Brilliant Gameologists Forum
The Thinktank => Homebrew & House Rules => : JaronK September 16, 2008, 04:52:29 PM
-
So, someone mentioned that it might be easier to just place class fixes in a seperate thread from the large groupings for commentary, so here's my Fighter fix. I was aiming for higher Tier 4, on the theory that classes tend to be a little stronger than their designers realize (so it may end up Tier 3 just because of things I don't notice).
I think we should use the fluff as a guide. The fluff says fighters should be capable warlords and guards, as well as frontliners. Plus, they're supposed to be relatively flexible and have special abilities related to feats (I personally think most feats don't need changing, the larger issue is that Fighters get feats instead of class features when generally speaking class features will be better). I think Fighters should be simpler to play than Martial Adepts, but also be good at generally being tough and strong, and have some options to work with, both in and out of combat (though obviously they're stronger in than out). And they should be flexible. So, with that in mind, let's try this:
Fighter
Full BAB, Good Fort, d10 HD, 4+Int skills
Class Skills: As currently, plus Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty, and Knowledge: History
1: Bonus Feat, Weapon Aptitude
2: Bonus Feat
3: Art of War
4: Bonus Feat
5: Adaptable Feat
6: Bonus Feat
7: Battlefield Recon
8: Bonus Feat
9: Uncanny Dodge
10: Bonus Feat, Adaptable Feat
11: True Grit
12: Bonus Feat
13: Brace for Impact
14: Bonus Feat
15: Adaptable Feat
16: Bonus Feat
17: Improved Uncanny Dodge
18: Bonus Feat
19: Fearless
20: Bonus Feat, Adaptable Feat
Bonus Feats: As currently
Weapon Aptitude: As the Warblade ability.
Art of War: Fighters train extensively in the basic arts of combat. Add 1/3 your Fighter class level to all opposed Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Sunder, Grapple, Feint, and Overrun checks.
Adaptable Feat: Fighters train to be adaptable to the situation. A 5th level Fighter may chose one feat from the Fighter Bonus feats list or any skill boosting feat that he qualifies for, but this feat is special. It may not be used as a prerequisite for any PrCs, nor may it be used as a prerequisite for any other feat except for other Adaptable Feats. At any time, a Fighter may spend one hour practicing and meditating. At the end of this time, he may change his Adapable Feat to any other Fighter or Skill Boosting feat he qualifies for. The Fighter gains a second Adaptable Feat at level 10, a third at 15, and a fourth at 20.
Battlefield Recon: Fighters battle against a great many foes, and learn to identify them quickly. A Fighter of 7th level or higher may add his class level to all Knowledge checks to identify creatures, and always counts as trained in any such knowledge check.
True Grit: Fighters must learn to tough it out under fire. A Fighter of 11th level or higher may add his constitution bonus to any save he has to make.
Brace for Impact: Fighters learn to shrug off incredible injuries. Once per encounter, a Fighter of 13th level or greater may, as an immediate action, gain a number of temporary hitpoints equal to his Fighter level times his constitution score. These hitpoints last until the end of his next turn.
Fearless: A high level Fighter has seen it all. At 19th level, the Fighter is immune to fear.
Note that I'd also like to see certain feats get stronger if you have Fighter levels, for example Dodge gives +1 AC against a single target, and an additional +1AC per four Fighter levels that you have, and Shield Specialization gives an additional +1 AC for every two Fighter levels you have.
JaronK
-
For one. . .
I dont' believe immunity to fear is a 19 level ability . . . I don't want at 19th level what a paladin gets at 3rd level but weaker cause it doesnt' help my friend...
thats just cursory...
I like true grit.
I dont' like adaptive feat.
I like battlefield recon: Battlefield Recon: Fighters battle against a great many foes, and learn to identify them quickly. A Fighter of 7th level or higher may add his class level to all Knowledge checks to identify creatures, and always counts as trained in any such knowledge check.
Pretty brilliant actually.
Temporary hitpoints are ... Okay, I'm not sure....
My question to you is this, do you think this fix puts the fighter on the equal footing as a Warblade or Crusader? I mean you clearly state it is tier 4, upper, however what is it you think you'd miss that it'd slipp and become tier 3?
I suppose if you use your adaptive feats as martial study/stance...
-
I like some... not so much other...
I wish I had my computer on me, so I could get that big dog template- "Fighter fix? I liked it better when it was called 'Feat fix!'"
I'm for the skills, but you didn't put how many they get per level- I vote 4, since fighters train for battle. Also, since Sunder is being reworked to break weapons which can be repaired with a Craft Weapon check (or whatever), that skill becomes more valuable. Fighters are cool skillwise now.
If they get all good saves, I don't think they should get a bonus equal to their fort save- Monks need something :) however, I think if they got that and only good fort, it'd be fine- a martial paladin. I vote all good saves and be done.
Adaptable feats, I think, should be given at odd levels- 5, 7, 11, 15 and 17?
And the rest, to be honest, I don't like... but that's because I like the idea of having a fighter being a feat master and totally customizable.
Good though :D
-
The immunity to fear thing was just a sort of "well, I should give SOMETHING at that level" idea. This is a pretty fast workup and needs a bit more to come together. But it is a helpful ability at least. Maybe it should come earlier, I dunno.
The Adaptive Feats are something I really like for Fighters, just because they're supposed to be feat strong and, well, adaptable. And they're a strong source of power, since you can pull off so many tricks with them and have exactly what you need. I was actually thinking about giving Fighters an initiator level equal to their class level so they could use Adaptive Feats (or just bonus feats) to get high level manuevers... once per encounter. That seems reasonable.
But to give an idea of what this allows, you can indeed decide that stealth is important for the next thing you have to do, and use Adaptive Feats to get Shadow Jaunt and Cloak of Deception, and thus be able to sneak by people. Or you can need to bust out of a jail cell and temporarily have one of the Stone Dragon hardness ignoring attacks. Or, knowing you're going to deal with a magical BBEG, you might get the save boosting manuevers just in case. Meanwhile, you can also just become a charger or tripper or whatever. So, tons more flexibility.
Anyway, there's potencial here at least.
JaronK
-
I'd try and keep initiator levels keyed to initiator classes- if everyone is running around with maneuvers, its going to be Dungeons and Tome of Battle.
Besides, with adaptive feats, he can swap out maneuvers pretty easily.
Battle Recon seems a bit much, but I like the theory behind it- a Fighter should have an IDEA of what he's fighting. However, its not very fighterly to be breaking DC 30 knowledge checks. If the fighter knows certain combative strategies against certain enemies, I'd keep the bonus to half class level. Let Wizards handle knowledge for specific details.
Fearless... eh... I'm not against there being dead levels in classes, just not as many as the fighter has.
-
Well, a Fighter's still going to have trouble making super high knowledge checks (the Wizard, with his Int synergy and actual class skills, will be much higher), but at least this way he has a chance of knowing what the heck he's fighting, and thus could reasonably actually be in a party leadership role (wouldn't you listen to the guy who understands what you're fighting, even if he wasn't so charismatic?). If the bonus was half class level, he'd never make the checks. Remember, the DC is quite high, and at level 20 you'd probably only have a +11 or so (assuming Int 13 for Combat Expertise).
JaronK
-
Well, a Fighter's still going to have trouble making super high knowledge checks (the Wizard, with his Int synergy and actual class skills, will be much higher), but at least this way he has a chance of knowing what the heck he's fighting, and thus could reasonably actually be in a party leadership role (wouldn't you listen to the guy who understands what you're fighting, even if he wasn't so charismatic?). If the bonus was half class level, he'd never make the checks. Remember, the DC is quite high, and at level 20 you'd probably only have a +11 or so (assuming Int 13 for Combat Expertise).
JaronK
but at least this way he has a chance of knowing what the heck he's fighting,
+1
-
Hmm, let me check the DCs...
So a Chasme is CR 10, and to know about it is 20 +5 for every new bit of info... At level 10, a Fighter gets a +5 bonus, so he'd have to roll pretty high just to know what it is...
A Molydeus is CR 19 and has DC29 for basic info... I'm guessing a CR 20 has DC30.
OK, so you're right :) Full it is.
-
I wasn't expecting to, at first, but I really like this! Art of war makes sense. What fighters are naturally inclined to do (i.e., get as a class feature) everyone else has to go out of their way to learn (i.e., take the Improved feats). The Adaptable Feat sounds like a lot of fun, and I think you've balanced it well (can't be used as a prerequ, takes an hour to prep). I assumed Fearless was the "what the hell should I give them at 19th level?" feature. Although in my own class design, I like to give the really good thing at 19th and then leave something only okay for 20, because that way, if you retire at Level 20, then at least you had two levels of playing with the Everybody Must Bow Down To Me power.
I'm not sure how I feel about Fighters applying Con mod to Will saves, though. That kind of thing is traditionally the Achilles Heal for fighters, attacks aimed at the mind. I mean, I'm not trying to pigeon-hole fighters as a bunch of dumb lunks, it just seems more appropriate for mental-type characters to get good mental saves, and physical characters to get good physical saves. That said, it's not that big a deal and if that's what it takes to make the class balanced with the other classes, I can live with it without regrets.
I think someone should take this to a game this week and play-test it. I'm playing a game with set characters, so I can't do it (otherwise I'd be happy to!), but someone should take it out for a test run. You really don't know anything about a class until you try to generate a character and play it.
-
I wasn't expecting to, at first, but I really like this!
Yay!
I assumed Fearless was the "what the hell should I give them at 19th level?" feature.
Basically, yes. Though it's also me thinking that a big strong Fighter shouldn't run away screaming from a dragon... courage is a martial virtue, after all.
I'm not sure how I feel about Fighters applying Con mod to Will saves, though. That kind of thing is traditionally the Achilles Heal for fighters, attacks aimed at the mind. I mean, I'm not trying to pigeon-hole fighters as a bunch of dumb lunks, it just seems more appropriate for mental-type characters to get good mental saves, and physical characters to get good physical saves. That said, it's not that big a deal and if that's what it takes to make the class balanced with the other classes, I can live with it without regrets.
My primary thinking is that they're supposed to be able to actually tank, and in a world where pretty much all casters can attack will saves easily (and lots of critters can too), having that achilles heel actually makes them incredibly weak. I mean, what's the point of having a tank if one spell will make him switch sides? So I went with all good saves, and then gave the con to saves ability late in the class (since it's a strong ability, I didn't want it to just be something you got by dipping). This means that Fighters can tank quite well, and can focus more on becoming a greater threat.
I think someone should take this to a game this week and play-test it. I'm playing a game with set characters, so I can't do it (otherwise I'd be happy to!), but someone should take it out for a test run. You really don't know anything about a class until you try to generate a character and play it.
True enough. Right now it's still at 2+Int skills, but 4+Int might be a good plan too.
JaronK
-
I like a lot of the abilities I read here, but I'm not sure I like the class as a whole. I agree that fear immuninty at 19th level seems like it was just added to fill a gap.
Back when this was posted on that huge 54-page thread, I copied it because I wanted to work some of those ideas into the fighter fix I'd been working on.
Another approach would be for me to work two of my abilities into this one. I liked the idea of some type of Foil ability (possibly thwart an action) and the Tough it Out ability (drop a negative condition). I remember you not liking my Foil mechanic, and I'm wondering if some rewording could fix it or not. Do you want me to post the text of those two abilities here? If it's something you're not interested in, I won't clutter your thread.
-
Yeah, post them. I certainly wouldn't mind replacing Fearless somewhere anyway.
As I recall, the issue was Foil was that I felt too many dice rolls were required, but I'm sure we can figure something out.
JaronK
-
Okay, I guess the other ability was called "Shake it Off". Foil would only add one extra die roll on the fighter's part, but confusion could probably be cleared up through better wording. The only extra die roll on top of that would be the Concentration check forced on a caster. Bascially, if foiling an attack, the fighter's attack roll becomes the target's AC, unless their AC was already higher. If foiling a skill check, the fighter's attack roll becomes the skill's new DC, unless the original was already higher. So, here's the raw text from my last fighter version:
Foil – as an immediate action, a fighter may attempt to foil the actions of an adjacent opponent. He rolls an attack roll at his highest base attack bonus with all the modifiers of the weapon he’s using. This attack roll sets the DC for the foil. If foiling another attack, the attacker’s attack needs to meet or exceed the foil DC or be negated (only one attack roll is made to overcome the foil attempt and the defender’s AC). If foiling a spell, the caster must succeed at a Concentration check at the foil DC or the spell is lost. If foiling a skill check, the new DC of the skill is set at the foil DC if the foil DC is higher.
Improved Foil – a fighter can make a foil attempt at any target within his melee reach.
Greater Foil – a fighter can make a foil attempt with a ranged weapon at any target within thirty feet. All range penalties (if any) apply to the attack roll.
Shake if off – as a full round action, a fighter can remove one of the following effects: blind, confused, dazzled, deaf, exhausted, fatigued, shaken, or sickened. A fighter can spend a full round action to roll a Fortitude save to remove poison, disease, or a negative level. He may only make one extra attempt per poison, disease, or each negative level.
Improved Shake it off – as a full round action, once per round a fighter may remove one of the following effects: cowering, dazed, fascinated, frightened, nauseated, panicked, paralyzed, and stunned. A fighter may use this ability despite the condition preventing him from using full round actions.
Greater Shake it off – a fighter may use Shake it Off and Improved Shake if Off as a move action.
-
I definitely like the principle behind Shake It Off... I assume it's inspired by Iron Heart Surge? Something like that should be worked in, but I don't quite like the wording yet.
As to Foil... well the writing is a bit odd there too, but the principle is sound. I need to think about it a bit.
JaronK
-
I definitely like the principle behind Shake It Off... I assume it's inspired by Iron Heart Surge? Something like that should be worked in, but I don't quite like the wording yet.
Yes. It's based a lot on Iron Heart Surge, but I wanted a clear spelled out list of conditions. The only thing that I used to determine if an ability made it into the first or Improved version was that the first version lets you get rid of conditions that don't stop you from taking a full-round action. The Improved version works on the conditions that would otherwise stop you from taking a full-round action.
As to Foil... well the writing is a bit odd there too, but the principle is sound. I need to think about it a bit.
I agree. I liked the idea, but I wrote it up rather quickly. I'd appreciate any help in wording it better. Basically, the idea is to use the fighter's attack roll to set the AC, DC, or Concentration DC for the attack, skill check, or spell respectively that he's trying to foil.
I ran through the numbers on Foil, and they seem to work out at most levels, so I don't think the fighter's attack roll will set an impossibly high DC, and at the same time, it should be high enough to matter.
-
I definitely like the principle behind Shake It Off... I assume it's inspired by Iron Heart Surge? Something like that should be worked in, but I don't quite like the wording yet.
Yes. It's based a lot on Iron Heart Surge, but I wanted a clear spelled out list of conditions. The only thing that I used to determine if an ability made it into the first or Improved version was that the first version lets you get rid of conditions that don't stop you from taking a full-round action. The Improved version works on the conditions that would otherwise stop you from taking a full-round action.
As to Foil... well the writing is a bit odd there too, but the principle is sound. I need to think about it a bit.
I agree. I liked the idea, but I wrote it up rather quickly. I'd appreciate any help in wording it better. Basically, the idea is to use the fighter's attack roll to set the AC, DC, or Concentration DC for the attack, skill check, or spell respectively that he's trying to foil.
I ran through the numbers on Foil, and they seem to work out at most levels, so I don't think the fighter's attack roll will set an impossibly high DC, and at the same time, it should be high enough to matter.
Really good fighter builds abound it seems...
-
Rewrite of "Foil":
Foil: At level X, a fighter can, as an immediate action, attempt to foil the actions of an adjacent opponent (e.g., attacks, spell-casting, skill checks, etc.). "Foiling" an action means interrupting it and thus negating that character's action entirely, just as if the attack had missed, the spell had failed to manifest, the skill had failed, etc. You resolve Foil attempts using opposed rolls. To foil an attack, make opposed attack rolls. To foil spell-casting, make an attack roll vs. the spell-caster's Concentration check. To foil a skill, make an attack roll vs. the opponent's skill check. If there is no obvious roll associated with the opponent's action, then the DM will select a skill, check, or even a save to resolve the Foil.
A few notes (in bold face).
I use "can" instead of "may" because "can" refers to have the ability to do something, as opposed to "may," which refers to having permission. This is a very fuzzy thing, but I think it's more empowering for the player to know what she can do, instead of what the game allows her to do.
I give a name to the actors in the situation: "the fighter" is the character, "you" are the player (who has to resolve the encounter), the "opponent" is the other person (as opposed to "attacker and defender" because in an action like this, which is which is unclear).
I define what "Foiling" means in the second sentence, so that the mechanics that follow have a context. It's much easier to understand and follow a mechanical description if you know what it's going to resolve, what it's going to lead to. In every description of a rule, you're basically telling a little story. If I know what's at stake in that story, I'm more likely to remember and understand the mechanical explanation for it.
I don't use the passive voice. Instead, I clearly identify exactly who's doing what. This is a HUGE thing in writing. Here's one of the original sentences: "only one attack roll is made to overcome the foil attempt and the defender’s AC." I don't know, from that sentence, who's making this first attack roll. The sentence doesn't tell me. I can make an educated guess, but that's it. When you say the roll "is made" or the check "is attempted" or that "it will be decided", you don't tell the reader who's performing the action. I know you did this only once. I'm not trying to come off like a school-marm, here. It's just that in RPG manuals, who's acting is really important, so passive voice can kill you. Who's making the roll? Who's attempting something? Who's deciding? If I don't know, I can't resolve the encounter.
(For the grammar-knowledgeable among you, the passive voice consists of an auxiliary verb, usually a conjugated form of the verb "to be," and a primary verb. The subject of the sentence, the actor, is either placed after the verb, or there is no subject... as in this sentence, right here, where I have not identified who's placing these words in this order.)
I'm really not trying to sound like a prick, here. It's just that in my day job I teach writing, and unclear writing in RPG manuals drives me batty. It's the leading cause of rule spugs, it confuses players, and it leaves GMs in a really bad position. I'm happy to do rewrites for people, as my contribution to this project, but I don't want to come off like the Grammar Police.
-
Foil: At level X, a fighter can, as an immediate action, attempt to foil the actions of an adjacent opponent
I dont know... I kind of think the 80's movie bit where the figter throws the sword was cool.
Silly but cool, plus we have ranged fighters, Should they be denied foil?
I really like SQL's fighter in the end.
English ~ Internet.
-
Orion, you didn't sound like a prick. I asked for help on the wording. :P
Foil: At level X, a fighter can, as an immediate action, attempt to foil the actions of an adjacent opponent
I dont know... I kind of think the 80's movie bit where the figter throws the sword was cool.
Silly but cool, plus we have ranged fighters, Should they be denied foil?
I really like SQL's fighter in the end.
English ~ Internet.
Well, ranged fighters do get foil at a higher level. That could be changed though. The first iteration I saw of this allowed you to do it within 30 feet and then 60 later.
-
I vote strongly in favour of the adaptive feat idea. In my mind, one of the sub-shticks of the fighter is being 'the master of feats'. To this end, I believe they should get more of them, and get more utility out of them, than anyone else. However, I also believe that you cannot fix a fighter without fixing the feats he has access to.
-
Yes, I agree. The Adaptive Feat is great. It reminds me of Riley in Buffy saying, "Give me a week to train. I can beat you." It's very much a warrior/soldier attitude. "All I need to do is study your technique and then alter mine to match, and I can take you out."
-
JaronK, what about the wording don't you like about the Shake it Off abilities? Is it anything specific about what they do, or the wording itself?
-
I think it's the blanket "you just remove it, regardless of source" combined with the "with a fortitude save" part. Some sources shouldn't be stoppable (Pelor did it!), while others don't have a defined fort save yet.
I think it might be simpler to give Fighters a second save the round after they're hit with such an effect if a save already existed, and if they succeed there the effect disappears.
JaronK
-
How's this:
Shake It Off: At level X, as a full-round action, a fighter can remove one of the following conditions from herself: blinded, confused, dazzled, deafened, exhausted, fatigued, shaken, or sickened. A fighter can also spend a full-round action to make a Fortitude save to remove poison, disease, or a negative level. If the poison, disease, negative level, or condition (above) normally prompts a save, then the fighter can use Shake It Off in order to make a second save to resist the effect in question. Shake It Off requires the equivalent of caster concentration, so the fighter can be interrupted in her efforts.
-
I think it's the blanket "you just remove it, regardless of source" combined with the "with a fortitude save" part. Some sources shouldn't be stoppable (Pelor did it!), while others don't have a defined fort save yet.
I think it might be simpler to give Fighters a second save the round after they're hit with such an effect if a save already existed, and if they succeed there the effect disappears.
JaronK
I agree the wording is confusing. The Fort save only applies when making a second attempt at disease, poison, or a negative level (all which normally have a Fort save). The other conditions are automatic.
As for the source (Pelor did it!), I'm not sure how we want to word it. Opposed level checks? Fighter level vs caster level on a spell? Fighter level vs monster hit dice on an Ex or Su ability (that could get huge!)?
How's this:
Shake It Off: At level X, as a full-round action, a fighter can remove one of the following conditions from herself: blinded, confused, dazzled, deafened, exhausted, fatigued, shaken, or sickened. A fighter can also spend a full-round action to make a Fortitude save to remove poison, disease, or a negative level. If the poison, disease, negative level, or condition (above) normally prompts a save, then the fighter can use Shake It Off in order to make a second save to resist the effect in question. Shake It Off requires the equivalent of caster concentration, so the fighter can be interrupted in her efforts.
Nice. It's certainly more clear. The concentration aspect is different, but I like it. It works with the economy of actions principle. Although, if we make it interuptable, perhaps it should take one round instead of a full-round action? What happens if he's interrupted? Does he get a Concentration check, Fort, or Will save? If we use Concentration, then it should be added to the list of class skills and the fighter should certainly have four skill points per level.
Also, I'm assuming with your wording, we'd work in the Improved version that allows you to get rid of other status conditions?
My Greater version would allow it as a move action. That's harder to interrupt, unless you ready an action. Thoughts?
-
Well, someone said it seemed to powerful, so "caster" concentration seemed appropriate, and yes, a 1-round action makes more sense (I always forget about those). I envision it as a Concentration check, and the fighter is likely to have a high Con, so it's not an impossible roll. Also, how often does interruption ever actually happen? It's a minor drawback.
As for an improved version... I hadn't even thought about it.
-
As for an improved version... I hadn't even thought about it.
Well, the way I had it statted up, the improved version allowed you to get rid of conditions that would normally prevent you from taking a full-round action (paralysis, dazed, nauseated, etc). We could still make this take an entire round, making it interruptable.
As for a Greater version, my first write up allowed it to work as a move-action. Perhaps it's too potent. I'd be fine with dropping it if everyone agrees it needs to take a full round.
Edit:
Perhaps a Greater version would allow you to remove two conditions with one use.
-
Hmm. Fighters can of course use Adaptive Feats to get Iron Heart Surge if they need...
Okay, here's a thought. What if instead of removing the conditions, they could just supress them as though in an AMF (but it works on non-magic stuff too). It might stop a lot of the issues (as an Orc, the sun is dazzling me. With a surge of effort, I remove the sun!). Plus, it gets rid of the whole "look, I'm a 5th level character and I can just dispel a blindness spell from a 30th level god!" thing. So, perhaps allowing Fighters to simply ignore one condition (but not any other related thing, so a spell that both dazzles and deals damage would still deal damage) for a number of rounds equal to one quarter your Fighter level once per encounter might work?
JaronK
-
Those reasons are a lot of why I worded Shake it Off as I did. I wanted the conditions to be nullified and not the cause. If you're dumb enough to shake off nausea while standing in a Stinking Cloud spell, you're still going to have to make a Fort save next round. Plus, the spell is still there to affect others.
As for not getting rid of conditions from powerful sources, perhaps a check could be added. Something like opposed level checks maybe. This would make the ability less useful against monsters of a reasonable CR with a large number of HP though. Do you have any suggestions on how to tie this closer to level?
Edit:
I guess another option could be to let the ability grant the fighter a second save to remove the effect. Thus, if something super-powerful affects the fighter, he still has to make a very hard save to remove the effect. If the effect didn't originally allow a save, then allow the fighter a Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 source's HD. I'm not sure what to do about the source's ability modifier. Cha for spell-like powers and Con for others?
-
Just felt like posting my take on a fighter "fix" here instead of taking up a whole new thread (I just grabbed the first thread from the search; I didn't actually dig too deeply in this forum :sorry). My goal was to upgrade the fighter, while making as few changes to the existing rules and adding the least amount of "new" stuff possible. So here we go...
1 Combat Prowess +1, fighter feat
2 fighter feat
3 combat form feat
4 fighter feat
5 Combat Prowess +2
6 combat form feat
7 fighter feat
8 bonus ACF
9 prowess+3, combat form feat
10 fighter feat
11 bonus ACF
12 combat form feat
13 Combat Prowess +4, fighter feat
14 bonus ACF
15 combat form feat
16 fighter feat
17 Combat Prowess +5, bonus ACF
18 combat form feat
19 fighter feat
20 Combat Prowess +6
Epic...
21 fighter feat
22 Combat Prowess +7
23 fighter feat
24 Combat Prowess +8
25 fighter feat
26 Combat Prowess +9
27 fighter feat
28 Combat Prowess +10
29 fighter feat
30 Combat Prowess +11
Combat Prowess
- Attack Prowess - Add your prowess bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls and all opposed combat rolls. Also add your prowess bonus to your base attack bonus only for the purpose of determining interative attacks and the use of the power attack feat if you have it
- Defense Prowess - Add your prowess bonus to your armor or natural armor bonus (not both), up to a maximum of your original armor bonus (including enhancement, if any). Add your prowess bonus to your shield bonus, up to a maximum of your original shield bonus (including enhancement bonus, if any). You may also subtract your prowess bonus from your total armor check penalty.
fighter feat - pick one
bonus ACF - pick one of the alternate class features from Complete Champion or PHB2
combat form feat - pick one from PHB2
[spoiler=my original simple idea]Everything about the fighter is the same, except add: A fighter gains a +1 Prowess bonus at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20. Add this bonus to all your combat related rolls.
One line, simple numeric bonus, nothing else.[/spoiler]
------------------
change to feats:
Weapon Focus: You gain a +1 bonus (plus your prowess bonus) on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Weapon Specialization: You gain a +2 bonus (plus your prowess bonus) on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Combat Form Feats: as before, but add your prowess bonus to any numerical benefit
Combat Expertise: as before, but add: a fighter may add a matching prowess bonus to the dodge bonus he gains through the use of this feat, up to a maximum of his combat prowess, ex: a fighter 10 who takes a penalty of 2 to his attack rolls gains a +4 dodge bonus, a fighter 10 who takes a penalty of 5 to his attack rolls gains a +8 dodge bonus (+5 from the feat, +3 from his combat prowess)
Armor Optimization: as before, but add your prowess bonus to the armor bonus of the selected armor
-------------------
For the most part, I just lowered the rate of bonus feats in exchange for the ACF's and combat form feats. Reason being is that some of them are neat, but they just aren't good enough for people to take normally.
The addition of Combat Prowess is to showcase the fighter's strengths, namely being better with weapons and armor than everyone else, while keeping the math and any variations to existing rules/feats as simple as possible. Using specific weapons/armor and the right feats can double the bonuses, and everything scales with your levels. I admit that this favours heavy armors later on (which kind of makes sense). Sword & Board also becomes more attractive.
I also live in a land where magicmarts and rampant crafting do not exist, so in this world it would actually make sense for a fighter to stick with the gear that he is skilled in, rather than automatically switching over to the newest loot.
Writing this whole thing out took way longer than the conceptualizing. The prowess part just came to me one night, and feels like an elegant "solution" to the fighter. The rest was just filling out a table. What do you guys think?
-
I'm not sure how I feel about Fighters applying Con mod to Will saves, though. That kind of thing is traditionally the Achilles Heal for fighters, attacks aimed at the mind.
If by traditional you mean "Started in 3E while blatantly ignoring previous material", then yes, it is traditional.
In every edition prior to 3rd, fighters got the best saves in the game. (D&D was different, elves, dwarfs, and halflings started better and inmproved faster, but maxed out much lower than fighters did.)
-
I'm not sure I like Combat Prowess... it's too much "here, just throw numbers at it!" I mean, it gives a bonus to darn near everything that matters, you know?
JaronK
-
Well yeah, that was the point: something that makes the fighter a better combatant simply by virtue of having levels of fighter. And at least it's the same number to everything. My initial idea was to leave the feats as normal and just add combat prowess...
A fighter gains a +1 Prowess bonus at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20. Add this bonus to all your combat related rolls.
A two sentence "fix" that is far simpler than any other fighter rewrite that I've seen. And really, that was what I was going for: something simple and could be easily implemented without changing any existing fighters in play. I later wound up writing more because I fell prey to the "want to add more stuff" syndrome. Looking back at it, I think I like my original plan more.
I had a bunch of other ideas floating around, but those ultimately involved making up new abilities and/or rewriting all the feats, and at that point I figured I wasn't dealing with the fighter anymore.
-
Still, I don't think your fix actually fixes the primary problems that we've discussed with Fighters. It doesn't make them good at the things they're said by the books to be good at (being guards, military veterans, military commanders, warlords, etc, and being flexible and adaptable). It doesn't give them more out of combat utility, either, which is a major complaint. It gives them a bit more in combat, which they can certainly use, but it doesn't really target the problems.
JaronK
-
Yeah, and if I was trying to address any of those, it would require writing up new abilities. All I wanted to do was add something simple to give them more oomph in combat, nothing more.
I think the scope of what people want fighters to be is just too broad, and in terms of overall design it is a failing of the system (not of the class itself).
-
Not really. I mean, Warblades can do it just fine, so clearly it's doable within the system.
I just don't think that what Fighters need is more oomph in combat. After all, Fighter archers can already do devastating damage, as can chargers. They need more flexibility in combat, and more utility out of combat, plus the ability to do what the book says they can do.
JaronK
-
I meant the system of just giving static feats. A class based on gaining feats isn't a bad thing, but the feats do not reflect the power curve. I compare directly to a sorcerer, who gains nothing except spells per level. Difference being is that everything gained there rises in power as levels go up. A ToB character gets the same thing. Fighters are stuck gaining feats which for the most part are all at the same level. More powerful feats with prereqs did turn up in later books, but really do not close the gap enough. In my opinion, ToB with their maneuver levels and prereqs is what the feat trees should have been like from the start (and if I'm not mistaken, this is a general feeling shared by many).
If I were to really redo the fighter, one idea I had was to leave the class design as is and revamp all the feats and give them "subtypes" as it were, like the devil-touched feats or aberrant feats, etc. wherein the more fighter feats you took, the better each of the feats became. The feats would be open to all, but since a fighter gained more feats than anyone, they would get proportionately better benefits.
But then, that's a redesign of a pretty big part of the system and really not something I want to bother doing. My idea of combat prowess was just a simple numeric addition to make the fighter a more significant combat threat without forcing him into such incredibly narrow roles of archer or charger, etc, so that he could then take the other feats to make him a little more versatile.
-
Well, that's part of what I was getting into with this fix. It's supposed to come with feats that scale with Fighter level. But that alone still doesn't quite doing it... you do need more than just combat feats to make it work. That's why abilities like Art of War, Battlefield Recon, and so on exist, in addition to new skills... it's to promote more flexibility and out of combat capability.
JaronK