line with tradition. That's beyond the scope of this homebrew.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
    When dominate person comes online...
    Yep, dominate person is yucky. Again, beyond the scope...

    Really, these say one thing: without remaking the system, trying to model tradition could go either way. This leaves the argument at: combined arms. This is partially manifested through (as I thought someone said already) the three basic classes each having a single, different good save.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
    the fighter should not have, and never has had, exceptionally poor reflexes and strength of will.
    Now here is the key! You could say a bad save is "waaah, it's the worst evar!" or you could say "pshh, it's just one, measly step away", and both of these descriptions are equally valid @.@

    So, cut the emotion away and have at the mechanics using the principles of game design. Tradition helps make things a little more relateable to those who happen to already be there, but people will learn new traditions. What is more, it's the game in itself that brings the fun, a la:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dralnu
    personal design philosophy:
    1) Is this class fun?
    2) How much of a potential headache is this class for a DM?

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Okuno View Post
    Yep, the 3.Xe system has simpler saving throw progressions. Fix that, and you can bring the saves in line with tradition. That's beyond the scope of this homebrew.

    Yep, dominate person is yucky. Again, beyond the scope...

    Really, these say one thing: without remaking the system, trying to model tradition could go either way. This leaves the argument at: combined arms. This is partially manifested through (as I thought someone said already) the three basic classes each having a single, different good save.
    I'm not saying to fix saving throws, or change dominate person, or model 2e more, or anything like that. If that's what you got out of my post, there was a failure of communication. What I am saying is simply that since 3e was created the myth has been going around that fighters are slow and weak-willed, when in fact in AD&D they were the most resilient class for most of the game. All of the people complaining about the fighter having a good Will save should realize that the fighter's "Will saves" in AD&D were off by at most 1-3 points from the fighter's Fort saves; fighters don't have "weak-willed" as part of their schtick any more than any other class does.

    Now here is the key! You could say a bad save is "waaah, it's the worst evar!" or you could say "pshh, it's just one, measly step away", and both of these descriptions are equally valid @.@

    So, cut the emotion away and have at the mechanics using the principles of game design. Tradition helps make things a little more relateable to those who happen to already be there, but people will learn new traditions. What is more, it's the game in itself that brings the fun, a la:
    Again, I don't see where you're seeing any emotional outpouring in my post; the italics and all signify emphasis, not ranting, and the numbers were there for example purposes.

    If we're talking grades of saving throw, a poor Will save is technically two steps away, given that you can use a Grace- or Battle Fortitude-type ability for a pseudo-medium save. "Steps" aren't the important qualifier, though, the total modifier is. A difference of +6 at 20th level is significant, however many "steps" away from a good progression it is. Save DCs can get up to around 32 at higher levels (19 for a 9th level spell, plus 36 key stat from 18 + 4-5 level + 0-2 racial + 4-5 inherent + 6 booster), while good saves hover around +20ish (+12 from levels, +5 from a resistance item, +1 to +5 from a secondary or lower stat).

    That means you usually need a roll of 13 to make the save, assuming a +2 in the stat. Drop the save mod by 6, and you need to roll a 19 to make the save. An average fighter with a 20 in Con and a 10 in Wis makes a Fort save on a 12 and has to rely on natural 20s for the Will save and hope the enemy can't make him reroll. The disparity won't always be that large, granted, but a MAD martial type going up against a SAD caster type will generally have problems with weak saves, and an extra +6 helps a lot. It is not merely "one measly step away" from a good save, it can be the difference between having a chance at making a save and getting taken out of the combat in round 1.

    And, FYI, I am looking at it from a game design perspective. I fully support the decision to give fighters better saves due to sound reasons founded on principles of good game design, and have been arguing against those who object to this for unsound reasons by showing why those reasons do not have any basis. Were someone to bring up a mathematical argument as to why fighters shouldn't have good Will saves, I'd argue against it with math, but such hasn't happened thus far. It is you who is overreacting in this instance.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lonely Tylenol's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Okuno View Post
    Then you probably should have looked at the extent of my argument. Granted, some of those bounds were unstated, like ceteris paribus, but they often were quite clear.

    E.g. perhaps you remember when I said "I'm surprised to find you can just add key skills with them"? If it wasn't clear, lemme translate that: "What is this load? And why?"
    I'm sorry. I read it differently; I thought you were following your surprise with something along the lines of "so?", which is more akin to Gideon Falcon's sentiment than "what is this load? And why?"

    It should be noted that I tend to read things in the "reply" box instead of the actual post, then reply to paragraphs individually as I've finished reading them. This is kinda more in keeping with the traditional idea that individual paragraphs represent individual thoughts and should be treated as such, rather than a more forum-friendly approach, but something I address in Paragraph 2 may be made irrelevant in Paragraph 6, which I'll get to in Paragraph 6. Oftentimes I go back and fix it before posting, and sometimes I go back and edit it with big "EDIT:" tags. Sometimes, however, I post on my phone (like I am now), and when my posts get too long, I just say "screw it" and try to choose my words more carefully in the future.

    I apologize for any offenses I've caused.

    Like I said, I'm on a phone, so I'll address the rest of your post later, but it seems like we're both thinking "why can't we all just agree on a happy middle ground?" so continuing the discussion with you is more likely than not to be largely semantic (I haven't read it all in-depth yet).

    I proposed roughly halving the number of key skills, and removing the feats which add new key skills (a single feat for two good magic items? Yeah, that does devalue the magic item system, no argument there). I bet jikiru had it already, so I didn't mention it, but let's get a spiffy feat in there for Improved Skill Mastery (and restrict who can take it). And that's just skills, I say nerf the aura as well.
    I'd be fine with that, only I'd probably keep the same range of possible skills, but say "select any one skill" instead.

    Okay, I'll leave you alone now.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    This is good debate, and is evolving my thinking. Going into this I'll say that I don't expect to please all of you - fixing the fighter requires too many changes for everyone to agree with all of them. However, I think we can make this a better class.

    Several considerations have been raised about the remixed fighter:

    1. The Good Will save progression may be "too good for a fighter"
    2. Some kits are similar to but more powerful than a paladin, rogue, or bard.
    3. The number of genre-crossing options depletes the niche value of each kit.
    4. The key skill feature is overpowered.
    5. The combat aura feature is overpowered.


    I'm swayed by several of these concerns, and others I'm inclined to debate on their merits, so let me address each one.


    The Good Will save progression may be "too good for a fighter"
    Spoiler
    Show
    • Fighters are supposed to be strong-willed: resisting the evil necromancer's spell with your fury/discipline/willpower/devotion is a classic, classic, classic, staple of the genre. The Big Damn Hero always makes his save against mind-affecting magic when it counts. In fact, if you look at fantasy novelization, the fellow who usually gets dominated by the evil wizard is the guardsman or man-at-arms -- an NPC warrior.
    • Most Tier 3 classes get two good saves: I'm just running with the crowd here. And if I gave the fighter a good Reflex save, I guarantee people who complain about cartwheels in full plate.
    • They need it: Saves don't exist in a vacuum. They're part of your overall defensive strategy, which includes AC, miss chance, energy resistance, spell resistance, damage reduction, immunities, debuff and battlefield control. Fighters have fewer options in this arena than, say, a beguiler, crusader, warlock, or swordsage, so their base defenses should be stout.



    Some kits are similar to but more powerful than a paladin, rogue, or bard.
    Spoiler
    Show
    • Paladin and rogue are bad classes: paladins do nothing well, while rogues are frequently useless in combat and most of their class functions can be duplicated with 2nd- and 3rd-level spells. It speaks well of the fighter remix if it outshines these poor classes. Refer to my knight-paladin and daring outlaw classes for remixes of the paladin and rogue.
    • A commanding fighter is similar to a bard, but doesn't replace the bard: bardic music can easily be optimized to equal or outshine Combat Aura and Commanding Aura. And so what if the two are roughly comparable with skills? Each has its own strengths: the bard can be more versatile by virtue of his powerful spellcasting, while the fighter is more capable in melee combat by virtue of his bonus feats and better combat statistics. You probably wouldn't want both a commanding fighter and a bard in the same party, but it's not a no-brainer to pick the former over the latter.



    The number of genre-crossing options depletes the niche value of each kit.
    Spoiler
    Show

    • The kit-feats allow character customization: What if you want to play a dishonorable samurai infamous for cheating during iaijutsu duels, or a special-forces soldier skilled at wilderness survival, or a dirty-tricks pit gladiator who iai-draws against his opponents? The kit-feats function as tools that make it easy to create these character concepts.
    • Similar isn't bad: likewise, when such-and-such kit is similar to another class, is that a problem? You choose the option that you like. An issue only arises when one class is overdetermined because it is much better than all other choices. For example, wizard is a bad class because it fills every role and is better at all of them than almost all of the other choices in each niche.


    The key skill feature is overpowered.
    Spoiler
    Show
    • This argument has some weight, and I'm considering making adjustments. The mathematical argument was especially compelling, because I'm really a numbers guy.
    • But are we measuring with the right kind of ruler? It's easy to compare bonuses from one class to another, but looking strictly at magic item costs only produces a true comparison if a magic item is the optimum way to obtain the same bonus. Usually, magic items that grant bonuses are overpriced, and the same benefit can be had for much less by thinking outside of the box.
    • At level 17, we might look at the watchful fighter and the dread necromancer and conclude that the dread necromancer must pay 160,000 gp to duplicate the fighter's competence bonuses to Intimidate, Listen, Sense Motive, and Spot. However, the DN probably wouldn't buy those items; instead, he'd find a cheaper way to achieve a similar capability.
    • For example, the DN could spend a fraction of that sum to improve his rebuke undead ability, then rebuke a nightshade, gaining the benefit of the creature's impressive Listen, Sense Motive, and Spot modifiers (and excellent sensory capabilities) plus its formidable combat skills and many special abilities. Or he could simply confront and kill the 17th-level watchful fighter, raise him as a vampire and rebuke it, and he's set. Either approach would produce a better return on investment than paying 160k for some skill bonuses.
    • I think we as a community tend to chronically overvalue bonuses, which merely let you play the game, and undervalue options, which let you redefine the game. What's your perspective?
    • Also, when looking at skills, let's dispense with the Diplomacy argument: that horse won't run. The Diplomacy skill is broken, and Rich Burlew's fix is praiseworthy and should be used instead.


    The combat aura feature is overpowered.
    Spoiler
    Show
    I've seen people call this "weak" and I've seen it called "too good". Can anyone in the "weak" crowd tell me what the "too good" crowd is missing? My thought is that the aura reproduces a number of basic buff spells on the cleric list, but scales less well, and makes it nigh-impossible to stack buffs. Hardly anyone would be complaining about a martial class with some very weak clerical half-castery stuff, so I'm wondering what the concern is about.
    Last edited by jiriku; 2011-05-25 at 12:17 PM.
    D&D Remix for 3.x: balanced base classes and feats, all in the authentic flavor of the originals. Newest: shadowcaster. Most popular: monk and fighter.

    Innovative new mid-tier classes compatible with 3.x and 3.x Remix: Machinist, Shapeshifter, Avatar, Magus of Blades, Ritualist, Magician, Dawnblade, Summoner, plus 5 elemental casters!


  28. - Top - End - #88
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Okuno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol
    Okay, I'll leave you alone now.
    Yikes, I didn't think I came off that strong <.< Regardless, I consider ideas as highly fungible, so you're not going to offend, and I'm going to stay away from ad hominem myself. (Phone-posting 0.0 Well, I guess they write novels on their phones in Japan...) On the other hand, a paragraph might house a thought, but an argument has several thoughts within. What can I say, I read David Lewis and Richard Fumerton.

    Now, and this goes out to everyone, it's boring if I'm not challenged, and I'm not bored. On to argument! and I'm not using the kid gloves either.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I'm not saying to fix saving throws, or change dominate person, or model 2e more, or anything like that.
    No, I didn't think so, but that has consequences for what comes later.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Again, I don't see where you're seeing any emotional outpouring in my post;
    Ah, but compare what you write below (the numbers we are examining, rather than the traditional ones, btw) to something as qualitative as "poor", and as loaded as "exceptionally". I don't claim you're trying to be emotional (could've made that clearer), but it happens regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Save DCs can get up to around 32 at higher levels, while good saves hover around +20ish.

    That means you usually need a roll of 13 to make the save, assuming a +2 in the stat. Drop the save mod by 6, and you need to roll a 19 to make the save.
    Now this is what I like to see, and it really solidifies the problem in my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    And, FYI, I am looking at it from a game design perspective. I fully support the decision to give fighters better saves due to sound reasons founded on principles of good game design...
    Sorry for insinuating; I guess it didn't really come across in the post. I also suppose I take a lot more time to come to a decision than normal, so it look like others are neglecting principles when actually it's just that there are so many, and the system is so complex that applying them is complicated. To be fair, I get the formatting.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Were someone to bring up a mathematical argument...
    Oops, tempted the devil. You wanted a mathematical argument? I'll see your math and raise you logic. First: the logic, the structure of which will be universal generalization followed by a demonstration of contradiction, and it'll grant you most of your claims.

    You've convinced me that the difference between rolling a 13 or a 19 is too big, you've even done it by using the bare, basic values rather than some opti-ridiculosity. That's all fine and dandy, even likable, but it doesn't just apply to the fighter, does it? Take the rogue, who can succeed brilliantly at dodging fireballs, but has a similar problem resisting poison as the vanilla fighter. Almost every time there's a bad save, I have another example. There are a few classes in the splats that have mid-y saves, those are the exceptions.

    So, your argument for the fighter's mid-y will saves applies to almost all other classes. That's an overhaul of the saving throw system. You don't want such an overhaul, as you've stated, and I agree for the present purposes.

    So, the question then is whether you're more willing to fix the whole system, or knowingly scrimp on logical consequences. Alternatively, there could be a better argument, but it hasn't been said yet. Now, my solution might be to overhaul the system, but that doesn't work on this thread, so I hope my math will give such an argument.

    Indeed, before I do the math, let's check out an unwritten game design principle: know what you want.

    As for what's required here, I believe the goal was to make the fighter able to act, not necessarily prevent him from being acted on. I think this because a vanilla fighter is T5, fairly useless, and jikiru wants borderline T3-4.

    I always go back to JaronK's definitions, T4 can do one, count 'em one, thing quite well, but poor elsewhere. A T3 is moderately useful elsewhere. So, I think jikiru is aiming for "handed the ability to pound stuff for nothing, but needs a little forethought and building to do other things". Essentially, at this level of balance, you still have to work to be able to do well at more besides just one thing. Stop! Number time:

    Take a level 20 jikiru fighter modified for bad will, take Iron Will and let him use his aura to boost his (and his allies! oh, very good ability if you're going up against Saruman) will saves. That's 6+2+5=+13 willsave at level 20 before ability scores, magic items, etc. Add that according to what you describe in your example, and we get at least another +6 for +19. Remember the fighter has some spare cash from not spending it on skill boosters, so the cloak of resistance is essentially free. If you want an elf or dwarf, pretty classy fighters IMHO, we get a bonus vs. enchantment, bringing the save vs. a dominate to at least +21. I've been assuming a pretty MADed-out fighter: just a +1 from wisdom at that level, maybe from a +2 or +4 wis item. That requires a roll of 13(11 for elf/dwarf) to defeat your example wizard. Toss on true grit for what it's worth up there (I do recommend making it more relevant at that level, since no archmage worth his salt is going to daze you when he can turn-coat you. No one wants to get an ability at, whatever it is, ninth level, just to see it get quickly obsolete), not bad at all.

    It didn't take much of a build, either: a feat (pocket change for the fighter) and maybe you take a race, add the class features and items you'll get anyway (opportunity cost of all those at most a swift action). The options are all off the top of your head, too. Now, a mage can take iron will, too, but he won't get the aura, the free-ish items, true grit, but that, as much as it's interesting, is not the point. The point is we aren't trying to roll natural twenties. The point is, equally opted, a good will save fighter needs a 7, 13 for a bad save. Is either number is that ridiculous? Lesse: both are easily within a standard deviation from average.

    My opinion, and now we really are at opinion, because argument has only best shown neutrality, is that some kits get poor will saves, some of the kits give good will saves (or vases, if you're dyslexic ^o^), let's say: barbarian, commander, disciplined fighter and watchful fighter get the good progression. The last three make sense from the fluff, but for the barbarian, I'll have to show my youthful indiscretions: you can tell when Wulfgar makes a will save, not so much when Drizzt does. Barbarians really could go either way, though, depending on how much of a colonialist or romanticist you are. Still, we end up with a 3-4 split one way or the other for fighters having good/bad (read: silver platter/a little thought) will saves.
    Last edited by Okuno; 2011-05-25 at 01:21 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by Okuno View Post
    Ah, but compare what you write below (the numbers we are examining, rather than the traditional ones, btw) to something as qualitative as "poor", and as loaded as "exceptionally". I don't claim you're trying to be emotional (could've made that clearer), but it happens regardless.


    Oops, tempted the devil. You wanted a mathematical argument? I'll see your math and raise you logic. First: the logic, the structure of which will be universal generalization followed by a demonstration of contradiction, and it'll grant you most of your claims.

    [yay math!]
    It seems I, too, need to get my points across better. I wasn't claiming that this specific fix needed better Will saves when I was examining fighter save numbers and talking about the "traditionally low" Will, I was talking generally about the reasons for giving fighters bad Will saves vs. giving them good Will saves, whether that takes the form of poor vs. good base progression, Grace/Battle Fortitude abilities, or whatever. In fact, the Will aura + True Grit of this fix is exactly the kind of thing I'm advocating when it comes to boosting fighter Will saves!

    You don't have to improve the base saves (and on top of everything you mentioned, improving the base save might be a bit much), I'm just saying you have to do something--base saves, abilities, or otherwise--and that there are no grounds for objecting to doing so on the basis of "tradition" rather than math. As someone who's looking at this from a mathematical and design perspective rather than the "fighters 'should' be weak-willed" perspective, we're on the same side here.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Okuno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Remix: Doin' it old-school

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    I wasn't claiming that this specific fix needed better Will saves when I was examining fighter save numbers and talking about the "traditionally low" Will...

    As someone who's looking at this from a mathematical and design perspective rather than the "fighters 'should' be weak-willed" perspective, we're on the same
    side here.
    Oh, well then, cool ^-^

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •