Evaluate these house rules.

[bearsarebrown]

1-2 rounds and you're dead is exactly accurate. Without IP proofing, your chance to fail saves is at least 50%, and auto attacks take 70% of your health. 2 rounds of either, and you're going down. 1 is possible, but 2 is more common. With IP proofing getting 1-2 rounded is less common but still very possible.

Your values are true in the case of a 1v1 fight. The greater the ratio of PCs to Monsters means longer fights, even if individual PCs drop in one in two rounds. But this is mostly pedantic because at best it stretches combat to 3 or 4 rounds.

My question for you Sunic, why not use Tome rules? They seem to be the logical conclusion of IP proofing if you're looking for a system that's mostly finished.

[Sunic_Flames]

1-2 rounds and you're dead is exactly accurate. Without IP proofing, your chance to fail saves is at least 50%, and auto attacks take 70% of your health. 2 rounds of either, and you're going down. 1 is possible, but 2 is more common. With IP proofing getting 1-2 rounded is less common but still very possible.

Your values are true in the case of a 1v1 fight. The greater the ratio of PCs to Monsters means longer fights, even if individual PCs drop in one in two rounds. But this is mostly pedantic because at best it stretches combat to 3 or 4 rounds.

My question for you Sunic, why not use Tome rules? They seem to be the logical conclusion of IP proofing if you're looking for a system that's mostly finished.

If there's 4 PCs, and 1 enemy, which is actually what I'm assuming by the way you still go down in 1-2 rounds. Add more enemies and 1 round kills become more likely, not less.

As for why not Tome rules, in short:

Tome does a lot of things. IP proofing isn't one of them. In fact it fucks over IP proofing quite drastically.
Tome also brings in a lot of random bullshit I don't want to deal with.

[lans]

Maybe. As it is Dungeoncrasher is actually worth the two feats it costs. Just giving it as a class feature probably wouldn't be broken though.

Would letting the fighter take ACFs at levels 3 and 5 be a reasonable?

Probably. Didn't feel like it though.

I figured you might as well do something with the dead levels of Fighter, and a couple of the ACFs are decent. Dungeon Crasher, Overpowering Attack, the Will Save one, and Swift Intimidate.

Edit- You might want to do something with the negative hp numbers. Instead of dying at -10, you die at -10-1/4 of your HP or something?

[Sunic_Flames]

Maybe. As it is Dungeoncrasher is actually worth the two feats it costs. Just giving it as a class feature probably wouldn't be broken though.

Would letting the fighter take ACFs at levels 3 and 5 be a reasonable?

Probably. Didn't feel like it though.

I figured you might as well do something with the dead levels of Fighter, and a couple of the ACFs are decent. Dungeon Crasher, Overpowering Attack, the Will Save one, and Swift Intimidate.

Edit- You might want to do something with the negative hp numbers. Instead of dying at -10, you die at -10-1/4 of your HP or something?

I'd rather not change what I don't have to. Dungeoncrasher is the only reason it's not 4 levels. Don't know or care about the other stuff.

As for the negative HP thing, if I did change it it would be to negative Con.

[Mixster]

[Sunic_Flames]

I've always have a fondness for strong feat chains. If all the feats in a chain are good, it is a boon to the martial classes who get loads of feats. However, if you look at the current feat chains, none of them except for the very short persist chains really is.

Except that beatsticks don't get good feat chains. They get Weapon Focus. Occasionally someone forgets that Fighters are not allowed to have Nice Things, and makes a good single feat, but chains? Forget it.

Not to mention the only beatstick that gets "lots of feats" is 6 levels long, precisely because people don't care about that. And classes like Psychic Warrior, you're taking them to grow to the approximate size and mass of a large truck, and hitting much like the same. Not to get some bonus feats.

I think that you are also buffing the Cleric, through decreasing feat taxes. The only real problem for a versatile cleric build nowadays is that you can't get both DMM, Power Attack and Rapid Shot. Now you can, and your shots are better. But since you've also increased the wizards damage output, this will not overly affect the balance between the Tier 1s (because the druid is so versatile, buffing anything is basically like buffing him).

Rapid Shot is a junk feat. Power Attack didn't even work with ranged before, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

It's not about damage, and hasn't been since 2nd edition. A caster who is doing damage is goofing off. Getting PA for free in no way changes this. After all, it was a 2nd level spell away anyways in the worst of cases. It does however help the real, not Fighter beatsticks, as it means getting not junk feats a whole lot sooner.

The goal of these houserules is to get anything below a 3 to a 3 if possible, and leave what works alone.

Oh and by the way how would venomfire function? Was it banned on the ground of being forgotten realms (which I can't remember whether it is)? It would make your fleshraker even more wicked IMO.

The Hi Welcome build? Yes, Venomfire is Serpent Kingdoms, which is FR, which is banned. Not sure what the hell the Hi Welcome build has to do with any of this though as that character wasn't played in a game where my houserules, or very many houserules were in effect.

[bearsarebrown]

He mentioned Rapid Shot and Power Attack in reference to a versatile Cleric, one who can go melee and ranged.

[wotmaniac]

Rapid Shot is a junk feat. Power Attack didn't even work with ranged before, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Feat: Power Shot (I forget which book)

[BeholderSlayer]

Rapid Shot is a junk feat. Power Attack didn't even work with ranged before, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Feat: Power Shot (I forget which book)

doesn't that have some kind of stupid wtf prereqs? i thought there was something i saw in that feat that made me think "stupid" and move on. then again, i might just have ignored it because it has the word "shot" and i immediately assumed "worthless."

[Kajhera]

Rapid Shot is a junk feat. Power Attack didn't even work with ranged before, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Feat: Power Shot (I forget which book)

doesn't that have some kind of stupid wtf prereqs? i thought there was something i saw in that feat that made me think "stupid" and move on. then again, i might just have ignored it because it has the word "shot" and i immediately assumed "worthless."

I'm pretty sure it's actually a feature of a magic item from some animated thing...

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a

Unfortunately, the prerequisite for that particular ability appears to be 'Name: Hank'.

[Mixster]

He mentioned Rapid Shot and Power Attack in reference to a versatile Cleric, one who can go melee and ranged.

Exactly, but arguing with Sunic you have to spell out everything you want him to think or he just assumes you are an idiot.

[Sunic_Flames]

Skipping past fail.

He mentioned Rapid Shot and Power Attack in reference to a versatile Cleric, one who can go melee and ranged.

Rapid Shot is a junk feat, so you still don't take it. Instead you use Persist and Splitting.

Also, Power Attack = Power Attack. Power Attack =/= some bullshit weak ranged power attack with ranged feat not named Power Attack.

[lans]

I've always have a fondness for strong feat chains. If all the feats in a chain are good, it is a boon to the martial classes who get loads of feats. However, if you look at the current feat chains, none of them except for the very short persist chains really is.

Except that beatsticks don't get good feat chains. They get Weapon Focus. Occasionally someone forgets that Fighters are not allowed to have Nice Things, and makes a good single feat, but chains? Forget it.

Not to mention the only beatstick that gets "lots of feats" is 6 levels long, precisely because people don't care about that.

How about instead of having the Fighter be special, you Gestalt it onto the Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knight, Marshal, and Ninja classes.

On an accounting issue you have

# The Fighter class is freely gestalted onto the Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knight, Marshal, and Ninja classes.
vs
# The Fighter class is 6 levels long.
# Monks get full BAB. Not that that will stop them from failing.

[Sunic_Flames]

Gestalt can go fuck itself with a rusty drill. No, there won't be any goddamned gestalt. Stop making stupid suggestions.

[lans]

Gestalt can go fuck itself with a rusty drill. No, there won't be any goddamned gestalt. Stop making stupid suggestions.

I'm not really going for  gestalt, but it was a non wordy and simple way to go with the discussion on feats.  It does give Rogues, Scouts, Marshals, and Ninjas full BAB, a higher HD, and maybe a higher Fortitude save more than what I wanted. I didn't think those things really mattered when put onto those classes, and infact they could use a little more.

So how about this
# The Fighter class does not exist, instead give bonus feats to the the Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knight, Marshal, and Ninja classes, as per Fighter.
# Monks get full BAB. Not that that will stop them from failing.
vs
The other two options
# The Fighter class is freely gestalted onto the Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knight, Marshal, and Ninja classes.
vs
# The Fighter class is 6 levels long.
# Monks get full BAB. Not that that will stop them from failing.

Though if you don't care about wordiness and simplicity, then my point doesn't really work.

Also, fake fixing things like you did with the Monk doesn't sit well with me. Do you think giving the Monk bonus feats will make them overpowered?
Will it make them fail less?

[Sunic_Flames]

Rogues do decently under these houserules. Ninjas are gimpy Rogues, so fuck em. Marshals are gimpy Bards, so fuck them too. Scout + Swift Hunter is fine. Conceptual space.

In case you missed the humor, and you clearly did the point was that nothing will save the Monk. Nothing. So I just said screw it, and let real classes punch people (with gauntlets) if they want.

[lans]

What role does the Fighter class fill design wise? It really just exists to give martial type characters bonus feats after a level dip. Why not cut out the middle man and just give martial type characters extra feats

[Sunic_Flames]

What role does the Fighter class fill design wise? It really just exists to give martial type characters bonus feats after a level dip. Why not cut out the middle man and just give martial type characters extra feats

That's the point, it is just there for feats and Dungeoncrasher. So I made it 6 levels long. Full fucking stop.

[lans]

What role does the Fighter class fill design wise? It really just exists to give martial type characters bonus feats after a level dip. Why not cut out the middle man and just give martial type characters extra feats

That's the point, it is just there for feats and Dungeoncrasher. So I made it 6 levels long. Full fucking stop.

Are you adverse to giving bonus feats to martial type characters?

[Sunic_Flames]

Shut the fuck up about the goddamned useless waste of space Pathfailureesque distraction and diversion that is beatstick feats.