Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

[Segev]

Again, I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, or that it's not a fix. I'm simply not seeing the point, when a perfectly functional fix exists. In my mind, that's what Warblade is - Fighter 2.0, bigger and better. Perhaps a different question is this: Why are we not treating the Warblade as the Fighter fix? Because it has a different name? Because it has class features other than feats? Because it comes from ToB? This isn't a rhetorical question, it's sincere. If the complaint is that the resources spent on Warblade would have been better spent fixing Fighter, that complaint assumes that Warblade isn't a Fighter fix, but a Fighter replacement. What's the difference? (Note that I'm saying Warblade, but I could just as easily make the case for Crusader.)

As you say, a DM can as easily ban the BFF as the ToB. However, if you go to the kind of DM who gets leery over "new subsystems" and considers ToB "broken" because it has all these wonky abilities with recharge mechanics and ways for players to "cheat" around the limitations designed to balance these "OP" abilities that are like spells that you can spam every combat, but you can convince him that Fighter as it stands isn't quite measuring up, it's a lot easier to persuade him that "just adding a few better feats" is an okay thing to do.

If he's already okay with the ubercharger, and just hates the idea of "fighters using spells" or however he thinks of ToB, having a huge list of optional feats that up the Fighter's game may be close enough to what he already accepts that he'll allow it.

From another perspective, while there's nothing wrong with the Martial Adepts' subsystem, it has a flavor and feel that is definitely distinct from that of playing a "fighter" as people know and love it. If somebody really wants to play a fighter over a Warblade, they may not want to deal with expendable maneuvers. They may want the full feel of "anything I can do, I can do repeatably and reliably as long as I can set it up." Maneuvers abstract that "As long as I can set it up" clause with the "once per encounter" business.

So essentially, Warblade isn't the same class as Fighter. It is similar, but so is Barbarian and Samurai and Swashbuckler. And Rogue is similar to Scout. They're still distinct, and a desire to make Fighter - which has things people like about its feel (regardless of what you think about its only class feature being feats) that people want to play.

Giving better feats to the fighter doesn't help that the only class feature of it can be duplicated by a Persistent Heroics spell.

That's more an issue with Heroics existing at all, and even so is not really a huge problem. Fighters can get Heroics spells, too, and they have more feats on top of it.

And itsn't much of a fighter-specific fix, as it also effects Generic Warrior/Generic Expert, buffs humans and strongheart halflings, makes said Heroics spell more potent, increases the power of DCF, makes a good amount of prestige classes that offer feats better,

All true, but it still helps the fighter. And there are hooks for making it improve the fighter more or exclusively, ranging from prerequisites that include a minimum fighter level, to a "special" clause that gives fighters more benefit from the feat, to having the feat benefit from being held by somebody with greater numbers of feats (which fighters have).

And having more cool feats means having more feat slots is desirable; even if it buffs other things that use feats, it still buffs fighters by making each one of their extra slots more valuable.

and does nothing to change the fact that a lot of feats still aren't worth it, so you just make a new class of feats that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than these theoretical new feats.

This is a non-argument, unless you're suggesting that we shouldn't have the ToB because it "just made a new group of classes that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than the ToB."

Toughness was rendered even more worthless when Improved Toughness came out. Not because Toughness was any good, but because even the pretense that it did something another feat didn't just plain do better was gone. So making new, useful feats isn't bad just because some feats - which aren't good in the first place - are rendered from "not worth taking" to "obsolete."

[Chronos]

Besides which, how is it a problem that more feats also buffs other melee types? They needed the help, too.

And adding new options to a game will always mean that some of the old options won't be used as much. That's true for every kind of option: Races, feats, spells, classes, whatever. I think that options are still, in general, a good thing. Like I said, what I'd really like to see would be cool warblades and cool fighters existing side by side in the game, both viable, but using different styles. If you like the warblade style better, play a warblade. If you like the fighter style, play a fighter. Or mix and match both of them in the same character.

[Ssalarn]

As you say, a DM can as easily ban the BFF as the ToB. However, if you go to the kind of DM who gets leery over "new subsystems" and considers ToB "broken" because it has all these wonky abilities with recharge mechanics and ways for players to "cheat" around the limitations designed to balance these "OP" abilities that are like spells that you can spam every combat, but you can convince him that Fighter as it stands isn't quite measuring up, it's a lot easier to persuade him that "just adding a few better feats" is an okay thing to do.

If he's already okay with the ubercharger, and just hates the idea of "fighters using spells" or however he thinks of ToB, having a huge list of optional feats that up the Fighter's game may be close enough to what he already accepts that he'll allow it.

***

The accuracy of this statement is actually really funny. I have a member of one of my play groups who hated 4e and always went on rants about its stupid power cards and how everyone is a caster, but he loves 5e. When I told him "You realize that there are still at-will, encounter, and daily abilities in 5e, they just simplified them and didn't present them in cards or refer to them that way, right?" he just stared blankly at me, pulled out the book, flipped through it, and said "I don't see it".

If you can come up with a system that gives a Fighter tactical feats that operate in the same fashion as ToB maneuvers, there's a very good chance that you'll easily convert people who hated ToB. I find it's almost entirely a matter of how the concept is presented to most people.

[Necroticplague]

That's more an issue with Heroics existing at all, and even so is not really a huge problem. Fighters can get Heroics spells, too, and they have more feats on top of it.

How the heck does a fighter get acces to a spell? Last I checked, fighters weren't casters, so getting a spell requires either a friendly caster (which you probably shouldn't assume is there), or a magic item (which is created by a caster) that anybody else could also have.

All true, but it still helps the fighter. And there are hooks for making it improve the fighter more or exclusively, ranging from prerequisites that include a minimum fighter level, to a "special" clause that gives fighters more benefit from the feat, to having the feat benefit from being held by somebody with greater numbers of feats (which fighters have).

The first two of which are heavy-handed bad design (you don't see rage-related feats with "barbarian 1" as a prerequisite for a good reason), and the third of which barely has barely any relation to fighter at all. After the first two levels, if your rewarded for more feats, you'd wanna dip around for 1 feat/level. Do you wouldn't be a fighter 6, you'd be fighter 2/generic warrior2/martial monk2.

And having more cool feats means having more feat slots is desirable; even if it buffs other things that use feats, it still buffs fighters by making each one of their extra slots more valuable.

Yes, but we were talking about fixing the fighter, not increasing overall power level, so the fact it's fairly nonspecific to the fighter is relevant. It buffs fighters, but it can't be really said to fix them, because its not just about them.

This is a non-argument, unless you're suggesting that we shouldn't have the ToB because it "just made a new group of classes that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than the ToB."

Except their weren't any classes made a waste of space by ToB existing. First two levels of fighter and monk still make for good build filler (depending on if you want saves or BaB), barbarian is still the easiest way to get pounce, rogue still has its trapfinding and gets access to sneak attack before swordsage, and paladins have access to spellcasting.

Toughness was rendered even more worthless when Improved Toughness came out. Not because Toughness was any good, but because even the pretense that it did something another feat didn't just plain do better was gone. So making new, useful feats isn't bad just because some feats - which aren't good in the first place - are rendered from "not worth taking" to "obsolete."

Unless you only have 1,2, or 3 HD. Or don't meet the prerequisites for Improved. Or if you want Toughness for one of the feats that need it as a prerequisite. Improved Toughness doesn't obsolete Toughness, though both are crappy.

[Chronos]

After the first two levels, if your rewarded for more feats, you'd wanna dip around for 1 feat/level. Do you wouldn't be a fighter 6, you'd be fighter 2/generic warrior2/martial monk2.

You can't be a fighter 2/generic warrior 2, because if fighter (and barbarian and so on) exists in your world, then generic warrior doesn't, and vice-versa. You could just keep on dipping for bonus feats, but that's going to hurt your BAB and/or restrict your options for feats.

And Toughness might not have been made completely obsolete by Improved Toughness, but it was made completely obsolete by Azure Toughness (which has exactly the same effect if you have no other incarnum in your build, including meeting prerequisites, but also offers added flexibility if you do have other incarnum).

[Segev]

How the heck does a fighter get acces to a spell? Last I checked, fighters weren't casters, so getting a spell requires either a friendly caster (which you probably shouldn't assume is there), or a magic item (which is created by a caster) that anybody else could also have.

So...you're saying that the only people who benefit from Heroics are casters? Ooookaaaaay.......

And the fact that fighters can get as many of the items as anybody else, but the fighter still has more feats after that same amount of investment in Heroics items, is precisely the point.

The first two of which are heavy-handed bad design (you don't see rage-related feats with "barbarian 1" as a prerequisite for a good reason),

If that that you mean, "Fighters not having any exclusive class features other than more feats is bad design," we can argue that. If you mean, "having feats which require a certain fighter level is bad design," well, no, that is because feats were, to an extent, MEANT to be fighter class features. You'll note that "must be Fighter 4" doesn't mean you ahve to be a 4th level fighter to take it, because the Warblade explicitly can pretend to be a Fighter for those purposes (albeit with a level penalty). So it's no more exclusive to the Fighter than the Rage feats are to the Barbarian.

and the third of which barely has barely any relation to fighter at all. After the first two levels, if your rewarded for more feats, you'd wanna dip around for 1 feat/level. Do you wouldn't be a fighter 6, you'd be fighter 2/generic warrior2/martial monk2.

Generic Warrior doesn't fit in with the others, as it is expressly not meant for use with standard classes. It is for games that have nothing but the "generic" classes. But as you left out Psychic Warrior, the count remains the same.

Nevertheless, part of the point is the number of desirable feats, not just the number of feat slots. So while you can stack up feat count with that multiclassing, a well-designed BFF will have stuff that Monk/Martial Monk can't get access to, so the extra levels of Fighter or Psychic Warrior will be better to get more of those feats, rather than just scumming for trash feats for an extra +1 or 2.

Yes, but we were talking about fixing the fighter, not increasing overall power level, so the fact it's fairly nonspecific to the fighter is relevant. It buffs fighters, but it can't be really said to fix them, because its not just about them.

Irrelevant argument. If it fixes the fighter AND other melee types, it still fixes the fighter. "It can't do anything BUT fix the fighter" is not just moving the goalposts, it's trying to reframe the argument so you can presume your conclusion of "the fighter itself has to be rewritten."

Except their weren't any classes made a waste of space by ToB existing. First two levels of fighter and monk still make for good build filler (depending on if you want saves or BaB), barbarian is still the easiest way to get pounce, rogue still has its trapfinding and gets access to sneak attack before swordsage, and paladins have access to spellcasting.


Unless you only have 1,2, or 3 HD. Or don't meet the prerequisites for Improved. Or if you want Toughness for one of the feats that need it as a prerequisite. Improved Toughness doesn't obsolete Toughness, though both are crappy.

You presume an awful lot to declare that new feats would inherently obsolete old ones more than fighter and monk were obsoleted by ToB or Toughness was obsoleted by Improved Toughness.

I can make, with as much grounding (given the lack of the BFF's actual existence), the claim that all extant feats will remain as useful relative to any that seem to render them obsolete as does Toughness relative to Improved Toughness. i.e., you could construct a weird corner case where it is marginally better on some specific builds that are stuck at some specific level.