PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma



nonsi
2010-05-08, 05:06 PM
I’ve seen, literally, hundreds of Fighter discussions, about what the Fighter needs in the game mechanics of 3e. Within them, I’ve also encountered dozens of 20-levels Fighter fixes/remakes – some of which brought quite a few interesting ideas, some were quite lame in the big picture and some... well, totally irrelevant to 3e’s Fighter issues.
One thing I can say with certainty – I have never seen any fix, other than mine (we’ll get there in a moment), that successfully manages to address all of them in a neatly wrapped package. Well, there was one that came quite close – the one that most affected my version, but it was a bit too focused on overwhelming offense and not enough on lasting power and build/in-game options.
ToB’s Warblade is also arguably supposed to do just that, but in order to accomplish this endeavor it relies on an entire book of melee-related rules system. The “arguably” addendum came due to 1) the fact that it requires quite a bit of rules-mastery in order to produce effective builds, 2) a martial character has to be a genius to be a good martial character, 3) a lot of gamers view the mechanics as a pseudo-magic system, and 4) different builds cope with different aspects, but none of them handles all of them.

Now, the interesting thing about this topic, as far as my observations amount to, is that it seems like the main issue about 3e’s Fighter is talking about it. It seems like no one’s really interested in accumulating valid solutions to the primary Fighter-issues and assembling them together in a complete package that goes for broke and takes a Fighter-fix “all the way to the bank”. People are usually transfixed on a specific solution (e.g. bumping combat stats, doing something with certain feats/feat-categories or inventing some new group of feats that they believe will “magically” make all the problems go away) that they subconsciously(?) screen away explanations as to why their approach is not getting them any closer to a real solution.
Well, boy’n’girls, it doesn’t work that way. A feature tweaking here and there won’t cut it.
The icon of bound-to-earth martial prowess needs one hell of a face lift and quite a bit of rules expansion in order to play in the big boys’ sandbox and have fun without relying on DM cuddling – a turf most are reluctant to venture into.

So, this is going to be my very last attempt to bring my solution (click me) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8366731#post8366731) to a serious discussion and evaluation.
I argue that I can prove that I’ve managed to address any and all of the shortcomings that 3e’s martial classes suffer from. This may sound quite boastful, I know, but I believe I can successfully back myself up. I’ve been to this discussion in the past with some of WotC’s top-dog optimizers, and their claims ended up revolving around defending ToB, stating that for each argument I made there’s a specific build of a specific class-combo that somehow manages things, that my fix fails because my Warrior can’t bend reality or trump the game like full spellcasters can, or that my rules also aid other classes(??!).
So far, I’ve managed to contradict any detailed argument against my proposed solution.

So again, I claim that my Warrior is a solid tier-3 base class all the way from level 1 through 20 and that it decently handles each and every well known and acknowledged 3e Fighter issue (and remember: an archer is not a pulverizer, an iron-clad powerhouse is not an unfettered daredevil, a brawler is not a cavalier, a commando specialist is not a mass-combat coordinator, etc. a specific build is not supposed to mix archetypes/rolls).


One last note: This is not about “mine’s bigger than yours”, I’m doing quite fine without pats on the shoulder. It’s just that it irks the eye to see these discussions pop up again and again when a valid solution already exists. OTOH, I would very much like to find out if there’s indeed a warrior archetype that’s impossible with my solution, or if regardless of my beliefs, I actually did neglect an important issue (and make the appropriate
modifications).

Bergor Terraf
2010-05-10, 01:35 PM
First thing first, sorry for not replying to you in the fighter manifesto thread. I saw it and wanted to comment on it, but got up in the conversations there and forgot about it.

I didn't read everything (it is a lot to take in in one shot), but I did read the feats, game mechanics and the warrior class itself. I still have trouble balancing my creations, so i wont try to determine if your stuff is or not. But I will give you my opinion on it, for wathever it's worth.

I like what you did with the feats. You went there and used common sense to clean them up and made others to fill the gaps. I like that.

You also did the same thing with the game mechanics wich is a good thing in my opinion. I think I'll use a few of tham myself. Critical hits in particular, now give more use for a high BAB, which I like. Feint seems interessting, not too good but not too bad. Giving HP to force effects is really great. The simplified grapple rules are great. Shield another can finally give a tank the possibility to, well, tank!

For the warrior, I prefered the name fighter. I know it is really generic and vague, but that's what is great about it: you are not pushed into any archetype, you decide what you are by how you build your character (at least, it should be like that). The class itself looks really good.

All in all, I really liked what I saw.

Draz74
2010-05-10, 03:05 PM
One thing I can say with certainty – I have never seen any fix, other than mine (we’ll get there in a moment), that successfully manages to address all of them in a neatly wrapped package. Well, there was one that came quite close – the one that most affected my version, but it was a bit too focused on overwhelming offense and not enough on lasting power and build/in-game options.

Hmmm. Have you not seen this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692)?

Also, I followed the link in your OP, and I didn't find a concise write-up about a Fighter fix. I found a huge wall o' text in the middle of a huge thread.

Doc Roc
2010-05-10, 03:50 PM
I'm guessing you haven't read F&K's fighter fix, or ours. Also, could you do unto us the small favor of wrapping your fighter fix up in a more accessible and directly implemented package?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-10, 04:29 PM
Interesting and well thought out, but not the masterpiece you seem to claim it to be. Perhaps it's the unintuitive process by which I had to find your changes, but the following are still issues (unless I missed something in the morass of houserules).
Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.
Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.
Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.
Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.
Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
A large amount of further houserules are necessary in order to fully use your changes, making the solution incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players.


ToB’s Warblade is also arguably supposed to do just that, but in order to accomplish this endeavor it relies on an entire book of melee-related rules system. The “arguably” addendum came due to 1) the fact that it requires quite a bit of rules-mastery in order to produce effective builds, 2) a martial character has to be a genius to be a good martial character, 3) a lot of gamers view the mechanics as a pseudo-magic system, and 4) different builds cope with different aspects, but none of them handles all of them.

Interestingly, many of these points applies doubly to your creation. You're not just using an entire new set of rules...you're changing the core rules, which has massive repercussions across the entire system, and is, if anything, harder to learn for an experienced player. Using ToB, it's actually fairly difficult to completely nerf yourself, but you still chose to rely on a feat distribution system, which means that an attempt to branch out to to many things or merely an attempt to experiment can nerf your character into oblivious. Finally, even in your system different builds cope with different aspects, as one build of your fighter cannot possibly cover all the weaknesses of martial combat.

I'm not trying to tear you apart: I'm just pointing out my thoughts on the matter.

Oslecamo
2010-05-10, 04:53 PM
One last note: This is not about “mine’s bigger than yours”, I’m doing quite fine without pats on the shoulder. It’s just that it irks the eye to see these discussions pop up again and again when a valid solution already exists.

1-Most fighter discussions arise from players whitout much experience optimizing and dare to say the vanilla fighter is a good class. This atracts a lot of other people screaming how OP casters are and throwing their main combos, and perhaps ToB fans screaming Warblade is better. Very few people indeed sugest homebrew fighter classes at all.
2-Ironically, there's dozens of "fighter fixes" out there, and so far none really managed to stand out that much, wich keeps them "diluted".
3-Even if there was an effective fighter fix, RAW still stands supreme and homebrew is normally banned from said discussions by default.



OTOH, I would very much like to find out if there’s indeed a warrior archetype that’s impossible with my solution, or if regardless of my beliefs, I actually did neglect an important issue (and make the appropriate
modifications).

Well, for one side, I've learned from experience that diferent people have diferent vews of the fighter more than anything else. Some believe the fighter should be some commando that outskills the rogue, others a combat machine that outrages the barbarian, and then some claiming that the fighter should be as adept at manipulating reality as a fully pimped out wizard. So what one sees as the perfect fighter solution is somebody else's weak/overpowered/meh fighter solution.

This is, a fighter that can take a batman wizard will whitout doubt steal the show if he ends on a campaign with a blaster sorceror, an archer rogue, and a healbot cleric facing ground based mooks whitout magic tricks.

Also, "mine’s bigger than yours" indeed.:smalltongue:

nonsi
2010-05-11, 07:47 AM
Hmmm. Have you not seen this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692)?

Yes I have.
1. It makes ToB maneuvers, in comparison, seem very credible IRL.
2. It still doesn't handle a lot of 3e's Fighter issues (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8366731#post8366731).




Also, I followed the link in your OP, and I didn't find a concise write-up about a Fighter fix. I found a huge wall o' text in the middle of a huge thread.

That "huge" wall o' text is quite easy ho manage.
- 5 short paragraphs that specify how to approach my fix and the motivations behind the chosen solution.
- A short paragraph with a link to my house rules (all you had to do was "click") and indication of the 4 relevant entries within the thread.
- 4 paragraphs that detail what one's supposed to do with the said entries.
- 3 short closure paragraphs.


Just try again, search and click "My House Rules", use the "huge wall o' text" to navigate my house rules and see what you make of it.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 08:04 AM
Mind addressing my points above? It's hard to discuss when your input isn't taken into account, and I'm interested in discussion.

nonsi
2010-05-11, 08:09 AM
I'm guessing you haven't read F&K's fighter fix, or ours.

Yes I have (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19525606/Lets_all_build_a_better_Fighter_%28RTR%29&post_num=30#331813634).
Here's a good (even though partial) analysis why it's a bad fix (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19528042/In-Depth_Game_Design:_So_You_Wanna_Fix_the_Fighter&post_num=41#331907578).




Also, could you do unto us the small favor of wrapping your fighter fix up in a more accessible and directly implemented package?

I could, but it won't make things easier to follow. My instructions are as easy as it can get. And it will be easy once you get to know your way around my house rules a bit. It's really not that hard.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 08:10 AM
Ah. Didn't know you were going post by post. Apologies for my above posting, then. :smallbiggrin:

Nero24200
2010-05-11, 08:19 AM
It may sound harsh, but theres alot of "Talking the Talk" but not "Walking the Walk" in my opinion. Alot of the issues with the fighte class still remain (I think Djinn's list is a pretty good evaluation) and it requires alot of house rules to be effective.

It's not nessicerily a bad fix, but I don't think you did yourself any favours by claiming that you fixed all of the fighter's problems, when alot of the more glaring and obvious problems still exist.

Not to mention that not everyone views the fighter the same. Your idea of a "perfect fighter fix" isn't going to be like everyone elses. It can still be a good fix, but trying to make a class that suits everyone and address every universal problem is likely to fail, since what is considered a "problem" for some means nothing to others. As said before, your woudl be best to just attempt to fix the common issues seen with the fighter, and Djinn did provide a good list.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-11, 08:21 AM
1. It makes ToB maneuvers, in comparison, seem very credible IRL.

Name one ability that class gets that's less believable than a ToB maneuver.


That "huge" wall o' text is quite easy ho manage.

Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 08:37 AM
Name one ability that class gets that's less believable than a ToB maneuver.

I must agree. Your "Through the Haze" ability is actually less believable than 90% of the abilities that particular fix gets. And "Through the Haze" was one I was willing, with a little bit of effort, to accept, so I see nothing wrong with the other class.


Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

Indeed. Well said, Dice.

Ashtagon
2010-05-11, 10:08 AM
Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've seen him promote it on three different sites now. I kept quiet here so as not to be accused of "poisoning the well", but it's obviously badly presented. It could well be good. But I honestly can't tell because of the way it has been formatted.

Dienekes
2010-05-11, 10:32 AM
boss, if you have a good fighter fix, why don't you act like everyone else and simply open up a new thread to post it and give some descriptions. Making people open your link to find another link to search through random stuff for your fix is inefficient to say the least.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 10:42 AM
Alright...looking further into your suggested changes. Here's a list of the changes you need to know to include your improved Fighter into an existing game. Note that these are things that a game must change to use your Fighter as intended. Also, I skipped a few minor inclusions, and may have missed some stuff.

Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
Ability Scores: Agility and Perception are added.
Skills: For Tumbling, Combat Diplomacy, and Combat Evaluation.
Weapons: Add Weapon Groups
Weapon Attacks: Include size and speed into calculations.
Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
Weapons: Add ideal pairs, the deflect maneuver, and restrict special actions to certain weapons. Why can't I disarm someone with a staff? I can IRL, so why not in your system?
AC: Change modifiers across the system. Completely alter balance with Deflection bonuses and stacking, lowering AC across the board.
AC: Add new Armors, raise Shield bonus, worry about Helmets. Can Helmets be enchanted?
AC: Add 1/2 Reflex as a Dodge bonus to AC.
Ability Scores: Grant bonuses each level.
Ability Scores: make 33-40 point buy default.
Attacks: Change critical hit mechanic, making them very common on high attack characters. Add death mechanic for still reliable second attack, which will trigger often.
Attacks: Change Coup de Grace mechanic, alter most other mechanics.
Attacks: Completely rewrite Feinting.
Attacks: Completely rewrite Grappling.
Defenses: Change flat-footed, hurting high Initiative Rogues.
Defenses: Redefine DR, arbitrarily requiring a special material for no discernible reason.
Armor: Bows give -ACP, for little reason. A shortbow isn't any more cumbersome than dual-wielding Greatswords with a 23 Strength...which you can do without penalty in your system.
Attacks: Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
Rolls: Change the meaning of a natural 1 and a natural 20.
Rolls: Add fumble mechanic, meaning that skilled combatants drop their weapon, attack a friend or ally, or fall prone one out of every 20 attacks. That's ridiculous, and further nerfs any character relying on attack rolls.
Attacks: Rewrite Overrun.
Attacks: Further nerf unarmed combat for no apparent reason (I could still dodge an attack if I'm unarmed), making warriors even more dependent upon equipment.
Races: Completely change races.
Feats: Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.

I also notice that you fail to change many incredibly powerful spells and effects...why, I'm not certain. Some of your changes are very well thought out, but others are abysmal. Working on just the matter at hand (the Fighter fix you offered), the above list is what would have to change. Most of those changes will alter every character and monster in the game, and, as such, most DMs would never touch them. It's also mountains above and beyond what is required for any other fighter fix I've seen: even ToB only requires learning a new system. What you offer involves rewriting the entire game.

Finally, none of your changes address the points I made previously.

I'd need a lot more convincing from your fix before I'd use it in a game of mine. Color me unimpressed so far: the work/benefit ratio is way out of line. Your Fighter is more complex than any I've encountered (as it's a class bringing a system change along for the ride), and isn't hundreds of times more impressive than any I've encountered. Which it would need to be.

Eurus
2010-05-11, 10:54 AM
I'm a fan of RoC's fighter fix myself; it's not perfect, but it seems to be headed in the right direction, and it revolves around a unique but relatively simple mechanic. Plus, modular classes are neat.

Still in the progress of reading your fixes, as there's a lot of material there, but it's clear that you've definitely put a lot of work into it. I'm somewhat worried, though, that the sheer level of massive changes that you're making to the core rules will discourage people from wanting to use them. At that point, you're essentially learning an entirely new system, and not everybody has the time or energy to do that.

nonsi
2010-05-11, 02:15 PM
Hey Djinn,

You know, there was a darn good reason I “spilled” so much text before and after the link to my house rules.




Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
Ability Scores: Agility and Perception are added.
Skills: For Tumbling, Combat Diplomacy, and Combat Evaluation.
Weapons: Add Weapon Groups
Weapon Attacks: Include size and speed into calculations.
Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
Weapons: Add ideal pairs, the deflect maneuver, and restrict special actions to certain weapons. Why can't I disarm someone with a staff? I can IRL, so why not in your system?
AC: Change modifiers across the system. Completely alter balance with Deflection bonuses and stacking, lowering AC across the board.
AC: Add new Armors, raise Shield bonus, worry about Helmets. Can Helmets be enchanted?
AC: Add 1/2 Reflex as a Dodge bonus to AC.
Ability Scores: Grant bonuses each level.
Ability Scores: make 33-40 point buy default.
Attacks: Change critical hit mechanic, making them very common on high attack characters. Add death mechanic for still reliable second attack, which will trigger often.
Attacks: Change Coup de Grace mechanic, alter most other mechanics.
Attacks: Completely rewrite Feinting.
Attacks: Completely rewrite Grappling.
Defenses: Change flat-footed, hurting high Initiative Rogues.
Defenses: Redefine DR, arbitrarily requiring a special material for no discernible reason.
Armor: Bows give -ACP, for little reason. A shortbow isn't any more cumbersome than dual-wielding Greatswords with a 23 Strength...which you can do without penalty in your system.
Attacks: Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
Rolls: Change the meaning of a natural 1 and a natural 20.
Rolls: Add fumble mechanic, meaning that skilled combatants drop their weapon, attack a friend or ally, or fall prone one out of every 20 attacks. That's ridiculous, and further nerfs any character relying on attack rolls.
Attacks: Rewrite Overrun.
Attacks: Further nerf unarmed combat for no apparent reason (I could still dodge an attack if I'm unarmed), making warriors even more dependent upon equipment.
Races: Completely change races.
Feats: Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.

First thing’s first, let’s narrow down the above list to the issues that warrant attention.




Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
Weapons: Add Weapon Groups
Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
Weapons: Add ideal pairs, the deflect maneuver, and restrict special actions to certain weapons. Why can't I disarm someone with a staff? I can IRL, so why not in your system?
AC: Change modifiers across the system. Completely alter balance with Deflection bonuses and stacking, lowering AC across the board.
AC: Add new Armors, raise Shield bonus, worry about Helmets. Can Helmets be enchanted?
Attacks: Completely rewrite Feinting.
Attacks: Completely rewrite Grappling.
Attacks: Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
Attacks: Rewrite Overrun.
Feats: Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.


The other issues were either not included in the post linked to in the OP of this thread or specifically were mentioned to be disregarded.


Now for the relevant issues.


>> Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
Definitely.
A Fighter without a massive amount of features that top feats is a worthless fix.

>> Weapons: Add Weapon Groups.
1. Which make a lot more sense than UA’s version (I mean “Druid weapons”? C’mon, man, give me a break).
2. With my rules you have a lot more customization options – and you don’t have to spend feats for that.
3. A lot more options to most weapons.

>> Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
Not exactly.
- I just removed some stupid double weapons and the spiked chain – both because they never existed and because the latter is really a no-brainer.
- The other weapons that were changed were simply made better, which is how the really were IRL.

>> Why can't I disarm someone with a staff
Actually, Quarterstaff is already there, but it was supposed to be both types of staffs from the get go.

>> AC: Change modifiers across the system.
Yes. The intent was to focus the attention just on shields, but I didn’t find a better place in the meantime. The other issues should be ignored as far as just assessing my Warrior class and not the entire system.
I’ll see what I can do about it in the near future.

>> Can Helmets be enchanted.
I don’t think they should. By RAW, a helmet is a part of the armor and I’m fine with that.

>> Completely rewrite Feinting
Definitely. Putting it back where it belongs. In the primary martial dude’s turf.

>> Completely rewrite Grappling.
Definitely.
A simpler mechanics with a lot more options that affects everyone equally.

>> Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
Absolutely.
This makes way more sense than the core mechanics, grants at least 3 core feats for free and keeps the space vacant for yet more features.

>> Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.
1. I did mention “(take whatever you feel like)”.
2. They may still not scale well, but they do scale a bit better and allow a wider range of options. Furthermore, feats scaling way better pose no bonus for the Fighter remake, since most all are available to everyone.



Also, I’m sorry for the delay, but life has other duties that take precedence. I respond as fast as I can.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 02:18 PM
Ah. That particular list wasn't a list of negatives or questions...it was merely a list of everything that a DM would have to change in his or her campaign to use your fix, as I was demonstrating that the immense amount of changes makes this not so much a Fighter fix as a completely new system. I personally like much of that list. :smallbiggrin:

It's the first list I gave that has the problems in it.

Sorry for the confusion.

nonsi
2010-05-11, 02:22 PM
First thing first, sorry for not replying to you in the fighter manifesto thread. I saw it and wanted to comment on it, but got up in the conversations there and forgot about it.

I didn't read everything (it is a lot to take in in one shot), but I did read the feats, game mechanics and the warrior class itself. I still have trouble balancing my creations, so i wont try to determine if your stuff is or not. But I will give you my opinion on it, for wathever it's worth.

I like what you did with the feats. You went there and used common sense to clean them up and made others to fill the gaps. I like that.

You also did the same thing with the game mechanics wich is a good thing in my opinion. I think I'll use a few of tham myself. Critical hits in particular, now give more use for a high BAB, which I like. Feint seems interessting, not too good but not too bad. Giving HP to force effects is really great. The simplified grapple rules are great. Shield another can finally give a tank the possibility to, well, tank!

For the warrior, I prefered the name fighter. I know it is really generic and vague, but that's what is great about it: you are not pushed into any archetype, you decide what you are by how you build your character (at least, it should be like that). The class itself looks really good.

All in all, I really liked what I saw.

Thanks. At least you're getting where I'm aiming at.

Read the other stuff you skipped. Whatever you choose to adopt (or not), I'm sure what you find there will inspire some ideas.

And stay tuned. I'll be handling most issues and attemp to mend the one I won't, hopefully things will make more sense to everyone with time.

togapika
2010-05-11, 03:26 PM
Flying monsters?
A really wide chasm with no bridge you have to cross...?

nonsi
2010-05-11, 03:56 PM
Your "Through the Haze" ability is actually less believable than 90% of the abilities that particular fix gets.


Ok, think of it like this: Combat Focus is basically a higher state of combat awareness, driven by a powerful adrenaline surge. With level progression, a Warrior learns to see things about the combat arena that others are simply not trained to:
- Find that pin-point timing to seize the moment and take an unexpected action.
- Notice a hazardeous situation just before it occurs
- Filter out facts from falsehoods.
The surge also makes a Warrior hardier than others, both physically and mentally.

This is basically a maintained Combat Focus state as it evolves with level progression.

Also, think of "expend" options as a breakdown of a capacitor. You put everything you've got in order to be able to seize a valuable opportunity that others just don't have the means of exploiting even if they did have the means of noticing them (which they don't), or even to pump yet more adrenaline in order to compensate against certain on going conditions.

Now, when you focus all your attention on that one critical effort, you narrow your attention and no longer benefit from a wide angle of battlefield perspective you had just a fraction of a second ago.


This serves yet another purpose - real combat strategy - when to conserve and maintain lastability and when to put your foot down and expose yourself, hoping your effort was enough and you timed yourself not to be too exposed.



So, to expand "Realms of Chaos"'s claim, there's absolutely no suitable analog in mythology for what a level 20 Warrior should be, and I doubt there are for level 14.

Given that and the explanation above, "Through the Haze" doesn't seem that too far fetched.

Temotei
2010-05-11, 03:59 PM
Ok, think of it like this: Combat Focus is basically a higher state of combat awareness, driven by a powerful adrenaline surge. With level progression, a Warrior learns to see things about the combat arena that others are simply not trained to:
- Find that pin-point timing to seize the moment and take an unexpected action.
- Notice a hazardeous situation just before it occurs
- Filter out facts from falsehoods.
The surge also makes a Warrior hardier than others, both physically and mentally.

This is basically a maintained Combat Focus state as it evolves with level progression.

Also, think of "expend" options as a breakdown of a capacitor. You put everything you've got in order to be able to seize a valuable opportunity that others just don't have the means of exploiting even if they did have the means of noticing them (which they don't), or even to pump yet more adrenaline in order to compensate against certain on going conditions.

Now, when you focus all your attention on that one critical effort, you narrow your attention and no longer benefit from a wide angle of battlefield perspective you had just a fraction of a second ago.


This serves yet another purpose - real combat strategy - when to conserve and maintain lastability and when to put your foot down and expose yourself, hoping your effort was enough and you timed yourself not to be too exposed.



So, to expand "Realms of Chaos"'s claim, there's absolutely no suitable analog in mythology for what a level 20 Warrior should be, and I doubt there are for level 14.

Given that and the explanation above, "Through the Haze" doesn't seem that too far fetched.

Which doesn't explain why you said the other fighter wasn't believable.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 04:00 PM
Given that and the explanation above, "Through the Haze" doesn't seem that too far fetched.

And if I can provide reasonable explanations for the other "unrealistic" abilities that other Fighters get? Or for Tome of Battle maneuvers? 'Cause it's possible.

And, to restate my previous post...what about the following?

Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.
Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.
Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.
Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.
Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
A large amount of further houserules are necessary in order to fully use your changes, making the solution incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players.

Lapak
2010-05-11, 04:37 PM
Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.Just throwing in my two cents in support of this. I was interested by your original post, clicked the links provided, and pretty quickly ran out of steam while attempting to follow the multiple trains of argument you set off running in different directions. It really would be worth your while to reorganize the presentation of your fix if you want it to gain any kind of wider acceptance, quite apart from whatever actual issues people have with the mechanics of it.

Oslecamo
2010-05-11, 05:12 PM
And if I can provide reasonable explanations for the other "unrealistic" abilities that other Fighters get? Or for Tome of Battle maneuvers? 'Cause it's possible.

Explain Iron Heart Surge please. Can shut down an AMF but can't do anything if you're paralyzed.:smallamused:



[list] Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.

Hmm, power attack? Spirited charge? The fighter dealingbutloads of damage isn't that hard.

Also there's some feats that allow limited stunning/dazing if I'm not mistaken. Ok, not that effecient, but the ToB maneuvers that inflict status conditions aren't that hot either, mainly due to low save DCs.



Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.


Well mounted charger and archer don't have much issues with that. And this being dungeons and dragons a good chunk of the combat is suposed to happen in more closed spaces where the enemy doesn't have much space to run.

Not to mention that melee enemies will make this issue redudant by aproaching you.

If you are fighting in the featurless desert of openness where wizards can drop rocks on you from 1000 foot away and the DM actualy uses those... Well, then even ToB is screwed.




Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.

Again, are you only fighting skirmisher enemies with high mobility and ranged attacks in open spaces?

Plus, why do you want to keep them close when you can keep them dead?

And even then, what can ToB do in those situations? There's some imobilizing powers, but those demand the ToBer geting close to the oponent and hiting them. Wich will be kinda hard when you're fighting the hypothetical flying wizards droping rocks from a 1000 foot away.

Mind you, since the casters are so good at protecting themselves, why does the fighter needs to care with their safety? It's everybody by themselves land!



Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.

You know, not all DMs make ecounters consisting of mainly save or die spells/effects.

And then, who can do it besides fullcasters? Not even Iron Heart Surge can save you when you're paralyzed!




Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.

Or party members buffing them. But teamwork seems to be heresy nowadays! Again, "everybody by himself" mentality, wich is kinda the oposite idea of D&D party.

Wizards need spell component pouches. And eschew materials won't save them, because it only replaces material component, not material focus.

And what's the alternative again? Should a swordless swordman cleave enemies in half with his bare hands? Should a bowless archer somehow shoot lazers out of his hand to hit far away oponents?



Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.

Well that I'll agree 100% with you. We need some damn good high tier feats. I've made some myself. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132335)

I'm particularly proud of my item chain feat that makes poisons actualy viable for the fighter!:smallbiggrin:



Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.

Also true. Damn wizards stealing stuff from everybody!

Aka, the problems you listed can be said of pretty much all noncasters, not just the fighter. ToB at best scratches those problems but a cheesed out caster still wipes the floor with them.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 05:21 PM
Explain Iron Heart Surge please. Can shut down an AMF but can't do anything if you're paralyzed.:smallamused:

I didn't claim to be able to explain all of them. That one's just poorly written and poorly designed. :smalltongue:


Hmm, power attack? Spirited charge? The fighter dealingbutloads of damage isn't that hard.

He claimed, in a roundabout manner, that his class was easier to use than Tome of Battle. This means you have to be able to get damage easily, if you're new to the system. Those people likely don't know the ways to do that.


Also there's some feats that allow limited stunning/dazing if I'm not mistaken. Ok, not that effecient, but the ToB maneuvers that inflict status conditions aren't that hot either, mainly due to low save DCs.

Right. His fix doesn't address this need. I'm not claiming ToB is the solution.


Well mounted charger and archer don't have much issues with that. And this being dungeons and dragons a good chunk of the combat is suposed to happen in more closed spaces where the enemy doesn't have much space to run.

Not to mention that melee enemies will make this issue redudant by aproaching you.

What makes them approach you over your squishy teammates? How can you STOP them approaching your squishy teammates?


If you are fighting in the featurless desert of openness where wizards can drop rocks on you from 1000 foot away and the DM actualy uses those... Well, then even ToB is screwed.

Again, are you only fighting skirmisher enemies with high mobility and ranged attacks in open spaces?

Plus, why do you want to keep them close when you can keep them dead?

My point is that he hasn't addressed the fighter's weaknesses as thoroughly as he thought he had. That's all I'm saying. Everything I stated is a weakness of the core fighter (and many of them are weaknesses of ToB, which, while it might help, doesn't completely fix the issue). They're also issues that he hasn't addressed in his fix.

Temotei
2010-05-11, 05:29 PM
Oh, and it's not that hard (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5061793-post1.html).

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-11, 05:37 PM
Oh, and it's not that hard (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5061793-post1.html).

I've been using that. It's still hard to find all the changes that the fighter would require to function as he suggested.

Temotei
2010-05-11, 05:39 PM
I've been using that. It's still hard to find all the changes that the fighter would require to function as he suggested.

I was referring to his linking to a random post in another thread, leading us to click on a link to go to that site and click and download another thing...etc.

It's not that hard to link to the quicker page, methinks.

Oslecamo
2010-05-11, 05:52 PM
He claimed, in a roundabout manner, that his class was easier to use than Tome of Battle. This means you have to be able to get damage easily, if you're new to the system. Those people likely don't know the ways to do that.

Well, unless he changed spirited charge and I missed it, that's a relatively easy combo there. If a newbie can't spot a feat wich says "deals triple damage" as a good way to increase your damage, well...



What makes them approach you over your squishy teammates? How can you STOP them approaching your squishy teammates?

What squishy teammates? The invisible flying wizard? Codzilla? Didn't someone said casters should be able to hold their own ground if they couldn't already?:smalltongue:



My point is that he hasn't addressed the fighter's weaknesses as thoroughly as he thought he had. That's all I'm saying. Everything I stated is a weakness of the core fighter (and many of them are weaknesses of ToB, which, while it might help, doesn't completely fix the issue). They're also issues that he hasn't addressed in his fix.

Oh well sorry for the misunderstanding. However I also wanted to point out some of the issues you showed aren't that common in actual campaigns. Casters know how to take care of themselves, and the noncasters are there to deal raw damage and atract fire (as they're simply easier to reach than the casters) while the casters slow down the enemy. Buffs are shared, etc, etc.

erikun
2010-05-11, 06:11 PM
I feel compelled to point out that I needed to follow a link to a post to follow a link to a post to follow a link to a download to a lenghty, poorly edited webpage. I am thankful for you pointing out where to look in the downloaded document, although that is still quite a number of hoops to jump through when presenting a subject or asking for a critique.

I also have questions similar to what Djinn_In_Tonic had presented on the previous page. How does the Warrior deal with flying? How does the Warrior deal with poor (or no) equipment? How does the Warrior deal with something beyond getting into and ending fights? Perhaps I am reading over an important part, but it doesn't sound like the Warrior even has the versatility of a rogue or factorium when it comes to dealing with various challanges. He certainly doesn't have the capabilities of a Wizard, as I assume a fix which "successfully manages to address all of [the Fighter's needs] in a neatly wrapped package" would address.

For the most part, it looks like the Warrior is just more resilient, especially with saving throws.

nonsi
2010-05-12, 10:27 AM
And if I can provide reasonable explanations for the other "unrealistic" abilities that other Fighters get? Or for Tome of Battle maneuvers? 'Cause it's possible.

And, to restate my previous post...what about the following?

Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.
Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.
Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.
Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.
Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
A large amount of further houserules are necessary in order to fully use your changes, making the solution incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players.


I’ll answer only to what I believe wasn’t already answered better than I would’ve...


>> Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large
>> variety of common spells and effects.
- Combat Focus (continuous resistance + 1-time hyper-resistance)
- Ever Vigilant (enhanced perception + tactical edge)
- Second Wind (overcome certain conditions)
- Tide of Battle (getting out of the way of a no-save effects based on hit-rolls)
- Mettle (enduring where most others will falter)
- Action Without Thought (hardy mind while focused)
- Through the Haze (filtering falsehoods)
And notice that they’re all valid within combat – the Warrior’s comfort zone.
The main idea was to keep effects valid while making the Warrior extremely hard to take out of the equasion (as long as he's engaged in battle).


>> Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment
>> to contribute in a fight.
True.
The most evident issue is the need for a magical weapon vs. incorporeal opponents, and it makes sense.
But that’s practically true for all except characters with effects that can create/enhance weapons magically on-the-fly.


>> Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to
>> in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
Again, feats scaling way better pose no bonus for the Fighter remake, since most all are available to everyone.
Being able to do things with feats that others haven’t a prayer of accomplishing (e.g. Array of Stunts), however, does.


>> Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to
>> a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still
>> as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that
>> spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
That’s not a Fighter-related problem, but a problem related to spells that pump up BAB. Such spells shouldn’t exist (or at least work in a different manner) and, in fact, a lot of groups handle them appropriately.


>> A large amount of further houserules are necessary in
>> order to fully use your changes, making the solution
>> incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players
You know what, if it matters that much, you could do without the weapon groups and the feats, although omitting them would lessen the end result (mostly in options such as tanking).
Also, you could ignore the stuff about Helmets, Grapple, and Overrun, but they just enrich the game while favoring high-BAB, so again you’d be taking away other bonuses gained for free.
You could also ignor the revised Feint rules, but this will keep the skillmonkeys ahead of the Warrior in that area (simply seems stooped to me).
You could also ignore “Multiple Attacks and Movement”, but then every other Warrior would have 1 level dip of Lion-Totem-Barb and be a charger (Hurrah!!) and the world of warfare again degrades to “all or practically nothing” (mostly nothing, since charging is easily nullified).
(btw, do you have any idea how pounce really works IRL?)

AND, finally, you could ignore the issue about breaching force effects... BUT then ole' Fighter (not so much) fix is again rendered helpless when facing force barriers (Double Hurrah !!!)

Poppatomus
2010-05-12, 11:17 AM
Well, unless he changed spirited charge and I missed it, that's a relatively easy combo there. If a newbie can't spot a feat wich says "deals triple damage" as a good way to increase your damage, well...


I'm no expert, but weren't we just saying that the game world is usually a very enclosed one without endless plains on which to engage in mounted combat?

Not trying to be snarky, and i'm the first to admit i am no expert, but I think the discussion is kind of going past itself. Without play testing there's really no way to prove if the changes OP suggests are "enough" to fix the problems Djinn highlights. In part this is because those problems only exist in some settings and matter the most to players trying to break the game.

What you see as a sufficient boost in damage may not be enough in an optimized game where other classes, and monsters, also get the benefits of these new rules (on the other hand it may be radically over powered). From my humble vantage point it seems like the alternative rules would be interesting to play and empower the class, but I am not sure the claim that the class is thereby "fixed" necessarily follows.

Draz74
2010-05-12, 11:50 AM
Yes I have.
1. It makes ToB maneuvers, in comparison, seem very credible IRL.
Really? :smallconfused: I don't think we're going to agree on what abilities are "credible." I already didn't have a problem with most of ToB, but I really don't see what's wrong with the BWL fix, fluff-wise.


That "huge" wall o' text is quite easy ho manage.
- 5 short paragraphs that specify how to approach my fix and the motivations behind the chosen solution.
- A short paragraph with a link to my house rules (all you had to do was "click") and indication of the 4 relevant entries within the thread.
- 4 paragraphs that detail what one's supposed to do with the said entries.
- 3 short closure paragraphs.


Just try again, search and click "My House Rules", use the "huge wall o' text" to navigate my house rules and see what you make of it.

Yeah, I spent a few minutes following chains of links to look into your house rules. There were two main things that I was looking for and couldn't find:


Something that talked about the Fighter specifically, rather than a bunch of other house rules that I don't care about in this context
a Table of the Fighter's abilities, Levels 1-20. A blessed table. Is that really so much to ask?

drakir_nosslin
2010-05-12, 11:55 AM
Yeah, I spent a few minutes following chains of links to look into your house rules. There were two main things that I was looking for and couldn't find:


Something that talked about the Fighter specifically, rather than a bunch of other house rules that I don't care about in this context
a Table of the Fighter's abilities, Levels 1-20. A blessed table. Is that really so much to ask?


I still haven't found it. I found some suspicious .zip file on EnWorld, but that's all. Please nonsi, I'd really like to see what you've done, so could you either update the first post with your fix, or provide a direct link to a page where you keep it.

Thank you.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 12:10 PM
I'll address my own concerns with your fix, as I still don't think most of them have been answered properly.


Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.
If every build has to be a power-attacking build, a spirited charge build, or one of those 500 damage archer builds, it means you've failed in your design. A dagger fighter should, ideally, be able to stand up to a charging lance fighter, if your fix works as promised. Every variety of fighter should be able to function in a fairly optimized party. In fact, for a strong class, I should be able to run an entire party of just that class without losing to much. I don't see the potential to do this: in a party consisting of a shortbow master, a dagger fighter, an unarmed brawler, and a lance-charger, I know that someone is going to be overshadowing the rest by huge margins. There's also going to be a lot we still can't deal with.


Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
Contrary to the statements of Oslecamo, this is still important. An opponent a mere 10 feet away reduces me to a single attack without adding in your full houserules for attacking. An opponent with a bow or with ranged attacks, flight, and/or spells will simply waste me before I can close the distance. An opponent on a cliff will destroy me. An opponent across a gorge will destroy me. Any opponent I cannot reach will tear me apart as I try to get to him. I see no real way to deal with these in your build. And, while many campaigns are close-quarters dungeon crawls with opponents who just charge forward, that's not all games. A good DM will challenge his PCs with a variety to tactically difficult encounters, and an encounter consisting of even a single big enemy in a pit with the PCs, surrounded by competent archers, will destroy most of your fighters.


Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.

When my only option is melee combat, and I'm only truly effective with a full attack, it's really trying to see that foes can merely run away, drawing a single AoO, and then be out of my reach. It's troublesome to see them run by me as if I weren't there to kill my allies behind me. In short, I can't dominate the battlefield, despite being supposed to...well...be the paragon of a fighting class. I have no moves to tail them, no moves to hold them to me, no moves to stop movement, and no moves to ensure I pose a threat. I can't pin a powerful enemy in place in a whirlwind of blades: I close and hit him once, and, if I'm to strong, he'll just book it. Most enemies played with even a touch of intelligence won't stand and duke it out with the PCs strongest melee character if they see things aren't going their way: they'll pick out easier game. And here I am...the fighter...the pinnacle of martial combat...unable to stop them or even really discourage them.


Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.
You claim the fighter's abilities solve much of this, but you really only cover effects that confuse, cripple, daze, dazzle, exhaust, fatigue, nauseate, shake, sicken, slow, or stun. That's 2/encounter at most. You are also strong against compulsions, and are able to step out of the way of attacks that target a specific square, 1/round. Fair enough. Now solve these problems.
Ability Damage/Ability Drain on a class that relies heavily on his physical abilities.
Energy Drain.
Otto's Irresistible Dance
Grease
Death Effects
Paralysis
Forcecage (yes, you say they can be broken...but that's a system fix, not a fighter fix).
Shapechange and/or Polymorph making a caster stronger than the fighter.
Gate
To name a few just from the SRD. Other sources get worse. You either burn through your combat focus dealing with small things, or they stack up and you're done for. You can burn combat focus 2/encounter...and, if you do, you're then defenseless. I can use save-or-sucks on you all day, basically. It's not a bad fix, but it's to little to late.


Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.
What if I want to play an unarmed fighter? What about the disarm rules? There should be something in place so a single disarm attack doesn't render me useless...


Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
This is still very important to the fighter, because you're handing him feats as class features. Over 14 of them, to be precise. If feats don't need to scale because everyone has access to them, don't try to use them as level 18 and 19 class features. Otherwise, they DO need to scale well, or the Fighter's class feature is worthless.


Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
Either say the fix is to "rework the system," or account for this without making me have to cut and/or alter spells. A fighter fix should be able to stand on its own. If it doesn't, it's a system fix, which I'd judge and critique in a completely different way. Saying I should cut or alter these spells is a system fix.


A large amount of further houserules are necessary in order to fully use your changes, making the solution incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players.
Yes, this is that important. Should I have to fix every other class and rules in order to get a Fighter fix? Personally, I don't want to have to. Changing everything is what we in the business call a new system or a system revision. If that's what you're offering, don't call it a fighter fix. Call it what it is, and I'll judge it as such.


As for whether or not I know how pounce works...why yes. I do.


Conclusion
Your fighter fix fails to accomplish everything you want it to, even with the system revision. What you've made, however, isn't a Fighter fix. Someone looking for a Fighter fix, but who considers the Barbarian, Rogue, and attack system in general to be decent will not want your fix. You've made a system revision, and a half-decent one at that (no, it's not the be-all-and-end-all of system revisions, but it's a good attempt at solving some problems). Kudos to you for that. :smallbiggrin:

You don't, however, solve all the problems. You don't take everything into account. It's not the answer to the age old Fighter dilemma. It doesn't allow for everyone's idea of a Fighter. It's just one fighter fix amongst hundreds, and is nothing particularly extraordinary or groundbreaking at the moment.

Things to Consider
If you want a FIGHTER FIX, consider rolling some of those changed combat options into the fighter class, as fighter specific things. Consider being willing to sacrifice a bit of realism for some more interesting ways to deal with spells, or grab some extra damage/attack effects. Figure out how to benefit all weapon choices equally, and all armor choice equally. Consider how to fix the fighter without requiring a rework of the core system and every other class...tie those changes into the Fighter alone, to give a reason to take that class. Then you may be on to something.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 01:02 PM
A dagger fighter should, ideally, be able to stand up to a charging lance fighter...

Mostly, I agree with you, but this seems flat-out wrong.

The knife fighter has made a serious mistake while fighting someone who wants him dead. If he survives, and doesn't have a level advantage, then that is unbalanced.

The fight would also have been unfair if the knife fighter had no opportunity to move into a position where he has the upper hand - and if he's sitting in an open featureless plain, then it goes back to "made a serious mistake". Didn't he think to bring a polearm? Or a bow?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-12, 01:07 PM
Mostly, I agree with you, but this seems flat-out wrong.

The knife fighter has made a serious mistake while fighting someone who wants him dead. He has no business surviving.

If there was no way for the knife-fighter to move this onto his terms, then yes, this would be unbalanced. On face value, however, this is exactly the result we want. With the possible caveat that the knife fighter might be able to survive with a decent level advantage.

By "stand up to" I'm fairly sure he means "be able to contribute to a party just like." Does that mean he should be as powerful as a charging lancer? No. Does that mean a knife fighter should have a reason to exist besides Power Attackers? Yes.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 01:09 PM
By "stand up to" I'm fairly sure he means "be able to contribute to a party just like." Does that mean he should be as powerful as a charging lancer? No. Does that mean a knife fighter should have a reason to exist besides Power Attackers? Yes.

I'm just taking it at face value - he goes on to say something about contributing equally to a party, so I wasn't sure whether or not he literally meant "face down a charging knight in contravention of the character's likely style".

drakir_nosslin
2010-05-12, 01:12 PM
Mostly, I agree with you, but this seems flat-out wrong.

The knife fighter has made a serious mistake while fighting someone who wants him dead. He has no business surviving.

If there was no way for the knife-fighter to move this onto his terms, then yes, this would be unbalanced. On face value, however, this is exactly the result we want. With the possible caveat that the knife fighter might be able to survive with a decent level advantage.

Umm, not really, all the knife fighter needs to do is get within the reach of the lance, then the other guy is more or less screwed, unless he has a backup weapon. In a fantasy game like this, agility and speed should reward people as much as heavy weapons and armor does. And with that I don't mean that you should play a rogue, there are many kinds of fighters, and to be honest, I'd rather go up against a lance-wielding guy than one with a knife.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 01:27 PM
Mostly, I agree with you, but this seems flat-out wrong.

The knife fighter has made a serious mistake while fighting someone who wants him dead. If he survives, and doesn't have a level advantage, then that is unbalanced.

The fight would also have been unfair if the knife fighter had no opportunity to move into a position where he has the upper hand - and if he's sitting in an open featureless plain, then it goes back to "made a serious mistake". Didn't he think to bring a polearm? Or a bow?

I'm thinking character options, now mechanics. A highly trained knife fighter wouldn't think to bring a polearm or a bow because he's not focused in those weapons. He shouldn't, however, be completely outclassed.

For example...I've sparred before. With mock weapons, certainly, but still. I've taken out an equally skilled opponent when he had a 6 foot staff and I had two 8 inch daggers. We went about 50/50 in terms of hits, because we both knew how to use the weapon in question. He blocked a lot, and I dodged and deflected a lot. It's a different fighting style, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

Daggers are still around because they work. Against an armored knight, a punching dagger is a better weapon that most things you can care to name, except for weapons heavy enough to crush both him and his armor. A guy with a longsword and a parrying dagger is a force to be reckoned with. A guy with a knife can duck inside your guard, force the fight to happen within the range of your sword, and gut you.

I don't see this sort of thing as an option. Sword>Knife in all circumstances, with this fix.

Of course, you'd never go toe-to-toe, blow-for-blow with a knight in full armor. You can, however, beat him in melee combat by dodging his attacks, darting around him faster than his heavy armor will allow him to move, and striking him where he's weak with your smaller, faster weapon. You can indeed win. Not often, but you can. In some circumstances IRL, you'd want to be the faster, more agile warrior...but here, it's never a better option than being a power-attacking juggernaut.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 01:30 PM
Umm, not really, all the knife fighter needs to do is get within the reach of the lance, then the other guy is more or less screwed, unless he has a backup weapon. In a fantasy game like this, agility and speed should reward people as much as heavy weapons and armor does. And with that I don't mean that you should play a rogue, there are many kinds of fighters, and to be honest, I'd rather go up against a lance-wielding guy than one with a knife.

If he has a mount of his own, then the knife fighter might have a speed advantage. Otherwise, that would go to the lancer.

The guy with a knife might be good in a dungeon, or a city, but he isn't. He's trying to face down a guy on horseback who is charging him.

Unless he has a clear advantage of his own from elsewhere, he shouldn't win this fight. The lancer is competent as well.


Of course, you'd never go toe-to-toe, blow-for-blow with a knight in full armor. You can, however, beat him in melee combat by dodging his attacks, darting around him faster than his heavy armor will allow him to move, and striking him where he's weak with your smaller, faster weapon. You can indeed win. Not often, but you can. In some circumstances IRL, you'd want to be the faster, more agile warrior...but here, it's never a better option than being a power-attacking juggernaut.

I'm only disputing the suggestion that a knife-fighter should be able to face down a charging knight when it seems like the knight has all of the advantages (i.e. he's able to charge).

The two should be able to do well - just in different situations. That part of your argument reads as if the knife guy should have more than a limited chance in a seriously dire tactical situation.

Note, however, that I don't see an issue with requiring fighters to be prepared for different situations - one trick ponies shouldn't last long.

nonsi
2010-05-12, 01:32 PM
I still haven't found it. I found some suspicious .zip file on EnWorld, but that's all. Please nonsi, I'd really like to see what you've done, so could you either update the first post with your fix, or provide a direct link to a page where you keep it.

Thank you.

This is the end target (Click Me) (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-house-rules/270794-my-3-5-house-rules-codex-now-fully-reorganized.html). There’s a zip file in there (probably the one you found), which contains me house rules in an html file. It’s virus-free (as far as how it left my PC and re-downloaded).

This message (Click Me) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8366731#post8366731) specifies what to focus on within the above.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 01:33 PM
If he has a mount of his own, then the knife fighter might have a speed advantage. Otherwise, that would go to the lancer.

The guy with a knife might be good in a dungeon, or a city, but he isn't. He's trying to face down a guy on horseback who is charging him.

Unless he has a clear advantage of his own from elsewhere, he shouldn't win this fight. The lancer is competent as well.

In a fighter vs. fighter, yes. A mounted, armored lancer charging a knife fighter should win. On the ground? It could go either way. In an enclosed area, forced into toe-to-toe combat? The knife fighter would have that all his own way.

Doesn't happen like that here though.

There's no reason to not power through with one of about three traditional high-damage routes with this fix. History wasn't filled with lancers and guys wielding big weapons. Plate armor phased out after the crossbow developed the ability to punch straight through it, and the rapier was found to be able to puncture its weak points...but here, the heavy armored 2-weapon guy reigns supreme. It's not always like that IRL, and shouldn't be in-game.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 01:36 PM
In a fighter vs. fighter, yes. A mounted, armored lancer charging a knife fighter should win. On the ground? It could go either way. In an enclosed area, forced into toe-to-toe combat? The knife fighter would have that all his own way.

Doesn't happen like that here though.

There's no reason to not power through with one of about three traditional high-damage routes with this fix. History wasn't filled with lancers and guys wielding big weapons. Plate armor phased out after the crossbow developed the ability to punch straight through it, and the rapier was found to be able to puncture its weak points...but here, the heavy armored 2-weapon guy reigns supreme. It's not always like that IRL, and shouldn't be in-game.

I'm not disputing that - it's just the one part of your post that I quoted originally (which implies that you expect the situation I described to be viable for the knife fighter) that's a problem.

I certainly don't want people bringing along two-handed swords all the time, for the exact reasons you quoted (and I'd also prefer it if the two-handed sword guy actually learned to use something else as well).


Saying that, disarming should probably be a weakness - at least, as long as other characters have comparable weaknesses. It's nice to be able to defeat a character without killing them, and nonlethal damage is utterly pathetic. It isn't realistic, or reasonable as something to attempt.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 01:49 PM
I'm not disputing that - it's just the one part of your post that I quoted originally (which implies that you expect the situation I described to be viable for the knife fighter) that's a problem.

My post wasn't entirely clear. I meant that a dagger fighter should stand up to a charging lancer against the game, not against the fighter specifically. A mounted charging lancer fighting a knife fighter in an open field should obviously win most of those engagements...just like a knife fighter fighting a lancer in a toe-to-toe fight should win most of those engagements.

My point was that both should be equally viable for a character in a campaign, and add equal strength (if different specialty) to a party.

Oslecamo
2010-05-12, 02:19 PM
Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
Contrary to the statements of Oslecamo, this is still important. An opponent a mere 10 feet away reduces me to a single attack without adding in your full houserules for attacking. An opponent with a bow or with ranged attacks, flight, and/or spells will simply waste me before I can close the distance. An opponent on a cliff will destroy me. An opponent across a gorge will destroy me. Any opponent I cannot reach will tear me apart as I try to get to him. I see no real way to deal with these in your build. And, while many campaigns are close-quarters dungeon crawls with opponents who just charge forward, that's not all games. A good DM will challenge his PCs with a variety to tactically difficult encounters, and an encounter consisting of even a single big enemy in a pit with the PCs, surrounded by competent archers, will destroy most of your fighters.

Tower shield much? Unless it was changed, you can still use it to gain cover and close in the gap. Not very fast, but if the archers is on a cliff/over a pit he can't circle a tower shield fighter. Actualy there was a test of spite match where a druid tried to prove his superiority by flying and droping rocks and his oponent just pulled out a tower shield and whistled happily while hiding below it. Your oponent will eventualy run out of ammo before you run out of shield unless he's a spellcaster.

Not to mention really cheap stuff like smoke sticks. Granted it's items, but they're perfectly afordable by anyone and they're there precisely for countering archers on higher ground



My post wasn't entirely clear. I meant that a dagger fighter should stand up to a charging lancer against the game, not against the fighter specifically. A mounted charging lancer fighting a knife fighter in an open field should obviously win most of those engagements...just like a knife fighter fighting a lancer in a toe-to-toe fight should win most of those engagements.

My point was that both should be equally viable for a character in a campaign, and add equal strength (if different specialty) to a party.


Actualy, that's precisely something a lot of people complain when they claim they want balance. If the dagger fighter goes into hiding when in open ground and the lance fighter stands back kniting if it's a twisted tunnel where you end up near your oponent, then it's not that fun.

So if you want the dagger to be viable, by your standards the dagger fighter would need to be almost as good at throwing daggers as the archer is shooting arrows, move almost as fast as the charger, defend himself from projectiles almost as well as the shield and board, etc, etc. What if the whole campaign is in open ground? Or just twisted tunnels?

Paper-rock-scissors is only fun when you're controling a whole party by yourself. The rogue doesn't like to stand back when the party finds a golem and the party doesn't like to wait while the rogue checks out for traps.

drakir_nosslin
2010-05-12, 02:39 PM
If he has a mount of his own, then the knife fighter might have a speed advantage. Otherwise, that would go to the lancer.

The guy with a knife might be good in a dungeon, or a city, but he isn't. He's trying to face down a guy on horseback who is charging him.

Unless he has a clear advantage of his own from elsewhere, he shouldn't win this fight. The lancer is competent as well.


Sorry, I wasn't aware that we were discussing a certain scenario, and that the lancer had a mount. Anyway, I agree that certain ways of fighting a superior in certain conditions, but a knife wielding fighter isn't really viable in D&D, unless you optimize really well, and to me that isn't really fair :smalltongue:.

Nonsi: Thanks, I'll take a look.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 03:02 PM
So if you want the dagger to be viable, by your standards the dagger fighter would need to be almost as good at throwing daggers as the archer is shooting arrows, move almost as fast as the charger, defend himself from projectiles almost as well as the shield and board, etc, etc. What if the whole campaign is in open ground? Or just twisted tunnels?

The game depends on the DM to ensure that it remains fun - writing a pnp roleplaying game that doesn't is impossible.

A whole campaign that takes place in the environment where a given fighter's signature style is weakest might be more plausible than one that takes place entirely within an antimagic field, but it's no better as far as standard of DM'ing is concerned.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 03:08 PM
So if you want the dagger to be viable, by your standards the dagger fighter would need to be almost as good at throwing daggers as the archer is shooting arrows, move almost as fast as the charger, defend himself from projectiles almost as well as the shield and board, etc, etc. What if the whole campaign is in open ground? Or just twisted tunnels?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't want this hypothetical fighter to beat everyone at their own game. I just want him to be a viable option, meaning he needs abilities that are as attractive as those other builds can get. Not that this doesn't mean he excels in the same areas: it must means that there are some thing thats he can do as well or better than the others.

Which is not true currently. Choosing a dagger, light mace, sling, unarmed strike, quarterstaff, and so forth are very suboptimal choices, rather than being equal but different choices.

Jarian
2010-05-12, 03:38 PM
This is rather like putting someone's leg in a cast because they stubbed their toe.

The answer isn't to change the system, it's to change the fighter. That's not really what you've done. Nobody wants to learn a whole new system just to play a fighter, especially when there are already other (simpler, certainly, and better in my opinion) fixes out there that don't require you to do so.

Oslecamo
2010-05-12, 03:41 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't want this hypothetical fighter to beat everyone at their own game. I just want him to be a viable option, meaning he needs abilities that are as attractive as those other builds can get. Not that this doesn't mean he excels in the same areas: it must means that there are some thing thats he can do as well or better than the others.

You kinda misunderstood my point, or perhaps I didn't put it right. What I meant was that the ideal fighter shouldn't feel left out in any situation. So for example in open ground while the charger moves fast perhaps the dagger user is really good at seting ambushes or really good at drawing the oponent's atention, while in the tight tunnels the charger can smash trough walls or somehow go around them



Which is not true currently. Choosing a dagger, light mace, sling, unarmed strike, quarterstaff, and so forth are very suboptimal choices, rather than being equal but different choices.

In all complete honesty, that's something that not even casters can do. Just like there are subotimal spells, you can't expect to have dozens of weapons and all of them being atractive crunch-wise. If we can make half the weapons work properly that would be a big achievement already.:smallwink:

Also, if someone should be a dagger/sling master it should totally be the rogue and if someone should be an unarmed/quarterstaff master it should be the monk. :smallbiggrin:

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 03:50 PM
You kinda misunderstood my point, or perhaps I didn't put it right. What I meant was that the ideal fighter shouldn't feel left out in any situation. So for example in open ground while the charger moves fast perhaps the dagger user is really good at seting ambushes or really good at drawing the oponent's atention, while in the tight tunnels the charger can smash trough walls or somehow go around them.

Ah. That's very different from what I thought you were saying. I'd agree on this point: you should always be able to contribute something.


In all complete honesty, that's something that not even casters can do. Just like there are subotimal spells, you can't expect to have dozens of weapons and all of them being atractive crunch-wise. If we can make half the weapons work properly that would be a big achievement already.:smallwink:

True. But even those sub-optimal spells work: Meteor Swarm isn't Gate, but it gets the job done. The difference between a charge build and a sling build is that one of them can't do jack at high levels, and the other one only has damage.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 04:02 PM
You kinda misunderstood my point, or perhaps I didn't put it right. What I meant was that the ideal fighter shouldn't feel left out in any situation. So for example in open ground while the charger moves fast perhaps the dagger user is really good at seting ambushes or really good at drawing the oponent's atention, while in the tight tunnels the charger can smash trough walls or somehow go around them

Maybe, but being able to smash through walls is pointless - the fighter should have different tricks for different situations, instead of the ability to shoehorn one specific trick into any situation you care to name.

We wouldn't ask a wizard to solve all their problems with fireballs, why ask the fighter to solve all their problems with a dagger?

As for equipment dependency, I fail to see an issue - every character should probably have some weaknesses of this kind, otherwise every fight is going to end with someone dead, whether that's a desirable thing or not.

Nonlethal damage is useless, pointless, unrealistic, and horrible. Disarming someone, flicking their weapon away, and forcing them to surrender is reasonable.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-12, 04:02 PM
In all complete honesty, that's something that not even casters can do. Just like there are subotimal spells, you can't expect to have dozens of weapons and all of them being atractive crunch-wise. If we can make half the weapons work properly that would be a big achievement already.:smallwink:

This is true; however, a sword-and-board fighter can't wake up one morning and decide "Y'know, I think I want to be a master of the quarterstaff this morning" and change to something else the next day if that doesn't work out, as casters can do to varying extents. Combined with the fact that even the "bad" spells are still usually awesome by noncaster standards, as Djinn noted, and the difference between "all caster strategies are not viable" and "all noncaster strategies are not viable" becomes much more clear.

The fighter shouldn't necessarily be able to change his specialty on a whim, obviously, but any given strategy should be roughly on par with the rest in the right circumstances, just like how blasting and buffing aren't perfectly equal caster strategies but a limited-list caster like a sorcerer or favored soul can focus its list and expect to do well when the scenario favors their strategy.

Oslecamo
2010-05-12, 04:17 PM
True. But even those sub-optimal spells work: Meteor Swarm isn't Gate, but it gets the job done. The difference between a charge build and a sling build is that one of them can't do jack at high levels, and the other one only has damage.

Meteor swarm gets the job done if your oponent doesn't has fire immunity or just huge HP+regeneration.

But what about imprisonment? Single target save or die that demands a touch attack on top and allows SR. Sure your oponent isn't coming back but there was a lot of better ways to acomplish this whitout spending a valuable 9th spell slot/spell known.

Freedom is an inferior freedom of movement(a 4th level spell!) that happens to counter imprisonment.

Soul bind is flavourfull, but between expensive component cost, allowing a save even if the oponent is dead, and there being not much rules to use souls for your advantage, well, only Xykon would take it. Heck, there's a special material out there that replicates the effect whitout need of expensive gems or saving throws!

Refuge could easily be replicated by handing your friend an helm of teleportation or some other similar item. And it can be turned against you.

So out of the 24 core 9th level spells, 4 are really suboptimal. Well not that bad, but I've still never seen any player take any of the above, but people don't complain much because they have stuff like time stop, shapechange and gate to play with.

lesser_minion:agreed on your last point. A disarmed naked fighter should be much less dangerous than a fully equiped one.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-12, 04:20 PM
So out of the 24 core 9th level spells, 4 are really suboptimal. Well not that bad, but I've still never seen any player take any of the above, but people don't complain much because they have stuff like time stop, shapechange and gate to play with.

The thing with spells is that there's usually something similar in theme, but better. I've never seen a spellcaster concept ruined because there's one specific spell that's just to weak for them to work with.

If I want to build a specialized knife or sling fighter, however...or a whip specialist, or any number of things, I have to completely change my vision of the character and his or her fighting style in order to be effective.

Oslecamo
2010-05-12, 04:28 PM
The thing with spells is that there's usually something similar in theme, but better. I've never seen a spellcaster concept ruined because there's one specific spell that's just to weak for them to work with.

Mind controler. A lot of stuff is immune to it out of the bat and even in a good day there's plenty of counters to mind control stuff everywhere. Great for some suport, but you can't rely it as your main speciality.



If I want to build a specialized knife or sling fighter, however...or a whip specialist, or any number of things, I have to completely change my vision of the character and his or her fighting style in order to be effective.

Well, like I already pointed out I believe those aren't suposed to be the fighter's area of expertise. Asking the fighter to be good with daggers/whips is like asking him to be good with magic. The rogue is the one who's suposed to be good with daggers and the bard should be whiping people while the monk uses kung-fu. I don't recall legendary fighters kniving their way to victory. I recall thiefs and ninjas doing so.

lesser_minion
2010-05-12, 04:31 PM
The thing with spells is that there's usually something similar in theme, but better. I've never seen a spellcaster concept ruined because there's one specific spell that's just to weak for them to work with.

If I want to build a specialized knife or sling fighter, however...or a whip specialist, or any number of things, I have to completely change my vision of the character and his or her fighting style in order to be effective.

The thing is, as a player, I expect a single signature style to fail fairly frequently - you shouldn't be able to dive right into CGS, and there are going to be situations where there's no obvious way to fight.


Well, like I already pointed out I believe those aren't suposed to be the fighter's area of expertise. Asking the fighter to be good with daggers/whips is like asking him to be good with magic. The rogue is the one who's suposed to be good with daggers and the bard should be whiping people while the monk uses kung-fu. I don't recall legendary fighters kniving their way to victory. I recall thiefs and ninjas doing so.

While King Arthur was hardly a good film, it featured at least one character who was clearly a fighter, but dual-wielded daggers. It can be done.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-12, 04:44 PM
Mind controler. A lot of stuff is immune to it out of the bat and even in a good day there's plenty of counters to mind control stuff everywhere. Great for some suport, but you can't rely it as your main speciality.

A lot of enemies being immune to mind control doesn't mean the spell itself is weak, it simply means you need a backup plan when facing [Mind-Affecting]-immune foes...which anyone needs when their main schtick fails. When it does work, it works very well, whereas many suboptimal fighting styles don't work ever. That's the equivalent of playing a metamagic-less wizard focusing on burning hands in a game where every enemy has fire resistance 15--yeah, you can do something, but other options are superior in almost every way.


Well, like I already pointed out I believe those aren't suposed to be the fighter's area of expertise. Asking the fighter to be good with daggers/whips is like asking him to be good with magic. The rogue is the one who's suposed to be good with daggers and the bard should be whiping people while the monk uses kung-fu. I don't recall legendary fighters kniving their way to victory. I recall thiefs and ninjas doing so.

I very much disagree that different classes should only be good at a specific subset of weapons. In 2e, a fighter could pick any weapon he wanted and be amazing with it, even the daggers/darts/shuriken/short swords/whatever that are stereotypically rogue weapons, and I don't ever recall anyone saying "thieves are good with [weapon], so you shouldn't use it!" The existence of swashbucklers, ninjas, rogues, and such doesn't mean a finesse fighter is out of the question, it means there are many ways to focus on one weapon; if a rogue can sneak attack with a greatsword, a fighter should be able to specialize in a dagger.

Oslecamo
2010-05-12, 04:57 PM
The thing is, as a player, I expect a single signature style to fail fairly frequently - you shouldn't be able to dive right into CGS, and there are going to be situations where there's no obvious way to fight.


I like this idea. I really do. In one of my favorite mangas, Ravages of time, based on the Three Kingdoms story, there's Lu Bu wich is suposed to be the greatest warrior in China.

His speciality is fighting with an halberd on horseback.

http://www.onemanga.com/The_Ravages_of_Time/239/07/


But he can also dual wield halberds to deal with large groups of mooks!

http://www.onemanga.com/The_Ravages_of_Time/244/22/


He's far from defenceless while dismounted however!

http://www.onemanga.com/The_Ravages_of_Time/242/24/


Even unarmed he can hold his ground!

http://www.onemanga.com/The_Ravages_of_Time/241/05/


So there you have my ideal fighter concept. Now translating that into rules, that's the tricky part. Having a weapon does matter to Lu Bu, but he can easily adapt himself to diferent situations. Tradeable feats?

Perhaps feats that apply to diferent situations at once? Is it that bad to allow the fighter to be good at three-four styles at the same time?

nonsi
2010-05-12, 06:54 PM
Pardon me, Djinn, but I’m too tiered right now to play with quote blocks, so here goes...

>> A dagger fighter should, ideally, be able to
>> stand up to a charging lance fighter.
On HIS turf, not the charging lancer’s.


>> Every variety of fighter should be able to function in a fairly optimized party.
My Warrior has built-in parallel WF progression. You should be quite covered way before 10th level.


>> in a party consisting of a shortbow master, a dagger
>> fighter, an unarmed brawler, and a lance-charger,...
No spellcasters? No skillmonkeys? No healing?
How do you expect it to survive in the long run?

>>... I know that someone is going to be overshadowing the rest by huge margins.
Unarmed is sub-par unless you’re a Monk – as should be. Even the great Bruce Lee said that it’s as bad as you can get.


>> There's also going to be a lot we still can't deal with.
Yes.
Outgunned, outnumbered, trapped, surrounded by an enemy with deadly fire power and superior vision from an elevated out-of-reach position... Yes – you’re basically FUBAR.
So?


>> Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.
Hence “Multiple Attacks and Movement”.
Now add them and Trip, Sunder, Disarm, Grapple etc and you’ll do just fine.


>> Ability Damage/Ability Drain on a class that
>> relies heavily on his physical abilities.
1. Most allow saves.
2. Some cases require teamwork and allies watching your back or pulling you back to your feet. I never said a single class should be able to handle everything at once, at all situations.


>> Energy Drain.
Saves
Death Ward


>> Otto's Irresistible Dance
Requires touch attack. Now go back to my rules for deflecting incoming attacks (in the weapons entry)


>> Grease
Balance, Saves...


>> Death Effects
Saves.
Death Ward


>> Paralysis
Saves.
Allies.


>> Forcecage.
The caster in front of you targets you, so you decide to terminate focus and make a move action toward him. Now the Forcecage has only air trapped with in.


>> Shapechange and/or Polymorph making a
>> caster stronger than the fighter.
My Warrior has more than just his Str score on his side.


>> Gate
Sure. The single most broken thing in the history of RPG.
What does it have to do with my proposed fix ?
What could any fix do against that ?


>> You either burn through your combat focus
>> dealing with small things
Or give your allies just the time they needed for them to do something really nifty that will save the day.


>> What if I want to play an unarmed fighter?
Then have a backup for when a ghost comes your way.
Also, the idea of a mundane warrior attempting a boxing match vs. a great wyrm or a legendary elephant is too idiotic for me to consider.


>> What about the disarm rules? There should be something
>> in place so a single disarm attack doesn't render me useless...
Why?
Disarming someone is a wonderful tactic IRL.
If it scares you that much – take Quick Draw and have backups for your primary weapon.


>> If feats don't need to scale because everyone has
>> access to them, don't try to use them as level 18
>> and 19 class features. Otherwise, they DO need to
>> scale well, or the Fighter's class feature is worthless.
Wait a minute. Feats at the end of feat chains tend to scale quite nicely.
Tactical feats and combat-form feats are also quite nice at all levels where you can get them


>> A fighter fix should be able to stand on its own.
In a system that practically hogties the martial classes you haven’t got a prayer. Even the class-combo feats don’t cut it.


>> Should I have to fix every other class and rules
>> in order to get a Fighter fix?
The rules I suggested didn’t address any feature of any other class. Yes my fix does mesh the martial dudes into one container, but I already explained why.


>> As for whether or not I know how pounce works...
>> why yes. I do.
Then explain it to me as you see it (and remember: IRL)


>> Someone looking for a Fighter fix, but who considers
>> the Barbarian, Rogue, and attack system in general
>> to be decent will not want your fix.
Whatever fixes anybody offers to whatever problem – only those who’d find it appealing will take it. I’m quite fine with that.



>> It's just one fighter fix amongst hundreds, and is nothing
>> particularly extraordinary or groundbreaking at the moment.
I wasn’t aiming as anything “groundbreaking”, but as far as I can tell, any other fix I’ve ever seen that does anything better than mine, does so with either “I-WIN” buttons or features that defy common sense too much as to be plausible IRL (even with a once in a lifetime stroke of luck).


>> If you want a FIGHTER FIX, consider rolling some of
>> those changed combat options into the fighter class, as
>> fighter specific things.
Yeah, but then:
1. I’d be wasting perfectly good feature-slots.
2. The universe will make much less sense when ole’ Fighter-Fix doesn’t abide by the rules that compel everyone else


>> Consider being willing to sacrifice a bit of realism for
>> some more interesting ways to deal with spells, or grab
>> some extra damage/attack effects.
Near-realistic mechanics are what makes me care for my character – that’s why I’d never play Marvel RPG, Pokémon or anything similar. If I can’t care for my character, then I don’t care if it’s killed and there’s no suspense – hence the game is not interesting enough for me to waste time on.


>> Figure out how to benefit all weapon choices equally, and all armor choice equally.
As was said – different weapons work best in specific situation.


>> tie those changes into the Fighter alone, to give a reason
>> to take that class. Then you may be on to something.
I tried to design the class to be able to exploit those changes better than others.

nonsi
2010-05-13, 09:35 AM
The thing with spells is that there's usually something similar in theme, but better. I've never seen a spellcaster concept ruined because there's one specific spell that's just to weak for them to work with.

If I want to build a specialized knife or sling fighter, however...or a whip specialist, or any number of things, I have to completely change my vision of the character and his or her fighting style in order to be effective.

That's why no one IRL went into battle armed with a whip or a sap, and that daggers are everyone's backup weapons (except assassins).

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 09:41 AM
That's why no one IRL went into battle armed with a whip or a sap, and that daggers are everyone's backup weapons (except assassins).

Um, what? Prove that, if you will. There is such a thing as a knife fighter, after all, and both saps and knives are weapons commonly found in criminal underworlds. They definitely know how to use them...

Also, it's a fantasy game. If I want a heroic knife fighter, or Indiana Jones-esque whip master, the system shouldn't stand in my way!

Poppatomus
2010-05-13, 09:44 AM
In a sentence or two, what is the role of the fighter in the D&D World?

The reason I ask is because it seems like much of this discussion is about what the fighter should be, rather than whether this fix is good or bad.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 09:49 AM
In a sentence or two, what is the role of the fighter in the D&D World?

The reason I ask is because it seems like much of this discussion is about what the fighter should be, rather than whether this fix is good or bad.

I think that's because the term "fighter" is so ambiguous that nobody has an actual definition that everyone can agree to...hence why no Fighter fix can possibly address all the issues inherent in the class's rather poor design.

lesser_minion
2010-05-13, 11:08 AM
That's why no one IRL went into battle armed with a whip or a sap, and that daggers are everyone's backup weapons (except assassins).

No.

Daggers were very effective in the real world, when used properly. For example, stabbed through the slit in someone's visor. They would work very well against someone with a longer weapon such as a sword or a polearm, and they would have been hideously effective in a messy melee. They certainly weren't relegated to 'backup weapons'.

Whips are hard to use in a formation - they certainly wouldn't have been ineffective 'in general' as you seem to believe.

As for saps... a warrior in a battle wants to get out alive, he couldn't care less about knocking out his opponents.

Slings... well, there was a reason why people actually specialised in the damned things. A sling was hideously lethal, not some kind of d4-damage joke weapon.

If it was never useful, it would never have been included in the rules from the outset.

Oslecamo
2010-05-13, 11:30 AM
No.
Daggers were very effective in the real world, when used properly. For example, stabbed through the slit in someone's visor. They would work very well against someone with a longer weapon such as a sword or a polearm, and they would have been hideously effective in a messy melee. They certainly weren't relegated to 'backup weapons'.

They were, because a shortsword or a cutlass works in tight combat just as well.

Daggers are deadly, but there's plenty of deadlier stuff out there. Dagger's main advantages are being cheap, light, and easy to use. You can easily carry them around and pretty much anyone can afford it. A good sword has always been expensive, and if you don't know what you're doing you can easily end up cuting yourself. A lance/spear kinda stands out if you're tying to be sneaky.

And no, charging into a spear formation with shorter weapons just doesn't work. A lot of armies tried it and pretty much all of them ended up impaled. Even the original King Artur's legend has the knights of the round table pushed back when a band of lowly mooks with spears catches them with just their swords and daggers at hand. Only the spanish rodilleros could charge into a spear formation with swords and actualy win, and that's because they carefully combined it with shields to deflect the pointy sticks.



Whips are hard to use in a formation - they certainly wouldn't have been ineffective 'in general' as you seem to believe.

They also suck if you're in a closed space, because you need a good amount of open space all around you to properly swing it. So kinda useless in a dungeon or packed forest.



Slings... well, there was a reason why people actually specialised in the damned things. A sling was hideously lethal, not some kind of d4-damage joke weapon.

Only if you had a quite bit of training with it. An heavy crossbow on the other hand is suposed to allow even an idiotic farmer wich practised some hours to shoot down an armored knight, and it deals 1d10.

And again, cheap and easy to conceal. A good bow ain't easy to make.



If it was never useful, it would never have been included in the rules from the outset.

Well, clubs are effective, but only because it's a weapon that it's as cheap as it gets.

Scythes and nunchuks are basically farming tools adapted to war because you had nothing else to fight with.

Eldan
2010-05-13, 11:40 AM
Edit: Nevermind, I should read more carefully, it has already been mentioned.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 11:43 AM
*Stuff*

All true. But that still doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to use those weapons effectively.

Maybe a whip won't be as good as a longsword when fighting underwater, or in a 10x10ft room. But that should be no reason to penalize me for specializing in it when I'm fighting in an open field with plenty of room to use my techniques. If I have practiced for hours with the sling, I should see some results...those things could easily be deadlier than a man with a sword...without heavy armor, assuming equal skill with our weapons, I could kill him twice before he reaches me IRL.

Eldan
2010-05-13, 11:47 AM
The problem being, of course, that after about level 3, there's just about no way to kill anything with any weapon before it reaches you.
Maybe catapults.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 12:10 PM
The problem being, of course, that after about level 3, there's just about no way to kill anything with any weapon before it reaches you.
Maybe catapults.

Valid point. I should at least, however, be able to put some serious hurt on him. Not 1d4+Strength damage with no other effects.

I mean, I am a master of this weapon...

nonsi
2010-05-13, 01:42 PM
I think that's because the term "fighter" is so ambiguous that nobody has an actual definition that everyone can agree to...hence why no Fighter fix can possibly address all the issues inherent in the class's rather poor design.

To me the term Warrior (which I much prefer over "Fighter") is not ambiguous at all.
It encompasses a lot of possible roles (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8380692&postcount=100).

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 02:00 PM
To me the term Warrior (which I much prefer over "Fighter") is not ambiguous at all.
It encompasses a lot of possible roles (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8380692&postcount=100).

This is very vague. The only "definition" I see are the lines "classic warrior" and "None has powers that bend or break the laws of their realities." That's hardly a definition.

Break it down further, without sending me running to links. What is a warrior?

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-13, 02:03 PM
Warrior (Noun; English): A sentient being specializing in weapons-based combat; a cultural role denoting those who wage war; one whose profession involves engaging in socially sanctioned combat.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 02:05 PM
Warrior (Noun; English): A sentient being specializing in weapons-based combat; a cultural role denoting those who wage war; one whose profession involves engaging in socially sanctioned combat.

See, I'd agree with this. The standard warrior description has no requirements of being non-magical, no requirements of fighting with a specific weapon (even unarmed combat is a weapon), and no requirements of anything but combat. Therefore, all forms of combat should be valid choices for a warrior, and all warriors should be able to reach the same potential.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-13, 02:11 PM
Hell, this won't solve the gear problem at all, but giving them abilities that allow them to unleash the power in magical items for special attacks/defenses/et cetera may be interesting and flavorful...

Ashtagon
2010-05-13, 02:13 PM
Warrior (Noun; English): A sentient being specializing in weapons-based combat; a cultural role denoting those who wage war; one whose profession involves engaging in socially sanctioned combat.

The problem with this definition is that it makes cultural assumptions based on mainstream RL society. For a start, it doesn't specifically say he does it without magic, because mainstream RL society doesn't have magic. Equally, a dictionary doesn't say a manta ray can't fly, yet certain D&D "manta rays" do exactly that. An English dictionary may say the sun is a yellow object in the sky. A Japanese one will say it is a red object in the sky. Both are perfectly correct within the context of their cultural assumptions. The dictionary definition for a cleric says nothing about casting spells, but they do in D&D. Basically, we can't rely on a standard dictionary to give meaningful definitions without allowing for cultural assumptions that are inherent in the different worlds.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-13, 02:14 PM
The problem with this definition is that it makes cultural assumptions based on mainstream RL society. For a start, it doesn't specifically say he does it without magic, because mainstream RL society doesn't have magic. Equally, a dictionary doesn't say a manta ray can't fly, yet certain D&D "manta rays" do exactly that. An English dictionary may say the sun is a yellow object in the sky. A Japanese one will say it is a red object in the sky. Both are perfectly correct within the context of their cultural assumptions. The dictionary definition for a cleric says nothing about casting spells, but they do in D&D. Basically, we can't rely on a standard dictionary to give meaningful definitions without allowing for cultural assumptions that are inherent in the different worlds.

Then it may be a good thing that I didn't use a dictionary, aye?

EDIT: Additionally, your argument kinda informs against you. D&D's "warriors" only don't use magic because the worlds were written without them using magic. If we're fixing the warrior archetype, we need assume nothing. Note that nonmagical warriors in literature prosper only on worlds where magic is weak, rare, or dangerous to use. Any other place, and they get ripped to shreds.

Ashtagon
2010-05-13, 02:24 PM
Then it may be a good thing that I didn't use a dictionary, aye?

Well then, my entire post should be considered irrelevant.


EDIT: Additionally, your argument kinda informs against you. D&D's "warriors" only don't use magic because the worlds were written without them using magic. If we're fixing the warrior archetype, we need assume nothing. Note that nonmagical warriors in literature prosper only on worlds where magic is weak, rare, or dangerous to use. Any other place, and they get ripped to shreds.

It's not fair arguing against an irrelevant post :smalltongue:

fwiw, I see fighters as non-magical (although they cheerfully use magic items), not because of any dictionary definition (although I accept you didn't grab yours from a dictionary, I have no doubt a real dictionary would not note them as using magic), but because that is the way I want them to work in my campaign.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-13, 02:31 PM
At what cost? Today's fighter is a pincushion, not a hero, and that's part of the problem. In a world where magic runs as rampant as it does in D&D, you have to get with the program or become an NPC class.

Jallorn
2010-05-13, 02:47 PM
No time now, but later I'll put up a link to my favorite fighter fix, one that I think is far better than most, and answers most, if not all, of the fighter's problems.

drakir_nosslin
2010-05-13, 03:59 PM
I don't really have anything to contribute with, except that I'm wondering how the 'in IRL'-argument advances the discussion in anyway.
The question in hand is how we improve the fighter in the game, not what fighters in our world are capable of. Seriously, we are making something that exists in a world filled with magic, gods and wonders, is it so hard to believe that when you have surpassed the limits of a normal man (ie. at lvl 5) you can do things that should be impossible?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 05:03 PM
I don't really have anything to contribute with, except that I'm wondering how the 'in IRL'-argument advances the discussion in anyway.
The question in hand is how we improve the fighter in the game, not what fighters in our world are capable of. Seriously, we are making something that exists in a world filled with magic, gods and wonders, is it so hard to believe that when you have surpassed the limits of a normal man (ie. at lvl 5) you can do things that should be impossible?

It is important when determining expectations: a sling or dagger is a deadly weapon in our world, so I should reasonably be able to assume that, if I arm myself with such a weapon, I will be able to use it efficiently. In short, I expect a fighter to at least mirror the real world.

That's where I draw the line of realism. Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with a high-level fighter cleaving mountains asunder, or deflecting spells with the blade of his sword. He's in a world of fantasy above and beyond ours...thus, his abilities may naturally also be above and beyond ours.

It's when his abilities are less than ours that I get concerned.

Oslecamo
2010-05-13, 05:35 PM
It is important when determining expectations: a sling or dagger is a deadly weapon in our world, so I should reasonably be able to assume that, if I arm myself with such a weapon, I will be able to use it efficiently. In short, I expect a fighter to at least mirror the real world.
...
It's when his abilities are less than ours that I get concerned.

Well, a dagger/sling deals 1d4 damage. Commoners have 1d4HD. A dagger stab or sling rock from an half-competent person is more than capable of leaving your average Joe bleeding to death in the floor.:smallwink:

In comparison, throwing acid to someone should have a good chance of blinding them, but that ain't happening either.



Anyway I support the "assume nothing from RL" mentality. But I still don't see how rule of cool supports a tiny dagger being as effecient as an heavy spear+warhorse+fullplate. I say focus on the more usual weapons, then take care of more obscure stuff when we already have a working core.

Eldan
2010-05-13, 05:39 PM
Yup. It's just when we go into, well, fighter territory that you get guys who take two slingstones and, depending on your interpretation of HP, take them to the face and laugh, deflect them with their fist or dodge them.

lesser_minion
2010-05-13, 05:46 PM
Well, a dagger/sling deals 1d4 damage. Commoners have 1d4HD. A dagger stab or sling rock from an half-competent person is more than capable of leaving your average Joe bleeding to death in the floor.:smallwink:

In comparison, throwing acid to someone should have a good chance of blinding them, but that ain't happening either.

Anyway I support the "assume nothing from RW" mentality. But I still don't see how rule of cool supports a tiny dagger being as effecient as an heavy spear+warhorse+fullplate.

D&D treats them as a joke, but slings were actually favoured for dealing with armoured opponents historically - they had a fair chance of proving lethal against a hoplite (for example), and the wielder was able to avoid being caught by the same armoured opponents.

As for the knife, as well as being ideal for penetrating weak points on a person's armour - or even strong points (I'm pretty sure I recall the estoc, in particular, being intended to punch straight through plate) - it can potentially be thrown (something I don't see as possible for a heavy spear or a lance), is quite effective in extremely close quarters, and can still inflict quite lethal injuries.

EDIT: Apparently, the sling was also longer-ranged than a bow (400m as opposed to 300). It may have been harder to use, but it was seriously nasty when someone learned to do it.


Yup. It's just when we go into, well, fighter territory that you get guys who take two slingstones and, depending on your interpretation of HP, take them to the face and laugh, deflect them with their fist or dodge them.

But he shouldn't be doing that - a guy taking a slingstone to the face goes "whoopsie, my skull just caved in" and falls over. Commoners can be as weak as they like, but d4 damage is basically "a mild bruise" in D&D land. 1 damage is "just a scratch" for the guy who suddenly became unable to walk as a result.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 05:47 PM
Anyway I support the "assume nothing from RL" mentality. But I still don't see how rule of cool supports a tiny dagger being as effecient as an heavy spear+warhorse+fullplate. I say focus on the more usual weapons, then take care of more obscure stuff when we already have a working core.

That's the problem. It IS as efficient, in different circumstances. On a pitched battlefield fighting an army? No. Going toe-to-toe against the evil Wizard and battling on the enormous head of said Wizard's Colossal Red Dragon mount? I'd rather have the dagger, both for practicality (staying on, dodging, and having a hand free) and for the epic image. Rule of Cool away! If I want to pit a knife or whip fighter against a Titan, I should be able to.

David and Goliath, anyone? That's the stuff of legend right there.

Also, if we focus on the alleged "usual" weapons (only usual because standard D&D penalizes using other weapons), we'll have the same issue: a system that isn't ready to encompass other fighting styles.

Oslecamo
2010-05-13, 06:03 PM
That's the problem. It IS as efficient, in different circumstances. On a pitched battlefield fighting an army? No. Going toe-to-toe against the evil Wizard and battling on the enormous head of said Wizard's Colossal Red Dragon mount? I'd rather have the dagger, both for practicality (staying on, dodging, and having a hand free)
and for the epic image. Rule of Cool away! If I want to pit a knife or whip fighter against a Titan, I should be able to.

Then why don't just take a page out of ToB and don't care about what weapon you're actualy using? Maneuvers don't care if you have swords or daggers or playing cards or teddy bears and we're throwing rule of logic away anyway in a world where D&D magic exists.



David and Goliath, anyone? That's the stuff of legend right there.

It's more stuff of "Wear your helmet and don't understimate ranged weapons damnit!". Similarly Acquiles got killed by some aristrocat because he didn't remember to put on boots.

If anything, it reinforces the sling being a weak weapon. Everybody was expecting Goliath to win, so he gets careless and dies because he doesn't care to defend himself at all against puny David.



Also, if we focus on the alleged "usual" weapons (only usual because standard D&D penalizes using other weapons), we'll have the same issue: a system that isn't ready to encompass other fighting styles.

Notice however that weapons are divided in tiers. Daggers are simple weapons and thus pretty much anyone can use them. So when you notice it the fighter doesn't want to get near the wizard/archer because he has a backup dagger wich can insta gib even the fighter easily should he aproach too much!

So, well, give weapons the destiny of spell components and there, you can easily encopass other fighting styles. Because otherwise there'll always be people complaining about obscure weapons.

Eldan
2010-05-13, 06:07 PM
But he shouldn't be doing that - a guy taking a slingstone to the face goes "whoopsie, my skull just caved in" and falls over. Commoners can be as weak as they like, but d4 damage is basically "a mild bruise" in D&D land. 1 damage is "just a scratch" for the guy who suddenly became unable to walk as a result.


Why? A level 5 wizard can make a room explode with fire. A level 5 cleric can raise the dead as zombies. A level five fighter can take a bullet to the face. That's about the only thing D&D does give them.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-13, 06:13 PM
Then why don't just take a page out of ToB and don't care about what weapon you're actualy using? Maneuvers don't care if you have swords or daggers or playing cards or teddy bears and we're throwing rule of logic away anyway in a world where D&D magic exists

Now THIS I'm all for. Give all weapons the same stats...just have the feats related to each function for specific techniques you can use with them!

lesser_minion
2010-05-13, 06:18 PM
Why? A level 5 wizard can make a room explode with fire. A level 5 cleric can raise the dead as zombies. A level five fighter can take a bullet to the face. That's about the only thing D&D does give them.

My point is that a sling bullet is nasty. In the same way that being disembowelled is nasty.

If a fighter can shrug off a sword blow that could disembowel him, then yes, he should be able to shrug off a sling bullet. A 1st level warrior, though?

D&D stats for slings are a joke, and this becomes even worse when you bear in mind that ranged weapons are also underpowered in D&D. Fighters with slings should be able to wtfpwn their enemies at least as easily as any other fighter, not have their enemies laugh at them for using such a crappy weapon.

Oslecamo
2010-05-13, 06:25 PM
D&D stats for slings are a joke, and this becomes even worse when you bear in mind that ranged weapons are also underpowered in D&D. Fighters with slings should be able to wtfpwn their enemies at least as easily as any other fighter, not have their enemies laugh at them for using such a crappy weapon.

Ok, let's say that you have a shield and board fighter on one side and a sling fighter on the other. And there's a large chasm between them.

Who's laughing now?:smallamused:

Basicaly, ranged weapons have the advantage by default since they allow you to benefit much more from terrain and mobility. If ranged thingies are as good at killing stuff as melee and terrain still matters, then who will go melee?

Of course if you take a page out of other RPGs and sudenly the melee fighter can close the distance to his oponent in the blink of an eye then the rules change.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-13, 06:29 PM
Basicaly, ranged weapons have the advantage by default since they allow you to benefit much more from terrain and mobility. If ranged thingies are as good at killing stuff as melee and terrain still matters, then who will go melee?

Problem is, this rationale led to ranged weapons being made worse than they should be. Really, ranged and melee weapons should be equally good by default, because melee weapons have the advantage of there being many more options to improve (like the omnipresent Power Attack) while ranged weapons have the advantage of range. Taking the already lackluster ranged weapons and bringing their damage down is going too far.

Oslecamo
2010-05-13, 06:34 PM
Problem is, this rationale led to ranged weapons being made worse than they should be. Really, ranged and melee weapons should be equally good by default, because melee weapons have the advantage of there being many more options to improve (like the omnipresent Power Attack) while ranged weapons have the advantage of range. Taking the already lackluster ranged weapons and bringing their damage down is going too far.

Well, you can't power attack with light melee weapons either. And really, what "many more" options are you talking about? Because there's power attack, and then the quality drops like a brick. Trip perhaps, and even that doesn't work that well due to enemies increasing in size.

Ranged fighters get rapid shot. Any melee dude would kill for a feat like that for melee.

Did I mention on how most monsters outreach the fighter meeaning shooting stuff from afar becomes even more atractive? Or how many monsters have auras of some kind that punish you from aproaching them? How many monsters punish you from being afar from them?

Range is a BIG deal in D&D.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-13, 06:59 PM
Well, you can't power attack with light melee weapons either. And really, what "many more" options are you talking about? Because there's power attack, and then the quality drops like a brick. Trip perhaps, and even that doesn't work that well due to enemies increasing in size.

You can disarm, trip, etc. with melee weapons without needing a feat each. You can use TWF or use a shield with more melee weapons than ranged weapons. You can add Str or Str*1.5 to damage with all melee weapons and few ranged weapons. You can get Dex to attack with some melee weapons but not Str to attack with. Several of the better weapon enchantments only go on melee weapons. And so on and so forth.

Note that I never said they were necessarily good options, but they exist. Looking at it from the standpoint of a WotC designer who believes S&B is a valid strategy, that high BAB is more important than casting, that +2/+2 skill feats are worthwhile, etc. it seems obvious that they favor melee over ranged. My point was that they gave melee weapons all these cool things to do and then over-penalized ranged weapons for no reason.

lesser_minion
2010-05-13, 07:00 PM
Ok, let's say that you have a shield and board fighter on one side and a sling fighter on the other. And there's a large chasm between them.

Who's laughing now?:smallamused:

Basicaly, ranged weapons have the advantage by default since they allow you to benefit much more from terrain and mobility. If ranged thingies are as good at killing stuff as melee and terrain still matters, then who will go melee?

Of course if you take a page out of other RPGs and sudenly the melee fighter can close the distance to his oponent in the blink of an eye then the rules change.

The terrain can just as easily favour a melee fighter, however - from what I can tell, a sling would actually be better for kiting in open terrain, for example, whereas a throwing weapon or a bow/crossbow might be better for your chasm.

In a dungeon, most of the advantage of the ranged weapon doesn't exist at all - in fact, slings do suffer here, because the usual practice for them was apparently to throw the stone in a high, arcing trajectory which doesn't sit too well with a ceiling.

However, that's a very different issue to "about as damaging as a bunny fart".

Oslecamo
2010-05-13, 07:11 PM
You can disarm, trip, etc. with melee weapons without needing a feat each. You can use TWF or use a shield with more melee weapons than ranged weapons. You can add Str or Str*1.5 to damage with all melee weapons and few ranged weapons. You can get Dex to attack with some melee weapons but not Str to attack with. Several of the better weapon enchantments only go on melee weapons. And so on and so forth.

Actualy there's a feat in miniatures handbook to use str in ranged attacks, quite nice for brutish dudes.:smalltongue:

And you checked out Saph's campaign? The archer ranger there got pimped out by the casters and thanks to it was basicaly soloing ecounters before the enemy could do anything. A melee build couldn't have done that. He may have been able to charge one enemy and kill it in 1 turn, and then would be clobbered by the other monsters because he was sudenly in range of their attacks, while the archer ranger was safe some hundreds of foots away.



Note that I never said they were necessarily good options, but they exist. Looking at it from the standpoint of a WotC designer who believes S&B is a valid strategy, that high BAB is more important than casting, that +2/+2 skill feats are worthwhile, etc. it seems obvious that they favor melee over ranged. My point was that they gave melee weapons all these cool things to do and then over-penalized ranged weapons for no reason.

Ranged weapons aren't over penalized. They just don't get much fancty stuff.

Just check ToB. 9 schools. All of them melee focused. A few maneuvers can actualy be combined with ranged attacks. And they're still enough to make archers on crack that can shoot down pretty much anything in one turn.

All the non-gish prestige classes of the book are considered kinda meh, except the bloodstorm blade, wich, you guessed it, gives ranges to your maneuvers. 5 levels and little else but totally worth it. Range is just that good.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-13, 07:26 PM
I'm not talking about all of 3e, here; I'm talking about the fact that from the very beginning, in core, ranged weapons << melee weapons. Yes, you can optimize ranged weapons just as well, but then again you can optimize a basketweaver too. This whole part of the debate was over whether slings and daggers deserved their 1d4 damage or whether they should have been higher, and whether certain weapons should be on the same power level in different circumstances.

The designers looked at things and said "whips are pathetic, let's give them penalties; dagger < longsword, give it 1d4" and so on and then, on top of all those weapon-specific modifications, ranged weapons got the shaft by having fewer options etc. because greater range supposedly outweighs all those other concerns. I'm not debating that range can be a huge advantage or that you can make ranged weapons work well or anything like that; I'm simply arguing that the idea that ranged weapons "have the advantage by default" and thus should categorically be made worse is a very bad one.

Eldan
2010-05-13, 07:40 PM
Well, I suppose whips really aren't the kind of weapon you want on a battlefield. Guess they are only on the list because someone in the design team saw Indiana Jones.

Now, slings... I guess if they really have more range than bows, that should be a start. Give them range 120 or so, and suddenly they become interesting.

nonsi
2010-05-14, 12:22 AM
Excuse me for barging in on your whip & sling party, guys, but I'm getting the feeling we're drifting a bit.

The main issue of this thread was to weigh the proposed fix against the official martial classes under the core rules - even a Fighter/Barb/Swash/Samurai/Knight (did I forget one?) gestalt for all I care.

Oslecamo
2010-05-14, 03:44 AM
I'm not talking about all of 3e, here; I'm talking about the fact that from the very beginning, in core, ranged weapons << melee weapons. Yes, you can optimize ranged weapons just as well, but then again you can optimize a basketweaver too.
You're really defending that a ranged fighter is as usefull as a basket weaver master? :smallconfused:



This whole part of the debate was over whether slings and daggers deserved their 1d4 damage or whether they should have been higher, and whether certain weapons should be on the same power level in different circumstances.

And again I point out that slings and daggers are simple weapons (anyone can use them) and cheap (anyone can afford them, heck the sling is actualy free). Exotic is superior to martial wich is superior to simple, because the two first cost you valuable feats while the last is default for everybody but the wizard and druid. Except the whip but then they gave us the whip-dagger that deals damage just fine so there.

The dagger in simple weapons ins't a finely crafted assassin tool. It's a freaking mass produced pointy metal stick. That's for what you got the exotic daggers that cost you both money and feats.



The designers looked at things and said "whips are pathetic, let's give them penalties; dagger < longsword, give it 1d4" and so on and then, on top of all those weapon-specific modifications, ranged weapons got the shaft by having fewer options etc. because greater range supposedly outweighs all those other concerns. I'm not debating that range can be a huge advantage or that you can make ranged weapons work well or anything like that; I'm simply arguing that the idea that ranged weapons "have the advantage by default" and thus should categorically be made worse is a very bad one.

What's the alternative again? Screw balance and make power attack triping lockdown bows possible? Why would anyone want to go melee in that case?

In every system I've ever seen that wants melee combat to be viable, yes, melee weapons MUST be superior to ranged weapons.

Just look at 40K. There's power weapons and power fists and lighting claws and all of those can easily attack several times per round, while most ranged weapons can shoot once per turn at most and turn completely useless in melee. There's no power bolters or power fist launchers because if there was you would have no reason to go melee.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-14, 04:01 AM
You're really defending that a ranged fighter is as usefull as a basket weaver master? :smallconfused:

:smallsigh: No, I'm saying that optimization level (like ToB-using archers on crack) is irrelevant because anything can be optimized to ridiculous levels.


And again I point out that slings and daggers are simple weapons (anyone can use them) and cheap (anyone can afford them, heck the sling is actualy free). Exotic is superior to martial wich is superior to simple, because the two first cost you valuable feats while the last is default for everybody but the wizard and druid. Except the whip but then they gave us the whip-dagger that deals damage just fine so there.

The dagger in simple weapons ins't a finely crafted assassin tool. It's a freaking mass produced pointy metal stick. That's for what you got the exotic daggers that cost you both money and feats.

Two problems with this.

1) Just because something is simple to use and cheap to make doesn't mean it's inferior. If I walk up and stab you in the chest with a dagger, then stab someone else in the chest with a longsword, you're not going to be any better off because I stuck you with something cheaper. Being a simple weapon is not an excuse for a weapon to suck.

2) Exotic weapons aren't worth the feat, except for the spiked chain. Again, measure of rarity ≠ measure of offensive ability.


What's the alternative again? Screw balance and make power attack triping lockdown bows possible? Why would anyone want to go melee in that case?

In every system I've ever seen that wants melee combat to be viable, yes, melee weapons MUST be superior to ranged weapons.

Just look at 40K. There's power weapons and power fists and lighting claws and all of those can easily attack several times per round, while most ranged weapons can shoot once per turn at most and turn completely useless in melee. There's no power bolters or power fist launchers because if there was you would have no reason to go melee.

You're misrepresenting my argument. I never said ranged combat should be as effective as melee combat. I said ranged weapons should be as effective as melee weapons. Melee weapons get options such as the multiple attacks per turn in 40K or more and better feats in D&D, and that's what makes them better; they should not also have better damage dice, more ways to add ability mods to damage, and all the other benefits.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-14, 10:11 AM
The main issue of this thread was to weigh the proposed fix against the official martial classes under the core rules - even a Fighter/Barb/Swash/Samurai/Knight (did I forget one?) gestalt for all I care.

I was never under the impression that that was the issue. I thought the issue was to prove that your fighter fix had remedied all or most of the fighter's problems...and we're debating whether or not that is true. The fact that you can't fight well with all weapons seems to make it clear to me that it isn't true.

I'll grant your fix stands up to, say, the Barbarian. But that isn't that hard to do, nor did I think it was the point of the exercise.

I also find it hard to discuss under core rules, as your fix is basically a complete system revision, as I've stated previously.

lesser_minion
2010-05-14, 11:01 AM
And again I point out that slings and daggers are simple weapons (anyone can use them) and cheap (anyone can afford them, heck the sling is actualy free). Exotic is superior to martial wich is superior to simple, because the two first cost you valuable feats while the last is default for everybody but the wizard and druid. Except the whip but then they gave us the whip-dagger that deals damage just fine so there.

A weapon shouldn't suck just because "it's a simple weapon". The sling, in particular, shouldn't even be a simple weapon. And the price tag assigned to a given weapon is basically a fluff issue (which is why it's usually dwarfed by the cost of enchantments, in case you missed that memo).


What's the alternative again? Screw balance and make power attack triping lockdown bows possible? Why would anyone want to go melee in that case?

In every system I've ever seen that wants melee combat to be viable, yes, melee weapons MUST be superior to ranged weapons.

Melee weapons have clear advantages over ranged weapons - among other things, the ability to stop the ranged weapon guys from using those weapons is pretty big.

In a dungeon, the ranged weapon guy is rarely more than a charge away, and if he wants to kite, is limited to one attack per round. He has enough disadvantages.


Just look at 40K. There's power weapons and power fists and lighting claws and all of those can easily attack several times per round, while most ranged weapons can shoot once per turn at most and turn completely useless in melee. There's no power bolters or power fist launchers because if there was you would have no reason to go melee.

Note how 40k ranged weapons generally shoot something that actually causes injury, whereas D&D ones generally don't.

There's balancing, and there's ridiculously excessive balancing.

And it gets even better: in a dungeon, a ranged weapon would rarely, if ever, get more than one shot off before an enemy closes to melee. That hardly constitutes an advantage, let alone an excuse for nerfing them via firing squad.

nonsi
2010-05-14, 01:42 PM
I thought the issue was to prove that your fighter fix had remedied all or most of the fighter's problems...and we're debating whether or not that is true. The fact that you can't fight well with all weapons seems to make it clear to me that it isn't true.

I’ve been lurking 3e boards since 2003 and participating since 2005, and you’re the first I’ve encountered that conditions a decent Fighter fix with a mandatory criterion of being able to fight equally well with all weapons.




I'll grant your fix stands up to, say, the Barbarian. But that isn't that hard to do, nor did I think it was the point of the exercise.

You’re joking, right? (pause and think before you say “no”)




I also find it hard to discuss under core rules, as your fix is basically a complete system revision, as I've stated previously.

You’ll never make it without a system revision.
You’re welcome to try, but you’ll fail. I guarantee it.




Btw, you still owe me a description of how pounce works IRL.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-14, 01:49 PM
*More Stuff*

You know...fine. Your fighter fix is perfect, and none of the concerns I raised have any merit at all. Congratulations. You've fixed all the problems ever., in a simple, efficient, and easy to implement manner than anyone would be foolish not to use. Happy now? Is that the sort of comment you wanted?

I'm done here. I've presented you with a number of problems your fix has, a number of things that make it more complex than a simple fix and a number of reasons why people might be shying away from it, and I've tried to identify what I see as some of the big issues that need to be addressed in order to make a truly comprehensive fighter fix that allows the fighter to be a truly versatile warrior. I've gotten nothing back but a reaffirmation that your fix is indeed the complete answer, and that I must be full of it to suggest otherwise.

Not really a good way to take criticism or suggestion, my friend.

Good luck getting other input on it.

And as for how Pounce works with a real life fighter? I charge at you and swing a bunch of times. Or maybe it's actually reflavored as me making one really big attack, and the number of attacks that I make merely represents how much of my potential damage gets through. Or maybe, since I'm a legendary hero, I'm just that fast. There are many more possibilities, but those are a few for you to think about.


One Last Point: The reason the Fighter doesn't work? It's to generic. A full Fighter fix either has to be able to be equally generic, or be split up into classes like the Barbarian, the Marshal, the Swashbuckler, the Crusader, and the Warblade. It's poorly conceived if it's supposed to exist alongside a bunch of more focused base classes. Hence why you can't have a fighter fix: the others are all fighters as well, and you'll have to be able to mirror everything they can do in combat as well, if you want to make something called the "fighter." It's a design mistake from stage 1: either make one incredibly versatile generic warrior, or make a bunch of specific ones. You can't have both.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-14, 02:04 PM
I’ve been lurking 3e boards since 2003 and participating since 2005, and you’re the first I’ve encountered that conditions a decent Fighter fix with a mandatory criterion of being able to fight equally well with all weapons.

You haven't been looking hard enough, then. Most of the earliest fighter fixes over on WotC involved a free Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec tree, and even then people were saying "Tying him to one weapon is a bad idea, we need to go the opposite route and broaden its weapon skill."


You’re joking, right? (pause and think before you say “no”)

Having paused and thought myself, I agree with Djinn. The main thing this particular fix has over the vanilla fighter is more and bigger numbers. What do you get when you add more numbers to a fighter? A barbarian.


You’ll never make it without a system revision.
You’re welcome to try, but you’ll fail. I guarantee it.

I suppose every other fighter fix ever that isn't yours fails, then?

Look, you've been bragging about this amazing revision of yours for quite some time; I was there for the original rollout on WotC. You claim this is Pelor's gift to D&D, that there aren't any flaws, etc. and steadfastly refuse to listen to negative criticism. When people note balance concerns, you handwave it with "But mine is more realistic!" and when people raise playability concerns you handwave it with "You just have to fully understand it!" When criticism becomes too much, you let the thread die and post it somewhere else.

I'm not trying to say your fix is completely bad or directly attack you for it, but you have to wake up and smell the roses--your fix is just one among many, and yes, you can do things wrong.

Oslecamo
2010-05-14, 03:20 PM
:smallsigh: No, I'm saying that optimization level (like ToB-using archers on crack) is irrelevant because anything can be optimized to ridiculous levels.

Actualy, that's false. One of the main wizard arguments is that over-optimized casters are just much more insane than over-optimized noncasters.



1) Just because something is simple to use and cheap to make doesn't mean it's inferior. If I walk up and stab you in the chest with a dagger, then stab someone else in the chest with a longsword, you're not going to be any better off because I stuck you with something cheaper.

Say that to Julius Cesar. Real world person and he took 20 freaking dagger stabs before going down. Is there anybody out there who took 20 sword blows to kill?:smallcool:

If those traitors had brought swords it would've been over much faster since swords do make bigger wounds that are more likely to hit a vital place.

And considering that D&D characters can fall out of cliffs while being set on fire, fall on a pool of lava and swim their way out whitout magic, yes, a you want to make wounds as big as possible to properly kill them.



Being a simple weapon is not an excuse for a weapon to suck.

2) Exotic weapons aren't worth the feat, except for the spiked chain. Again, measure of rarity ≠ measure of offensive ability.

"Exotic, simple, martial" are mostly names. It could be "tier 1, tier 2, tier 3". Exotic weapons have better stats than martial than simple, altough yes, most times it isn't worth the cost of a feat.

Whip dagger is actualy quite good. There are some interesting exotic weapons out there. Repeating crossbow for example combos quite well with any race that has multiple hands for some almost enuff dakka.



You're misrepresenting my argument. I never said ranged combat should be as effective as melee combat. I said ranged weapons should be as effective as melee weapons. Melee weapons get options such as the multiple attacks per turn in 40K or more and better feats in D&D, and that's what makes them better; they should not also have better damage dice, more ways to add ability mods to damage, and all the other benefits.

Since you care so much realism, you care to explain why a thrown rock should be just as effective as bashing someone's head with a tick metal stick, or spliting their head with an axe? Because last time I checked people survive being hit with rocks all the time, but being hit with axes on the face, not so much.

The longbow and crossbow already deal as much damage as longswords. And they're definetely both stronger than the sling. There's barely any diference in the damage HD. Then you get composite longbows to add str to damage, while only with ToB you can add dex to damage in melee. And if splatbooks are allowed there's ways to get dex to ranged damage as well. Feat chains are scarce for archers, but they work, and archers are more than viable overall whitout need of uber-optimizing.

Also the lack of feats can be easily explained by the simple fact that even in fiction archers aren't doing much fancy stuff. There's hundreds of fighting styles and secret maneuvers with blades and unarmed combat and pretty much every melee weapon out there in history and legend. But you don't see Robin Hood or Guilerme Tell bragging about their secret ranged combat teqcniques do you? They aim, they shoot, they hit.

Again, in the Illiad, Acquilles is the fanciest warrior around doing amazing spear+shield tequniques. Then arrives Paris with a bow and poison, yells SNEACK ATTACK!, hits Acquilles where it hurts and the great fancy melee hero bites it. No fancy aiming or epic duel. That's what an a ranged specialist is suposed to do. Hit the target. Shoot more if it doesn't drop. Laugh as it twitches on the ground dying.

Heck, even my father complained that in the LOTR movie Legolas was the most boring fighter because he just kept shooting arrows, except for the parts where he decides to go dual knive fighting for some welcomed fanservice.

lesser_minion
2010-05-14, 04:00 PM
Say that to Julius Cesar. Real world person and he took 20 freaking dagger stabs before going down. Is there anybody out there who took 20 sword blows to kill?:smallcool:

You mean the guy with at least five levels in fighter being attacked by 1st-level aristocrats with a low strength score? They had at least 35 hitpoints to chew through, and less than half the blows would count as hits.

If the weapons being used only did d4 damage, Caesar would have survived.



If those traitors had brought swords it would've been over much faster since swords do make bigger wounds that are more likely to hit a vital place.

See above, for why this could easily have worked with d8 damage weapons.


And considering that D&D characters can fall out of cliffs while being set on fire, fall on a pool of lava and swim their way out whitout magic, yes, a you want to make wounds as big as possible to properly kill them.

Doesn't follow. Damage dealt depends on how lethal the attack is, which is a function of more than just how large the resulting wound is.


Since you care so much realism, you care to explain why a thrown rock should be just as effective as bashing someone's head with a tick metal stick, or spliting their head with an axe? Because last time I checked people survive being hit with rocks all the time, but being hit with axes on the face, not so much.


It's been established that a sling bullet can easily be used to attack at a longer distance than an arrow, and that sling bullets are heavier.

So it's clearly a lot nastier than "hurr, thrown rock".

Doing some simple maths seems to imply that a sling bullet could easily be carrying about 220 J of energy, neglecting drag. A swung ice pick, by comparison, carries about half that.

We also know that a real-life longbow has a shorter range and fires a projectile weighing little more than half as much. And that an arrow carrying around 135 J is considered good enough for the largest game.

Which do you think should do more damage now?


The longbow and crossbow already deal as much damage as longswords. And they're definetely both stronger than the sling.

Which is why a sling throws a heavier object for a longer distance, I presume?

A D&D sling bullet is a 50 gram chunk of lead. An arrow made from apple, 1m long, with a 5mm diameter shaft, adds up to about 30 g.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-14, 04:31 PM
Actualy, that's false. One of the main wizard arguments is that over-optimized casters are just much more insane than over-optimized noncasters.

But we're not talking about casters! We're talking about weapons and martial characters. Don't introduce unnecessary variables.


"Exotic, simple, martial" are mostly names. It could be "tier 1, tier 2, tier 3". Exotic weapons have better stats than martial than simple, altough yes, most times it isn't worth the cost of a feat.

Whip dagger is actualy quite good. There are some interesting exotic weapons out there. Repeating crossbow for example combos quite well with any race that has multiple hands for some almost enuff dakka.

They may be "tier 1, tier 2, tier 3," but that's not supposed to mean "sucktastic, okay, amazing." Saying "it's a simple weapon, so it's okay if it sucks" is just wrong.


Since you care so much realism, you care to explain why a thrown rock should be just as effective as bashing someone's head with a tick metal stick, or spliting their head with an axe? Because last time I checked people survive being hit with rocks all the time, but being hit with axes on the face, not so much.

When have I ever mentioned caring so much about realism? I'm speaking purely from a game balance perspective--ranged weapons are currently inferior to melee weapons, not because a sling does X in real life or a sword does Y but because the breadth of options and damage potential is greater for melee weapons.


The longbow and crossbow already deal as much damage as longswords. And they're definetely both stronger than the sling. There's barely any diference in the damage HD. Then you get composite longbows to add str to damage, while only with ToB you can add dex to damage in melee. And if splatbooks are allowed there's ways to get dex to ranged damage as well. Feat chains are scarce for archers, but they work, and archers are more than viable overall whitout need of uber-optimizing.

1) Without composite bows, you don't add a stat to ranged damage at all with projectile weapons, so the Shadow Blade comparison isn't quite relevant.

2) I have yet to see something for ranged combat equivalent to Power Attack which is as easy to obtain as Power Attack is. Pick up a single feat, and a melee fighter can reliably get high damage and penetrate DR. Doing the same for ranged is much less simple. An archer can often be stopped or at least have damage cut in half by DR 10/whatever.

nonsi
2010-05-14, 06:20 PM
Is that the sort of comment you wanted?

Absolutely not.
I has thinking of something along the lines of:
- "Ok, ole' Warrior is a real Fort-Knox vs. mind effects at the higher levels, but how do you deal with something simple such as Transmute Mud to Rock?".
- "Since when is it the role of a martial class to be able to deal with X or accomplish Y?"
That's the spirit in general.
Such questions, every once in a while, come up with things I didn't handle or shouldn't handle.
The goal is to handle as much as possible without stepping into other's territories.




I'm done here. I've presented you with a number of problems your fix has, a number of things that make it more complex than a simple fix and a number of reasons why people might be shying away from it, and I've tried to identify what I see as some of the big issues that need to be addressed in order to make a truly comprehensive fighter fix that allows the fighter to be a truly versatile warrior.

Indeed you were flawlessly courteous (no sarcasm).




I've gotten nothing back but a reaffirmation that your fix is indeed the complete answer...

Again, AFAIK to this point.
If I failed to analyze (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8481607&postcount=63) something correctly, I'd very much like to know how and why.




...and that I must be full of it to suggest otherwise.

Then all I can do is apologize, because that was never the intent. It's just that comparing my Warrior (even autonomous to my proposed game revisions) to the core Barb made me blink and shake my head in disbelief. You surprised me, that's all.




And as for how Pounce works...

Here’s what I know about pounce:
- A land predator charges its pray.
- It leaps through the air, mouth open and paws stretched from the sides forward
- If all 3 extremities hit and the target happens to still be standing for more than a fraction of a second, the lower part of the predator’s body folds inwards and it rakes with its hind paws (lions usually don’t need this extra, except when latching onto a buffalo).
You see, I’m a Nat-Geo fan and watch a lot on the subject of predators.
As far as I’ve seen (and I’ve seen quite a lot), no extremity ever strikes more than once on a charge attack (except maybe for raking, but that comes afterwards). The momentum simply doesn’t allow you to make another strike (and usually there’s no need).





One Last Point: The reason the Fighter doesn't work? It's to generic. A full Fighter fix either has to be able to be equally generic, or be split up into classes like the Barbarian, the Marshal, the Swashbuckler, the Crusader, and the Warblade. It's poorly conceived if it's supposed to exist alongside a bunch of more focused base classes. Hence why you can't have a fighter fix: the others are all fighters as well, and you'll have to be able to mirror everything they can do in combat as well, if you want to make something called the "fighter." It's a design mistake from stage 1: either make one incredibly versatile generic warrior, or make a bunch of specific ones. You can't have both.

Which is exactly why I offered the revised rules with it.
It's not an enlightment that suddenly popped up. I tried dozens of revisions and (reluctant to cram 4 features in every class level) always failed.
I haven't seen any other fix that comes anywhere near solving things without some serious compromise on believability (some are okay with this - I'm just one that isn't).

Roderick_BR
2010-05-14, 09:33 PM
(...)
Yes, this is that important. Should I have to fix every other class and rules in order to get a Fighter fix? Personally, I don't want to have to. Changing everything is what we in the business call a new system or a system revision. If that's what you're offering, don't call it a fighter fix. Call it what it is, and I'll judge it as such.

To be fair, a lot of what's wrong or unbalanced in 3.0/3.5 does require some revision on the whole system. You can pump up a fighter's power all you want, yet casters can still break the game. And yes, you are right about it.

Bergor Terraf
2010-05-14, 11:26 PM
Say that to Julius Cesar. Real world person and he took 20 freaking dagger stabs before going down. Is there anybody out there who took 20 sword blows to kill?:smallcool:

Edward Teach, AKA Blackbeard

From Wikipedia : "Maynard later examined Teach's body, and noted that he had been shot no fewer than five times, and had about twenty severe cuts on his body"

:smallamused:

nonsi
2010-05-17, 05:38 AM
This is, a fighter that can take a batman wizard will whitout doubt steal the show if he ends on a campaign with a blaster sorceror, an archer rogue, and a healbot cleric facing ground based mooks whitout magic tricks.


I'm kind'a lost regarding what you were trying to say there in context of my proposed fix. Clould you clarify? (if it's of any relevance)


Btw, intentionally or not, you've carried my voice regarding quite a few issues raised in this thread, so thanks.

nonsi
2010-05-17, 05:39 AM
I'm a fan of RoC's fighter fix myself; it's not perfect, but it seems to be headed in the right direction, and it revolves around a unique but relatively simple mechanic. Plus, modular classes are neat.


You don't happen to have a link, do you ?

nonsi
2010-05-17, 05:47 AM
Name one ability that class gets that's less believable than a ToB maneuver.

[Overcome Difficulty: Freedom Arcana (Ex)], [Tactical Awareness (Ex)] and [Spell-Shattering Strike (Su)] for instance.




Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read.

Just in case you're still intrigued, it has been reorganizes to make a lot more sense. Also, a lot of issues have been refined, but for the sake of this discussion, the other issues in my house rules are of no relevance.

nonsi
2010-05-17, 05:49 AM
Flying monsters?
A really wide chasm with no bridge you have to cross...?

1. Range weapons - they have a lot to offer with some novice-grade optimization.
2. Fellow spellcasters - I never claimed that a single clas is supposed to do everything on its own.

nonsi
2010-05-17, 06:03 AM
Right. His fix doesn't address this need.

Stunning, Dazing, Nausiating and other such effects cannot be wrapped in a mundane combattant's class features and still remain credible. To maintain credibility, the only way I know of is via weapon-style feats, which, unfortunately, cannot be class features.

nonsi
2010-05-17, 06:08 AM
How does the Warrior deal with flying?

See post #119




How does the Warrior deal with poor (or no) equipment?

IMO, no one's supposed to perform better than 40% without the right tools for the job.
While "$hit happens", being without them is the exception rather than the rule. As long as you're not totally crippled without them and can manage replacements relatively easy, it's okay to be cut down to size every now and then.




How does the Warrior deal with something beyond getting into and ending fights? Perhaps I am reading over an important part, but it doesn't sound like the Warrior even has the versatility of a rogue or factorium when it comes to dealing with various challanges.

1. Warriors are not designed to be skillmonkeys. That's not the purpose and not the theame.
2. All my Warriors eat up the core Fighter for breakfast when it comes to skills.
3. The Unfettered Warrior is actually quite decent skill-wise.




He certainly doesn't have the capabilities of a Wizard, as I assume a fix which "successfully manages to address all of [the Fighter's needs] in a neatly wrapped package" would address.

I don't see how someone's supposed to reach that conclusion.
Not having "I-WIN" buttons for every theoretical situation is not an issue that requires remedy.




For the most part, it looks like the Warrior is just more resilient, especially with saving throws.

You forgot Action-Economy, free weapon spec trees, on-the-fly feats and enhanced perception - even if you just took the class and discarded all the rest (the list goes on and on if you take the whole package).

nonsi
2010-05-17, 06:33 AM
Nonlethal damage is useless, pointless, unrealistic, and horrible. Disarming someone, flicking their weapon away, and forcing them to surrender is reasonable.

It's not when your opponent fights to the bitter end but you just have to take them down alive and grappling won't do it fast enough to make a clean getaway.

lesser_minion
2010-05-17, 08:35 AM
It's not when your opponent fights to the bitter end but you just have to take them down alive and grappling won't do it fast enough to make a clean getaway.

If someone's about to fight to the bitter end, you still wouldn't try to knock them out, because that shouldn't ever work - people with a concussion have a hard time responding to interrogation.

And while it could happen, how many times do you find yourself fighting someone who absolutely hates you but whose death will bring about the End Time?

Perhaps grappling should be made more useful if you're trying to capture people, because knocking them out shouldn't ever be a reliable option.

Lans
2010-05-17, 12:19 PM
The dagger in simple weapons ins't a finely crafted assassin tool. It's a freaking mass produced pointy metal stick. That's for what you got the exotic daggers that cost you both money and feats.

Does any one care that the Dagger is the statistically best weapon in the game? Its simple, can be used in a grapple, or while swallowed, can be thrown. A dagger master isn't going to be dealing damage like a greatsword swinger, but it is going to be at an advantage against giant squids and low flying enemies, at the check point pat down, etc. It can also be used with TWF and Rapid Shot.




What's the alternative again? Screw balance and make power attack triping lockdown bows possible? Why would anyone want to go melee in that case?
Right now its only possible with boomerangs :smallbiggrin: . Well Daze lock, which is a bit better than tripping.




You're misrepresenting my argument. I never said ranged combat should be as effective as melee combat. I said ranged weapons should be as effective as melee weapons. Melee weapons get options such as the multiple attacks per turn in 40K or more and better feats in D&D, and that's what makes them better; they should not also have better damage dice, more ways to add ability mods to damage, and all the other benefits.

In D&D Ranged weapons deal damage on par with melee, can get the same ability added to their damage(Long Bow vs Sword), get range, more attacks(Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Splitting), actual multiple attacks, can hit things more than 20 feat off the ground. And Daze as a damaged based DC effect as opposed to stopping movement.



Melee weapons have clear advantages over ranged weapons - among other things, the ability to stop the ranged weapon guys from using those weapons is pretty big.


As far as I know the only ability for Melee to do this involves them hitting twice and a normal save DC, or grappling, Ranged can stop all actions of a living creature with one hit and a damaged based DC- Which is normally better than a normal DC=10+ 1/2level(~10)+ Strength Mod vs DC=10+Damage Dealt=10+Strength Mod+Weapon Damage(3)+Magical Enhancements(5)+Weapon Abilities+Ranged Power Attack+Feats+Class Abilities(6 for Fighter, 35 for rogue, Level for Paladins) +Buffs


Um, what? Prove that, if you will. There is such a thing as a knife fighter, after all, and both saps and knives are weapons commonly found in criminal underworlds. They definitely know how to use them...

Also, it's a fantasy game. If I want a heroic knife fighter, or Indiana Jones-esque whip master, the system shouldn't stand in my way!
Knives are not baseline weapons for the criminal under world any more than sharpened screw drivers or lead pipes are. While these weapons are dangerous, they are not as dangerous as a claymore is going to be. A Claymore that hits is going to deal more damage than a dagger is. Its just that a Claymore or Halbeard is a little bit more noticeable when a cop drives by.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-17, 01:40 PM
[Overcome Difficulty: Freedom Arcana (Ex)], [Tactical Awareness (Ex)] and [Spell-Shattering Strike (Su)] for instance.

You suffer from lack of imagination, it seems.

Freedom Arcana: "I'm so good at grappling that magic isn't a perfect 100% protection from me."

Tactical Awareness: "I can pick up the smallest visual and auditory clues to detect hidden things."

Spell-Shattering Strike: There's obviously no direct real-world analog for dispelling with a hit, but (A) in a world with magic, that should be more common and mundane and (B) cold iron is supposed to be anti-magical in our world, so there's precedent.

Really, what I'm seeing here is not "This ability is not realistic" but rather "This ability does not fit into the tiny, narrowly-defined box of what I consider to be realism."


Just in case you're still intrigued, it has been reorganizes to make a lot more sense. Also, a lot of issues have been refined, but for the sake of this discussion, the other issues in my house rules are of no relevance.

:smallsigh:

See, here's another problem. I have seen this project in several incarnations and watched you ignore any criticisms directed your way in each of them, yet when I point out these problems you consider me "still intrigued." Not everyone in the world is in love with these rules of yours, nonsi.


Stunning, Dazing, Nausiating and other such effects cannot be wrapped in a mundane combattant's class features and still remain credible. To maintain credibility, the only way I know of is via weapon-style feats, which, unfortunately, cannot be class features.

So, somehow holding a particular pair of weapons makes something suddenly more believable? I guess given what we know of your "realism" sensibilities that could be true. Stunning, dazing, and nauseating all boil down to "You lost (an) action(s) for X rounds"--if you can't figure out any way to justify losing actions, that's your problem.


In D&D Ranged weapons deal damage on par with melee, can get the same ability added to their damage(Long Bow vs Sword), get range, more attacks(Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Splitting), actual multiple attacks, can hit things more than 20 feat off the ground. And Daze as a damaged based DC effect as opposed to stopping movement.

Yes, they have several advantages; I never said that ranged weapons are objectively bad. This whole debate started with the notion that "range is good" is a justification to make melee weapons better than ranged ones, and it's gotten slightly off track from there. Here's my final point on the matter: Whether or not that imbalance is the case in D&D as it stands, I think we can agree that "Ranged weapons have range, thus we should make them weaker than melee weapons just because of that" is a bad reason to do that, just like "Fighters have more feats, thus we should make them weaker than other classes just because of that" is.

Lans
2010-05-17, 02:14 PM
Yes, they have several advantages; I never said that ranged weapons are objectively bad. This whole debate started with the notion that "range is good" is a justification to make melee weapons better than ranged ones, and it's gotten slightly off track from there. Here's my final point on the matter: Whether or not that imbalance is the case in D&D as it stands, I think we can agree that "Ranged weapons have range, thus we should make them weaker than melee weapons just because of that" is a bad reason to do that, just like "Fighters have more feats, thus we should make them weaker than other classes just because of that" is.
I think ranged weapons should be a bit weaker than melee in the terms of certain areas like damage output, because they have their own advantages, that come from range. Range is more of a 'not hosed by flying' advantage, or I get to go first, which makes up for me dealing 1 less damage per round, or just the abilitie to get more full attacks off.

Think of it one way as far as damage goes
1st Charger-Gots to be 10-twice move away, in a straight line, floor can't be covered in marbles, stopped by a first level spell and an Immediate action.
2ndFull Attack, melee-Has to be right next to target
3rdFull Attack, Ranged-More than 5 feet away for safety, needs LOS, Stopped by a third level spell and standard action.

The one that does the most has the most restrictions, the one that does the least has the most.

I think in game mechanics full attacking ranged out does full attack melee, it was just an example.

nonsi
2010-05-17, 03:08 PM
You suffer from lack of imagination, it seems.

Given some of my ideas were titled (in so many words) a breakthrough by some readers here & there, I allow myself to disagree with you.




Freedom Arcana: "I'm so good at grappling that magic isn't a perfect 100% protection from me."

No!
“I’m so good at having the label “Fighter” branded on my forehead” that I can do something that others that even top me three to one on every single grappling-related parameter can’t do... just because I have the label “Fighter” branded on my forehead”. Hallelujah.
Sorry, my unimaginative lackluster narrow mind just can’t swallow that one.




Spell-Shattering Strike: There's obviously no direct real-world analog for dispelling with a hit, but (A) in a world with magic, that should be more common and mundane and (B) cold iron is supposed to be anti-magical in our world, so there's precedent.

There’s the weave
There are divine forces
There are eldritch energies (though the rules bind them together with the weave under the laber "arcane")
There’s incarnum
There’s Ki power
There are vestiges
There’s truenaming.
. . .
(guess I forgot one or two)
What mystical powers run from Ms. Fantastic Fighter’s fingertips, “coolness”... “mojo”...“badassness” ?
How do you call it?
And if it’s so mundane, how come nobody without 9 Fighter levels can do it as well, and why are there no similar abilities to be included in a unified mechanics of this fabulous power source ?




Really, what I'm seeing here is not "This ability is not realistic" but rather "This ability does not fit into the tiny, narrowly-defined box of what I consider to be realism."

I don’t need it to be realistic IRL, just within the system – an explanation within the gameworld’s mechanics that’s somewhat more credible than “just because I’m oozing machismo” or "who's the master - Sho'nuff".




See, here's another problem. I have seen this project in several incarnations and watched you ignore any criticisms directed your way in each of them, yet when I point out these problems you consider me "still intrigued." Not everyone in the world is in love with these rules of yours, nonsi.

1. For every criticism I’ve rejected on the RPG forums, I took two. I accept criticism when I understand the rationale behind it and happen to agree with it. When I don’t I point out what doesn’t add up. Unfortunately for me, some are offended by “such uncivilized manner”. Can’t help it.
2. What exactly did you point out that merits response? Being only human, I might've missed it.
3. I didn't consider you anything. I said "just in case...".




So, somehow holding a particular pair of weapons makes something suddenly more believable?

Absof**kinglutely.
Having some background in martial arts, I can tell you that taking a single hit to the face or ribs, I never so much a slowed down.
Taking the correct combination of hits – now that’s an entirely different ballgame. Getting hit the right way for the second time, before your body and mind have the fraction of a second to recover can rattle your world. I felt that too.
Ninjitsu is based primarily on that simple fact (and so is the art of nerve edges – press one point and strike another and the big guy's lights go out).
Moreover, half of the style feats result in being grappled, prone or disarmed - which doesn't exactly fit the category of conditions you specified.




I guess given what we know of your "realism" sensibilities that could be true.

Not that I’m offended, but I’m intrigued why some find it necessary to get personal to make a point.
(feel free to continue, I really don’t mind)




Stunning, dazing, and nauseating all boil down to "You lost (an) action(s) for X rounds"--if you can't figure out any way to justify losing actions, that's your problem.

1. You might find it surprising, but as far as combat feats go, the designers got out of their way to make things very similar to RL (they did a darn good job with the skills system as well, btw).
2. If that's all that was behind the mechanics, nobody whould've bothered complicationg the game by giving these conditions different names and different rules......... unless they were actually trying to mimic something real.

lesser_minion
2010-05-17, 03:55 PM
Does any one care that the Dagger is the statistically best weapon in the game? Its simple, can be used in a grapple, or while swallowed, can be thrown. A dagger master isn't going to be dealing damage like a greatsword swinger, but it is going to be at an advantage against giant squids and low flying enemies, at the check point pat down, etc. It can also be used with TWF and Rapid Shot.

A dagger barely deals damage at all, unless you happen to have sneak attack.


As far as I know the only ability for Melee to do this involves them hitting twice and a normal save DC, or grappling

Try using your attack of opportunity to trip them. They now have no opportunity to attack at range whatsoever, and you just netted yourself another free attack against them.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-17, 04:45 PM
No!
“I’m so good at having the label “Fighter” branded on my forehead” that I can do something that others that even top me three to one on every single grappling-related parameter can’t do... just because I have the label “Fighter” branded on my forehead”. Hallelujah.
Sorry, my unimaginative lackluster narrow mind just can’t swallow that one.

Why is it that there's no way to completely avoid damage from a fireball without being a 2nd-level rogue or mid-level ranger? Why is it that you have to be a paladin to hit evil things really hard? Why can getting mad only make you stronger if you're a barbarian? The rules of the game are what they are, and it's up to the flavor to explain that. Grappling is ineffective against freedom of movement, so there's an ability to negate that; just because you think it should go the other way doesn't mean that that ability, in and of itself, is unrealistic.


There’s the weave
There are divine forces
There are eldritch energies (though the rules bind them together with the weave under the laber "arcane")
There’s incarnum
There’s Ki power
There are vestiges
There’s truenaming.
. . .
(guess I forgot one or two)
What mystical powers run from Ms. Fantastic Fighter’s fingertips, “coolness”... “mojo”...“badassness” ?
How do you call it?
And if it’s so mundane, how come nobody without 9 Fighter levels can do it as well, and why are there no similar abilities to be included in a unified mechanics of this fabulous power source ?

1) You don't need special powers to stop magic from working; anyone can shrug off magic with a successful saving throw, so why is it any stretch to assume someone can more effectively negate it without special powers of his own?

2) It's a fighter fix, not a system fix. It's a single class to be taken on its own merits, not a comprehensive overhaul to the entire 3e core. You could take a few pointers from that.


1. For every criticism I’ve rejected on the RPG forums, I took two. I accept criticism when I understand the rationale behind it and happen to agree with it. When I don’t I point out what doesn’t add up. Unfortunately for me, some are offended by “such uncivilized manner”. Can’t help it.

"When you happen to agree with it" apparently isn't often. Could you point me to two or three things that have received a significant change since you first posted this on WotC? 'Cause all I see is reasons why you shouldn't have to change things.


2. What exactly did you point out that merits response? Being only human, I might've missed it.

The fact that you've been ignoring most of the criticism directed your way. People consistently point out areas for improvement, and Djinn even laid out several paragraphs describing problems with this fix of yours, yet it took me directly talking to you rather than talking about your fix to even mention that you keep shooting things down that "don't add up."


Absof**kinglutely.
Having some background in martial arts, I can tell you that taking a single hit to the face or ribs, I never so much a slowed down.
Taking the correct combination of hits – now that’s an entirely different ballgame. Getting hit the right way for the second time, before your body and mind have the fraction of a second to recover can rattle your world. I felt that too.
Ninjitsu is based primarily on that simple fact (and so is the art of nerve edges – press one point and strike another and the big guy's lights go out).
Moreover, half of the style feats result in being grappled, prone or disarmed - which doesn't exactly fit the category of conditions you specified.

Weapon style feats deal with things like holding a trident and net, or two maces, or a sword and axe, or something like that. Do you think it should be impossible to inflict those status conditions unless you're holding one particular pair of weapons, or should a mid-level fighter be able to inflict them with any weapons, and if so, why?


Not that I’m offended, but I’m intrigued why some find it necessary to get personal to make a point.
(feel free to continue, I really don’t mind)

I don't really have anything against you personally, but I've noticed that the only time you actually respond to criticisms is when people talk to you as opposed to simply talking about the fixes, as I mentioned above. You'll notice that you're starting to explain your acceptance of criticism, philosophy on weapon styles, etc. only now that someone's called you out, rather than simply telling people to reread your fix for the umpteenth time.


1. You might find it surprising, but as far as combat feats go, the designers got out of their way to make things very similar to RL (they did a darn good job with the skills system as well, btw).

1) Only at low levels; while I don't necessarily completely agree with the Alexandrian-inspired "RL goes up to 5th level" thing, it's fairly obvious that once you get to 7th level or so, realism goes out the window.

2) The fighter being similar to RL is one of the problems that need to be fixed. It works at low levels, but not at higher levels...which is why the fighter is good enough before level ~5 and sucks above that. Someone else on another forum said it best:


At level 7, you've surpassed every hero from almost every mythology written by man. Yes, this is including the challenges and foes that were faced in Greek (Herakles, Theseus, Perseus, Odysseus, Achillies, Bellerophon, Oedipus), Irish (Setanta/Cu Cullain), Danish (Beowulf), Persian (Rostram), Chinese (Guan Yu +others) mythologies and legends.

These people are actually small potatos compared to D&D. Beowulf died fighting a "large dragon" (aka, Below CR 10) if it was a red that's seriously a CR 5 dragon. Given that Beowulf only killed a Troll (cr 5, and one that couldn't regenerate it's limbs either, even if it was a fresh-water Scrag and immersion in water would have brought it back from dying) or Ogre (CR 2) at best, it shouldn't come as a shock that Beowulf dies facing a CR 5 foe.

Chimeras, Seven-headed Hydras, Pegasus, Medusas, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Fiendish (Nemean) Lions, Chimeric Hell Hounds (Cerberus), Lamias, Ogres, Trolls are all below CR 6.

A Beholder is CR 10, and can kill Herakles, and not skip a beat. It could probably face an all-star team of Odysseus, Herakles, Ezekiel and Merlin, and destroy them all in one or two rounds. It's a CR 10 monster; and they're only level 6 characters at the most.

The real problem is that people seriously don't get that D&D characters make every classical hero look small; but then, the world of D&D characters is massively more expansive than the real world, and Nerull can seriously go all "Populous" on the Material Plane and lower the ground until the oceans flood everything, or just summon volcanos everywhere. So everything about D&D makes classical myths look small.

Trying to fix a fighter while still focusing on purely mundane RL stuff past low levels is going about it wrong.


2. If that's all that was behind the mechanics, nobody whould've bothered complicationg the game by giving these conditions different names and different rules......... unless they were actually trying to mimic something real.

Not true. Nauseating only makes you lose one action, so you can still move. Dazing makes you lose all actions, but you're not helpless. Stunning makes you helpless. They're different degrees/versions of the same thing from a mechanical standpoint, but from a descriptive standpoint it's very hard to tell them apart.

lesser_minion
2010-05-17, 05:48 PM
Not true. Nauseating only makes you lose one action, so you can still move. Dazing makes you lose all actions, but you're not helpless. Stunning makes you helpless. They're different degrees/versions of the same thing from a mechanical standpoint, but from a descriptive standpoint it's very hard to tell them apart.

Stunning should only make you lose all actions, lose Dex to AC, and take an additional -2 penalty - it doesn't technically make you helpless.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-17, 05:50 PM
Stunning should only make you lose all actions, lose Dex to AC, and take an additional -2 penalty - it doesn't technically make you helpless.

My bad; I was thinking of held. Either way, it's dazed++.

Eldan
2010-05-18, 04:56 AM
And if it’s so mundane, how come nobody without 9 Fighter levels can do it as well, and why are there no similar abilities to be included in a unified mechanics of this fabulous power source ?


Actually... I made an extra thread for this, but no one seems to be answering there, so I'll say it again here:

If it's mundande, why not make it available to everyone? There is a short list of special attacks in core, like grapple or charge. Perhaps adding a few more to the list would be a good thing to do? I've heard other people mention in the past that certain things included as feats in splat books could just as well be special attacks.

So, perhaps this magic dispelling strike could just be a special attack everyone can do? Sure, it wouldn't help the fighter as much, but on the other hand, it would generally boost melee, and I don't think that's actually a bad thing.

nonsi
2010-05-18, 07:15 AM
Actually... I made an extra thread for this, but no one seems to be answering there, so I'll say it again here:

Link me and I'll check it out.




If it's mundande, why not make it available to everyone? There is a short list of special attacks in core, like grapple or charge. Perhaps adding a few more to the list would be a good thing to do? I've heard other people mention in the past that certain things included as feats in splat books could just as well be special attacks.

Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and the Spring Attack tree automatically come to mind.




So, perhaps this magic dispelling strike could just be a special attack everyone can do? Sure, it wouldn't help the fighter as much, but on the other hand, it would generally boost melee, and I don't think that's actually a bad thing.

If you do make a rule for that, don't make it a feat tree, because then it'll be a no-brainer. OTOH, it cannot be equal in power to dispelling spells, because then they shouldn't exist. It should have a small chance of success and a low-frequency usage.

Lans
2010-05-18, 07:42 AM
A dagger barely deals damage at all, unless you happen to have sneak attack.
Barely does any damage? It does less, but one would be hard pressed to say it barely deals damage at all. Unless you want to agree that a longsword does barely any more damage than a dagger?

A dagger is only 2 points behind a heavy mace or a longsword, which is a big difference with an average strength, but look at a high strength fighter with 18 strength. 6.5 vs 8.5 so about 3/4 of what a heavy mace, lonsword or long bow would deal. At 6th level after the fighter picks up lets say weapon spec, K. Devotion and a magic weapon, the difference is 10.5 vs 12.5 or 21 vs 25 on a full attack. So about 4/5s at that level. AT level 12 it goes to about 19.5vs 21.5. Dear god such a huge difference is staggering. Scale that up to level 20 and its like 31x4 vs 33x4. Thats just when doing full attacks in normal situations. Their are other scenarios, like when swallowed, the daggers damage holds up, the others go to, about 0ish. Or when Grappled, which is about the same. Or underwater which is normal for dagger and a point over 1/2 of the dagger for the others.



Try using your attack of opportunity to trip them. They now have no opportunity to attack at range whatsoever, and you just netted yourself another free attack against them.
If you get a chance to trip them the opportunity for range has already passed. Melee weapons have an advantage in Melee. The ranged weapon user isn't negated, it is just at a disadvantage. Being tripped is not like when you get hit by a boomerang and loose all your actions for a round, or get hit twice by a dire flail and are at a 50/50 chance of loosing your action.

Its not much different than the greatsword guy getting tripped 10 feet away from the fire giant when he tried to charge. A ranged weapon user that got tripped 10 feet away from its target can still do what it does, just at a penalty.
Like when it shoots from the back of a horse that is running at a speed of a 150.

lesser_minion
2010-05-18, 08:11 AM
Barely does any damage? It does less, but one would be hard pressed to say it barely deals damage at all. Unless you want to agree that a longsword does barely any more damage than a dagger?

See also: power attack. The base damage for a weapon is irrelevant. The fact that you have to be a rogue to do appreciably more than that with a dagger isn't.


If you get a chance to trip them the opportunity for range has already passed. Melee weapons have an advantage in Melee. The ranged weapon user isn't negated, it is just at a disadvantage. Being tripped is not like when you get hit by a boomerang and loose all your actions for a round, or get hit twice by a dire flail and are at a 50/50 chance of loosing your action.

Its not much different than the greatsword guy getting tripped 10 feet away from the fire giant when he tried to charge. A ranged weapon user that got tripped 10 feet away from its target can still do what it does, just at a penalty.
Like when it shoots from the back of a horse that is running at a speed of a 150.

A horse archer is only good on a featureless plain, and then only against an unsupported melee-only character. You're picking a situation where the ranged guy should win and arguing that it's justification for nerfing them.

How about a dungeon?

As for the tripped ranged weapon user, no. Most ranged weapons are absolutely unusable while prone, and any attempt to do anything about it gets you tripped again.

And every time you get tripped, your opponent attacks you again for free.

Eldan
2010-05-18, 08:41 AM
Link me and I'll check it out.



Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and the Spring Attack tree automatically come to mind.



If you do make a rule for that, don't make it a feat tree, because then it'll be a no-brainer. OTOH, it cannot be equal in power to dispelling spells, because then they shouldn't exist. It should have a small chance of success and a low-frequency usage.

Not really worth linking, to be honest. I just said the same thing in more words.

Weapon Finesse is a good idea, actually. I don't think letting players choose between strength and dexterity for smaller weapons would be problem.
As for Combat Expertise and Power Attack: Combat Expertise is basically a better version of fighting defensively. Perhaps there should also be a "fight offensively" action?

nonsi
2010-05-18, 09:01 AM
Why is it that there's no way to completely avoid damage from a fireball without being a 2nd-level rogue or mid-level ranger? Why is it that you have to be a paladin to hit evil things really hard? Why can getting mad only make you stronger if you're a barbarian? The rules of the game are what they are, and it's up to the flavor to explain that. Grappling is ineffective against freedom of movement, so there's an ability to negate that; just because you think it should go the other way doesn't mean that that ability, in and of itself, is unrealistic.

1. Evasion is actually quite a consistent issue in regards to the core classes.
Every base class with good Ref saves, except the Bard which is a full caster gets it. 2 classes with no spells get it at 2nd level, because their very theme is to be evasive strikers.
2. Smite Evil is so crappy, I wouldn’t take it as a feat. And other classes can do it even better with spells.
3. As for the Barb... that one doesn’t even deserve to exist. Rage is outshined by (Im.) Weapon Spec + Melee Weapon Mastery – and it’s the most significant feature of that poor excuse for a base class.
4. An ability to hold onto a target with zero friction. How does it work? What makes it work?




1) You don't need special powers to stop magic from working; anyone can shrug off magic with a successful saving throw, so why is it any stretch to assume someone can more effectively negate it without special powers of his own?

It’s not the same. A saving throw means that you managed to prevent an effect from obtaining a hold on you, not that you managed to dispel an already active effect.




2) It's a fighter fix, not a system fix. It's a single class to be taken on its own merits, not a comprehensive overhaul to the entire 3e core. You could take a few pointers from that.

Good. Anyone who’s content with it should take it.




"When you happen to agree with it" apparently isn't often. Could you point me to two or three things that have received a significant change since you first posted this on WotC? 'Cause all I see is reasons why you shouldn't have to change things.

Hoping this doesn’t derail the thread, I’ll just say this:
- I thought about adding a Drinking skill and ditched it after a short discussion on WotC.
- I dropped the idea to allow Str-based modifiers to Intimidate
- A harsh criticism quite early in the creation of these rules made me pause and define the goals, which had a huge impact on my HRs.
- My Warrior had many evolutionary stages. The great majority were derived from criticism that brought insights.
And the list goes on and on.
If you wish, I invite you to my HR thread where you can ask any question and I’ll explain to you the practical value of any issue over there that you’re intrigued about.




The fact that you've been ignoring most of the criticism directed your way.

Not agreeing and ignoring are two totally different things.




People consistently point out areas for improvement, and Djinn even laid out several paragraphs describing problems with this fix of yours, yet it took me directly talking to you rather than talking about your fix to even mention that you keep shooting things down that "don't add up."

Look, when someone comes with an idea and you (somebody) think it doesn’t work properly, given the time and effort invested in the idea, the best way to help is to suggest modifications within the idea, not to tell him to “toss it away, because it’s a pile of crap” (in so many civilized words, of course).
You could expect them to “see the light”, but unless you make an incredibly compelling argument, such expectation would probably be unrealistic.




Weapon style feats deal with things like holding a trident and net, or two maces, or a sword and axe, or something like that. Do you think it should be impossible to inflict those status conditions unless you're holding one particular pair of weapons, or should a mid-level fighter be able to inflict them with any weapons, and if so, why?

You know what, you do have a point there.
Problem is that I never came across an inspiring idea (mechanically) on the subject and, frankly, never thought about one myself (just something my inspiration never got to and I still don’t have any fruitful idea on the subject).
Just remember one thing: weapon style feats are practically the only thing that makes TWF interesting out there. With the right feat-combo, you could get one nasty melee offense at your fingertips. Make it viable to all melee combat styles and again you make TWF a no-brainer non-option.




I don't really have anything against you personally, but I've noticed that the only time you actually respond to criticisms is when people talk to you as opposed to simply talking about the fixes, as I mentioned above. You'll notice that you're starting to explain your acceptance of criticism, philosophy on weapon styles, etc. only now that someone's called you out, rather than simply telling people to reread your fix for the umpteenth time.

Maybe you didn’t notice, but even though some readers obviously proved they figured at least some of my stuff (at least partially), not a single question/argument/analysis was made in regards to a single class feature or mechanic. This made it hard for me to find a reference point to reply to.
I got one complement, but no question/comment attached, so there was not much for me to say in response.




1) Only at low levels; while I don't necessarily completely agree with the Alexandrian-inspired "RL goes up to 5th level" thing, it's fairly obvious that once you get to 7th level or so, realism goes out the window.

Stretched yes. Out the window – I don’t agree




2) The fighter being similar to RL is one of the problems that need to be fixed. It works at low levels, but not at higher levels...which is why the fighter is good enough before level ~5 and sucks above that. Someone else on another forum said it best:
[ An interesting and valid argument ]
Trying to fix a fighter while still focusing on purely mundane RL stuff past low levels is going about it wrong.

Still, many gamers find this goal desirable and you can’t deny them the right to search.
- Multiple Attacks & Movement
- Second Wind
- Mettle
- Action without Thought
- HP to force effects
. . .
The above and several more were designed to do just that.




Not true. Nauseating only makes you lose one action, so you can still move. Dazing makes you lose all actions, but you're not helpless. Stunning makes you helpless. They're different degrees/versions of the same thing from a mechanical standpoint, but from a descriptive standpoint it's very hard to tell them apart.

IIRC, you’re not helpless when stunned

MountainKing
2010-05-18, 09:03 AM
>> Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
Definitely.
A Fighter without a massive amount of features that top feats is a worthless fix.

>> Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
Not exactly.
- I just removed some stupid double weapons and the spiked chain – both because they never existed and because the latter is really a no-brainer.
- The other weapons that were changed were simply made better, which is how the really were IRL.

I only really care to raise a question with these two statements, because frankly, I think they're a little ridiculous. For the first one: if you want to play fighters with massive amounts of features, why not play Iron Heroes? IMO, "Fighter" is so bland, and so non-descript, that it could really be just about anything, as long as it involves fighting... so why muck around with giving it piles and piles of game-changing abilities?

The second statement... Who cares if the weapon didn't exist? Some of us happen to think double weapons and spiked chains are really cool, and who are you to tell us that we're stupid because those weapons didn't exist? Isn't that the entire point of playing a fantasy roleplaying game? To escape from reality and do things that normally are not possible?

For the actual build itself, I can't stomach reading it. I'm mostly just along for the ride at this point; please change your format. :smallfrown:

lesser_minion
2010-05-18, 09:47 AM
4. An ability to hold onto a target with zero friction. How does it work? What makes it work?

Freedom of Movement does not work that way.

Most animals depend on friction to walk, the same way as aircraft depend on drag to fly.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/experiment.png (http://xkcd.com/669/)

All it does is magically counteract grapples. There is no good reason why a good enough grappler shouldn't be able to deal with whatever freedom of movement does, because he's probably faced it more than once.

And what exactly happened to "no absolutes", anyway?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-18, 01:04 PM
1. Evasion is actually quite a consistent issue in regards to the core classes.
Every base class with good Ref saves, except the Bard which is a full caster gets it. 2 classes with no spells get it at 2nd level, because their very theme is to be evasive strikers.
2. Smite Evil is so crappy, I wouldn’t take it as a feat. And other classes can do it even better with spells.
3. As for the Barb... that one doesn’t even deserve to exist. Rage is outshined by (Im.) Weapon Spec + Melee Weapon Mastery – and it’s the most significant feature of that poor excuse for a base class.

The fact that they might suck or not deserve to exist doesn't change the fact that they don't. They're different classes and have different class abilities, and other classes don't get the same stuff.


4. An ability to hold onto a target with zero friction. How does it work? What makes it work?

As lesser_minion mentioned, it Does Not Work That Way.


It’s not the same. A saving throw means that you managed to prevent an effect from obtaining a hold on you, not that you managed to dispel an already active effect.

In either case, you manage to disrupt magic through nonmagical means; of course they're going to be different, they're not the same thing mechanically, but the one is a precedent for the other.


Hoping this doesn’t derail the thread, I’ll just say this:
- I thought about adding a Drinking skill and ditched it after a short discussion on WotC.
- I dropped the idea to allow Str-based modifiers to Intimidate
- A harsh criticism quite early in the creation of these rules made me pause and define the goals, which had a huge impact on my HRs.
- My Warrior had many evolutionary stages. The great majority were derived from criticism that brought insights.
And the list goes on and on.
If you wish, I invite you to my HR thread where you can ask any question and I’ll explain to you the practical value of any issue over there that you’re intrigued about.

So one significant change, the evolution of the Warrior (unless a Drinking skill was an absolutely necessary lynchpin of the new rules? :smallwink:. I'm not seeing any major changes, but then I'm probably remembering one of the newer versions. Thank you.


Not agreeing and ignoring are two totally different things.

When most of the responses, at least here and on EnWorld, were "It's fine, just re-read the rules" and "Sorry, I don't like that" they are in fact the same thing. If you don't agree with something, responding to the particulars you don't agree with is a good idea, not just doing things like blowing away ToB with "it's not credible" or responding to Why did you totally rewrite core mechanics with "it needed changing."


Look, when someone comes with an idea and you (somebody) think it doesn’t work properly, given the time and effort invested in the idea, the best way to help is to suggest modifications within the idea, not to tell him to “toss it away, because it’s a pile of crap” (in so many civilized words, of course).
You could expect them to “see the light”, but unless you make an incredibly compelling argument, such expectation would probably be unrealistic.

And nobody told you it's a pile of crap. Many did tell you, however, that it didn't address all of what should be done in a fighter fix.

Most of the response to your house rules isn't that they're bad. In fact, there are several things in there which you should be complimented on, if you haven't been already. The issues people have are that you present it as if it's the perfect fix and defend it as such, when it most definitely is not, and you present it in such a confusing manner and refuse to change the format. If you had come here with a newly-formatted version and said "Hey guys, here's a system rewrite, tell me what you think," I wouldn't have had a problem with it; it's the fact that you constantly post this, say "Here's my perfect system, anyone who tried to fix stuff before failed miserably" and never change the format that gets on everyone's nerves.


You know what, you do have a point there.
Problem is that I never came across an inspiring idea (mechanically) on the subject and, frankly, never thought about one myself (just something my inspiration never got to and I still don’t have any fruitful idea on the subject).
Just remember one thing: weapon style feats are practically the only thing that makes TWF interesting out there. With the right feat-combo, you could get one nasty melee offense at your fingertips. Make it viable to all melee combat styles and again you make TWF a no-brainer non-option.

But why is that? Why not make feats that work with any two weapons, rather than a particularly obscure pairing? Why not make feats that add a particular benefit (damage, chance of inflicting a condition, etc.) with each attack, so more weapons are more attractive? If you want to make TWF more attractive, fine, that's an admirable goal! Just say so, don't hide behind the "I want it to be more realistic" banner.


Stretched yes. Out the window – I don’t agree

With 9 ranks in a skill, you can outjump Olympic athletes, make hostile enemies your best friend, and track frogs across ponds with a few common plusses.


Still, many gamers find this goal desirable and you can’t deny them the right to search.
- Multiple Attacks & Movement
- Second Wind
- Mettle
- Action without Thought
- HP to force effects
. . .
The above and several more were designed to do just that.

The first four are things you should be getting at low levels, right. The last thing is more of a system fix. That's 3 levels worth of stuff, and you have 4-5 more levels to fit Hercules and Beowulf stuff in there before surpassing them.

Lans
2010-05-18, 01:25 PM
See also: power attack. The base damage for a weapon is irrelevant. The fact that you have to be a rogue to do appreciably more than that with a dagger isn't. Thats a problem with PA that can be easily fixed. You can power attack with a dagger just fine with a pair of feats, but only while throwing it. How much more damage do rogues do than fighters? Against what AC? Under what conditions?

If a fighter is hitting evenly with his BAB-5 attack, then the rogue is likely going to be hitting about 80/80/55/30% of the time on its attack.




A horse archer is only good on a featureless plain, and then only against an unsupported melee-only character. You're picking a situation where the ranged guy should win and arguing that it's justification for nerfing them.

How about a dungeon? What about a deep bog? Most characters move 15 feet a round in that or desert or other difficult terrain they moe


As for the tripped ranged weapon user, no. Most ranged weapons are absolutely unusable while prone, and any attempt to do anything about it gets you tripped again. Source on both of these? Getting up does not provoke an AoO.


And every time you get tripped, your opponent attacks you again for free. Thats only if he has the feat, which is not a guarantee. Their are plenty of melee that doesn't trip

lesser_minion
2010-05-18, 01:30 PM
Source on both of these? Getting up does not provoke an AoO.

1: See the combat modifiers table:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

You can use a crossbow or a shuriken while prone. Nothing else.

2: Yes it does:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standUp

Lans
2010-05-18, 03:39 PM
1: See the combat modifiers table:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

You can use a crossbow or a shuriken while prone. Nothing else.

Never noticed that, it is normally not productive to use ranged weapons in ranged, so it never really came up. Still, I don't think Ranged weapons should be able to beat melee weapons in melee.


2: Yes it does:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standUp
I miss-wrote, I meant that it doesn't allow for another trip attempt, due to AoO happening before the opponent actually stands up.

Oslecamo
2010-05-18, 04:05 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/experiment.png (http://xkcd.com/669/)

In defense of science, one thing is observing an working experiment, another is being inside the working experiment. A nuclear physics specialists certainly wouldn't want to be inside a full power nuclear reactor even if given the chance.



All it does is magically counteract grapples. There is no good reason why a good enough grappler shouldn't be able to deal with whatever freedom of movement does, because he's probably faced it more than once.

Hmm, just because you faced something doesn't mean you can prevent it. That's manga logic at best (Aha I've seen you perform your secret tecnquique once so it is now completely useless against me!). On the other hand, just because Lex Luthor knows that super man has super powers thanks to the light of the sun doesn't stops supes from beating Lex with super powers everytime they face.

Also, MAGIC!

lesser_minion
2010-05-18, 04:44 PM
You know I chose the picture to illustrate why it doesn't remove friction, don't you?

As for your other point... well, if all that's happening is that the spell counteracts the grapple, there's no reason why it shouldn't do so in such a way that an opponent might be able to avoid being countered.

Really, freedom of movement shouldn't be a guaranteed counter to grapples - a simple "you get a + xyzzy bonus to escape artist checks to escape from a grapple" would have been good enough.

Oslecamo
2010-05-19, 02:18 PM
As for your other point... well, if all that's happening is that the spell counteracts the grapple, there's no reason why it shouldn't do so in such a way that an opponent might be able to avoid being countered.

Really, freedom of movement shouldn't be a guaranteed counter to grapples - a simple "you get a + xyzzy bonus to escape artist checks to escape from a grapple" would have been good enough.

But that's not how D&D magic works. Magic is based on "lol no, just no!" effects. Mindblank doesn't give a bonus against mind control effects. It flatly makes you immune to it. Wind wall blocks all arrows. Solid fog reduces your speed to 5 foot no matter how strong/big you are. A wall of force can just be destroyed by a few specific effects. You're Krark, slayer of wyrms wielding the legendary sword of Fiery Apocalypse? Well tough luck unless your sword happens to replicate either disjuction or disintregate.

Pathfinder tries to go the other way and turn those immunities in fat bonus that can be overcome, but in basic D&D, yes, complete immunities do exist.

nonsi
2010-05-19, 02:41 PM
The fact that they might suck or not deserve to exist doesn't change the fact that they don't. They're different classes and have different class abilities, and other classes don't get the same stuff.

Did you read the intro of my proposed Warrior ? (hint: Barb, Fighter, Knight, Samurai, Swash...)




As lesser_minion mentioned, it Does Not Work That Way.

How does it work then ?




I'm not seeing any major changes, but then I'm probably remembering one of the newer versions.

Indeed.




If you don't agree with something, responding to the particulars you don't agree with is a good idea, not just doing things like blowing away ToB with "it's not credible" or responding to Why did you totally rewrite core mechanics with "it needed changing."

1. How did we get back to defending ToB?
2. I've responded to every “particulars” that I've noticed (e.g. this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8478994&postcount=33), this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8481607&postcount=63) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8494164&postcount=113)), except for those that Oslecamo beat me to the punch.




And nobody told you it's a pile of crap. Many did tell you, however, that it didn't address all of what should be done in a fighter fix.

In the posts linked to, above, I either showed how I believe my fix addresses the issues that I found relevant and why IMO it’s not supposed to address the other issues. You could argue the effectiveness of my solutions and/or my analysis of what’s irrelevant, but I don’t see anything that I intentionally disregarded.




The issues people have are that you present it as if it's the perfect fix and defend it as such

“OTOH, I would very much like to find out if there’s indeed a warrior archetype that’s impossible with my solution, or if regardless of my beliefs, I actually did neglect an important issue (and make the appropriate modifications).” (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151826)




and you present it in such a confusing manner and refuse to change the format.

How do you suggest I do this without resorting to a massive amount of work (something that would not be too much time consooming to be an option)?




If you had come here with a newly-formatted version and said "Hey guys, here's a system rewrite, tell me what you think,"

“The icon of bound-to-earth martial prowess needs one hell of a face lift and quite a bit of rules expansion in order to play in the big boys’ sandbox and have fun without relying on DM cuddling” (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151826).




it's the fact that you constantly post this, say "Here's my perfect system, anyone who tried to fix stuff before failed miserably".

No.
I say “Here’s the best result I managed to come up with. To the best of my understanding it addresses everything I know of that merits attention, in a decent manner. Every other fix I’ve seen didn’t address the rules and indeed wasn’t enough or handled things not having consensus to be among the Fighter’s issues”.




But why is that? Why not make feats that work with any two weapons, rather than a particularly obscure pairing? Why not make feats that add a particular benefit (damage, chance of inflicting a condition, etc.) with each attack, so more weapons are more attractive? If you want to make TWF more attractive, fine, that's an admirable goal! Just say so, don't hide behind the "I want it to be more realistic" banner.

High Sword – Low Axe: Last of the Mohicans (was actually a dagger. Should’ve been “High Blade – Low Axe”).
Crescent Moon: Highlander, the series (the classic Rapier & Dagger (“Main Gauche”)).
Net & Trident: Spartacus (entangle & skewer).
Lightning Mace: Every other martial arts star has shown how this one works (usually with a pair of Jo-Sticks).
. . .
And so on.
Now, regarding your question, I have some counter-questions:
- How do you trip with a sword?
- How do you entangle with a mace?
- How do you skewer with a hammer?
- How do you grapple with a lance?
You see, some find it desirable to be able to imagine how their warrior fights. If your imagination can conjure a picture of someone managing to skewer with a sap – go right ahead and write appropriate feats. I can’t claim to have such a vivid imagination (and I do admit that I can’t really visualize how “Hammer’s Edge” is supposed to work mechanically).




With 9 ranks in a skill, you can outjump Olympic athletes, make hostile enemies your best friend, and track frogs across ponds with a few common plusses.

Regarding 6th level as transcending mortal bounds and the fact that no RL athlete is as dedicated as an average RPG character is to adventuring, I’ve no problem with the above.




The first four are things you should be getting at low levels, right. The last thing is more of a system fix. That's 3 levels worth of stuff, and you have 4-5 more levels to fit Hercules and Beowulf stuff in there before surpassing them.

I’m not sure if I understood you on this one. Are you saying that I can’t manage to cram Hercules within the first 12 levels of my proposed Warrior?
Skipping classic Greek mythology and going straight to cinema and TV, I say I can do it with less than 10.
As for Beowulf – we’ve already established he wasn’t all that impressive, even when confined to 6 levels.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-19, 03:30 PM
Did you read the intro of my proposed Warrior ? (hint: Barb, Fighter, Knight, Samurai, Swash...)

I did. You asked "Why do only fighters get X?" and I responded with "Why does only class Y get Z?" to point out that some classes getting unique abilities is part of the point of a class-based system.


How does it work then ?

Short version: Not that way.
Long version: It can work in any way that provides flavor that makes sense for the mechanic. Since being frictionless makes it impossible for you to move, act, etc. freedom of movement obviously can't make you frictionless, as it doesn't impose penalties commensurate with frictionlessness. You can pick any explanation that does make sense, from "I'm slippery" to "I gain anti-grappling skill" to "I'm Just That Awesome," and any explanation that does make sense allows for an ability to reduce or negate that resistance, from "I'm sticky" to "I can counter anti-grappling tricks" to "I'm Awesomer Than You."


1. How did we get back to defending ToB?

It wasn't a specific defense of ToB, just one (of two) examples of how you handwaved away an entire fix or subsystem with "it's not realistic."


2. I've responded to every “particulars” that I've noticed (e.g. this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8478994&postcount=33), this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8481607&postcount=63) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8494164&postcount=113)), except for those that Oslecamo beat me to the punch.

Just looking at the first one, Djinn said "Here are some problems with your warrior" and you responded with either "no, they're not problems" or "they're problems for everyone, so it's fine." You responded, yes, but not in a productive manner. You did get better about that later, but slightly.


“OTOH, I would very much like to find out if there’s indeed a warrior archetype that’s impossible with my solution, or if regardless of my beliefs, I actually did neglect an important issue (and make the appropriate modifications).” (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151826)

That's what you said. You brushed off most mentions of "important issues."


How do you suggest I do this without resorting to a massive amount of work (something that would not be too much time consooming to be an option)?

That's just it--there isn't an alternative. If the fix were that simple, people would just do it themselves and take a look after that. If you're going to present your fix online, you need to do it in a format that makes people willing and able to read it.


“The icon of bound-to-earth martial prowess needs one hell of a face lift and quite a bit of rules expansion in order to play in the big boys’ sandbox and have fun without relying on DM cuddling” (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151826).

Which says, to me, you need to expand the fighter's rules. You keep saying fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter, fighter in the intro post, then direct people to an entire system overhaul.


No.
I say “Here’s the best result I managed to come up with. To the best of my understanding it addresses everything I know of that merits attention, in a decent manner. Every other fix I’ve seen didn’t address the rules and indeed wasn’t enough or handled things not having consensus to be among the Fighter’s issues”.

"I have never seen any fix, other than mine (we’ll get there in a moment), that successfully manages to address all of them in a neatly wrapped package."

"I argue that I can prove that I’ve managed to address any and all of the shortcomings that 3e’s martial classes suffer from."

"So far, I’ve managed to contradict any detailed argument against my proposed solution."

Your OP used language quite a bit more hyperbolic than you seem to realize.


High Sword – Low Axe: Last of the Mohicans (was actually a dagger. Should’ve been “High Blade – Low Axe”).
Crescent Moon: Highlander, the series (the classic Rapier & Dagger (“Main Gauche”)).
Net & Trident: Spartacus (entangle & skewer).
Lightning Mace: Every other martial arts star has shown how this one works (usually with a pair of Jo-Sticks).
. . .
And so on.

Yes, I know that using a pair of specific weapons works; I've seen all of those movies, and I never contested that. I asked why you can't take the mechanics from using each of those and transfer them to other pairs of weapons. Why can't you make a free trip/disarm/bull rush/etc. after a successful attack with any two weapons? Why can't you make one attack with one weapon, 5-foot step, and full attack with any other weapon? None of the weapon style feats mimic a tactic that can't be used with any arbitrary pair of weapons, because D&D combat isn't that granular.


Now, regarding your question, I have some counter-questions:
- How do you trip with a sword?
- How do you entangle with a mace?
- How do you skewer with a hammer?
- How do you grapple with a lance?
You see, some find it desirable to be able to imagine how their warrior fights. If your imagination can conjure a picture of someone managing to skewer with a sap – go right ahead and write appropriate feats. I can’t claim to have such a vivid imagination (and I do admit that I can’t really visualize how “Hammer’s Edge” is supposed to work mechanically).

You trip with a sword by swinging hard enough to knock them down, attempting to hamstring them, or hitting them in the leg with the flat of the blade. You entangle with a mace by bashing someone's legs or smacking them on the head hard enough to make them dizzy. You grapple with a lance by pinning their clothes to a wall with the tip or holding it sideways against their neck. Tripping just makes someone prone, entangling reduces their speed, and grappling restricts their mobility--you can describe that any way you want, because again, D&D isn't granular enough to perfectly match one description to one mechanical effect.


Regarding 6th level as transcending mortal bounds and the fact that no RL athlete is as dedicated as an average RPG character is to adventuring, I’ve no problem with the above.

So you are dedicated to providing realism in your fix, but don't care if adventurers do unrealistic things?


I’m not sure if I understood you on this one. Are you saying that I can’t manage to cram Hercules within the first 12 levels of my proposed Warrior?
Skipping classic Greek mythology and going straight to cinema and TV, I say I can do it with less than 10.
As for Beowulf – we’ve already established he wasn’t all that impressive, even when confined to 6 levels.

I'm saying all the stuff you mentioned are nice, realistic things that should all come at very low levels, 3rd or 4th at most. Your fix is dedicated to realism, and because of that you're granting things like mettle and immediate-action 5-foot steps at 8th and 9th levels. If you're really going to fix martial characters, you have to step out of the mindset of incremental improvements and start thinking big.

If you're going to model a master of all fighting styles, Array of Stunts would be a nice 4th- or 5th-level ability; I've proposed and have heard others propose that PHB fighters be able to completely rechoose their feats between combat from level 1. Protection from evil is a 1st level spell granting immunity to most ongoing mind-affecting effects while it lasts, so something that lasts a handful of rounds during combat instead of 1 min/level should come way before 12th level. And so on; see what I'm getting at?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-20, 11:12 AM
]Every other fix I’ve seen didn’t address the rules and indeed wasn’t enough or handled things not having consensus to be among the Fighter’s issues.

Given the statements on this thread, your fix is also guilty of handling things that don't have consensus to be among the Figher's issues. Many of us have raised the same concerns again and again, and they still remain unaddressed in a way that gest us any consensus whatsoever. Just thought I'd point that out.

I'm still willing to lend a hand, nonsi...but first, you'll have to get off your high horse and decide to fix the FIGHTER, rather than everything around him. The Barbarian works. The Rogue works. The Psychic Warrior works. The Duskblade works. The Swordsage works. The Crusader works. The Warblade works. These are all attacking classes...which says to me that the rules for martial combat are fine. Maybe not tier 1-2, but still fine.

So...why doesn't the FIGHTER work? Seems that the problem is the Fighter, not the system. Otherwise those other classes wouldn't be able to function in a martial aspect, which all can do very well.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-20, 11:27 AM
I'm still willing to lend a hand, nonsi...but first, you'll have to get off your high horse and decide to fix the FIGHTER, rather than everything around him. The Barbarian works. The Rogue works. The Psychic Warrior works. The Duskblade works. The Swordsage works. The Crusader works. The Warblade works. These are all attacking classes...which says to me that the rules for martial combat are fine. Maybe not tier 1-2, but still fine.

I wouldn't say the rules for martial combat couldn't use some fixing, since if you really want to do a system fix there's plenty of room for improvement, but between them and the fighter class it's definitely the latter that needs more improvement.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-20, 11:36 AM
I wouldn't say the rules for martial combat couldn't use some fixing, since if you really want to do a system fix there's plenty of room for improvement, but between them and the fighter class it's definitely the latter that needs more improvement.

True. They could use a bit, definitely. However, I think the point still stands: the others, although they could use a touch-up, still function.

Oslecamo
2010-05-20, 11:57 AM
I'm still willing to lend a hand, nonsi...but first, you'll have to get off your high horse and decide to fix the FIGHTER, rather than everything around him. The Barbarian works. The Rogue works. The Psychic Warrior works. The Duskblade works. The Swordsage works. The Crusader works. The Warblade works. These are all attacking classes...which says to me that the rules for martial combat are fine. Maybe not tier 1-2, but still fine.

So...why doesn't the FIGHTER work? Seems that the problem is the Fighter, not the system. Otherwise those other classes wouldn't be able to function in a martial aspect, which all can do very well.

Actualy, you're bein kinda unfair here.

The barbarian has big numbers and then just full attacks untill things drop dead. He has no special defenses against flying, ranged enemies and just +3 to will saves when raging that could be replicated by feats. He has pretty much all the "fighter problems" you mentioned.

The warblade and crusader similarly despite geting fancy stuff are still reduced to crying and dying if they face ranged oponent in higher ground or optimized caster, so they also don't "work". Warblade'sbest bet is "Horribly worded" Surge and the crusader gets some healing, but far from enough.

The swordsage is significantly stronger than the rogue while being almost as good skillmonkey. The swordsage actualy gets pseudo flying, ranged attacks and powerfull stealth so he gets a cookie. But the rogue no.

The psychic warrior gets 6th level psychic powers. He's a gish, not a martial dude, and even then he probably wipes the floor with all of the above. Ditto for the duskblade.

So, of all the class you've mentiond, only three "work" by your original standards. And they're by far the less martial ones (PSYCHIC warrior, gishblade and supernatural abilities swordsage.)

If by "work" you meant playing them, then excuse me, but there's plenty of people playing fighters out there. I honestly don't see any situation where a barbarian would "work" and the fighter would completely fail.

lesser_minion
2010-05-20, 12:57 PM
Actualy, you're bein kinda unfair here.

The barbarian has big numbers and then just full attacks untill things drop dead. He has no special defenses against flying, ranged enemies and just +3 to will saves when raging that could be replicated by feats. He has pretty much all the "fighter problems" you mentioned.

The barbarian is... not a concern. The concept can be represented well enough using other classes. Frankly, I see no merit to the class beyond the fact that printed books have to have a page count that is a whole number of 'module units', each of a fixed length.


The warblade and crusader similarly despite getting fancy stuff are still reduced to crying and dying if they face ranged oponnent in higher ground or optimized caster, so they also don't "work". Warblade's best bet is "Horribly worded" Surge and the crusader gets some healing, but far from enough.

An optimised caster will pwn most anything. To a point, we want classes that stand up on their own merits, not ones that have to meet some arbitrary standard of power. See also: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55902



So, of all the class you've mentioned, only three "work" by your original standards. And they're by far the less martial ones (PSYCHIC warrior, gishblade and supernatural abilities swordsage.)

I don't see any stone tablets around here saying that a character can only be martial if it's completely and utterly mundane.

Oslecamo
2010-05-20, 04:05 PM
The barbarian is... not a concern. The concept can be represented well enough using other classes. Frankly, I see no merit to the class beyond the fact that printed books have to have a page count that is a whole number of 'module units', each of a fixed length.

Doesn't change the fact that Djinni considered the barbarian a "working" class.



An optimised caster will pwn most anything. To a point, we want classes that stand up on their own merits, not ones that have to meet some arbitrary standard of power. See also: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55902

See also: the conditions Djinni said the fighter had to fulfill to "work". Wich was the person I was replying to.

Random links don't a good argument make. If you want I can go to the gaming den and pull out plenty of quotes saying that a fighter should stand to optimized wizards power wise.



I don't see any stone tablets around here saying that a character can only be martial if it's completely and utterly mundane.

Funny because I could swear that the most recent topic was "How can we make a powerfull and versatile mundane fighter?", not "How can we make a redudant half-magic warrior class since there's already psychic warrior, duskblade and ToB for that? ".

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-20, 04:14 PM
Doesn't change the fact that Djinni considered the barbarian a "working" class.

Working = Does the job it is supposed to do. Which, for the barbarian, is aggressive melee damage. It's practically written on the tin. He doesn't need defenses because he's an embodiment of the "total offense" mindset.

Yes, it's a fairly poor class design. But it does what it is supposed to do.


Funny because I could swear that the most recent topic was "How can we make a powerfull and versatile mundane fighter?", not "How can we make a redudant half-magic warrior class since there's already psychic warrior, duskblade and ToB for that? ".

ToB =/= half-magic (most of the time). But let's not have that argument. And the definition of mundane can be stretched out incredibly far...I could reflavor most of the duskblade or psychic warrior to be pretty mundane, by D&D standards.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-20, 04:15 PM
Funny because I could swear that the most recent topic was "How can we make a powerfull and versatile mundane fighter?", not "How can we make a redudant half-magic warrior class since there's already psychic warrior, duskblade and ToB for that? ".

The most fundamental answer is, you can't. At least, not until you choose where "magic" begins and "mundane" ends.

Take, for example, a Boneyard (Libris Mortis). I'm fairly certain it has an intelligence score, but just in case it doesn't, some helpful necromancer popped it with an awaken undead. It has ranger class levels. So, you have a Collossal-sized collection of sentient bones that could, say, use the hide skill on a flat plane with no cover and not be seen.

Hide in Plain Sight is, for all of us who have forgotten, an (Ex) ability.

If I need to continue, I can bring up rogues dodging meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms, hulking hurlers throwing moons across continents, the fact that even the shoddiest-built of Dervishes can literally slaughter entire armies in the space of exactly six seconds, and that you can drop a monk from orbit and he will, in all likelihood, survive. All Ex abilities that should, by the definition of Extraordinary, be Su.

idkwhatmynameis
2010-05-20, 04:47 PM
The thing is, all the classes Djinn mentioned do what they're supposed to do well, and by higher levels, flying isn't a real problem with winged boots. More on topic, the fighter can't do what it was meant to do, I.E. own in melee combat, better than most other classes. And that is why it doesn't work.

lesser_minion
2010-05-20, 05:14 PM
Random links don't a good argument make. If you want I can go to the gaming den and pull out plenty of quotes saying that a fighter should stand to optimized wizards power wise.

At least read the link instead of accusing me of appealing to it. I posted it because it makes my point pretty clearly, and because there is no point retyping something that has already been said.

Feel free to find your quotes about fighters being supposed to be as strong as wizards are at the moment. They won't help you.

The bottom line is that power does not a good class make. The fighter is bad because the class is bland, has nothing of its own, and is absolutely incapable of doing anything interesting.

Not because what the fighter does fails to stand up alongside what an optimised spellcaster does.


and that you can drop a monk from orbit and he will, in all likelihood, survive. All Ex abilities that should, by the definition of Extraordinary, be Su.

I hate to do this, but slow fall doesn't work unless you're next to a wall, and monks have no defence against vacuum exposure or suffocation.

Surviving a fall from a ridiculous height is hardly unreasonable. Just... not for a human.

Frozen_Feet
2010-05-20, 05:17 PM
If I need to continue, I can bring up rogues dodging meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms, hulking hurlers throwing moons across continents, the fact that even the shoddiest-built of Dervishes can literally slaughter entire armies in the space of exactly six seconds, and that you can drop a monk from orbit and he will, in all likelihood, survive. All Ex abilities that should, by the definition of Extraordinary, be Su.

How so? Extraordinary abilities are stated to be able to break laws of physics from the get go. At least the SRD definition states so. Extraordinary is better defined by not being powered by the essence of outer planes (like all else magic seems to be), and not being affected by antimagic fields.

Point is: difference between Su and Ex is a difference between Magic A and Magic B, and has nothing to do either obeying laws of physics. Which are different in the D&D world, anyway.

nonsi
2010-05-20, 05:26 PM
I'm still willing to lend a hand, nonsi...

I'm glad to hear that.




but first, you'll have to get off your high horse and decide to fix the FIGHTER, rather than everything around him.

Okay, let's leave system fixing aside for a moment and focus on the class.
I'm not very optimistic, but I'm intrigued to see where this leads.




The Barbarian works. The Rogue works. The Psychic Warrior works. The Duskblade works. The Swordsage works. The Crusader works. The Warblade works. These are all attacking classes...which says to me that the rules for martial combat are fine. Maybe not tier 1-2, but still fine.

I have a lot to add to what Oslecamo said, but so we don't drift any further, let's put it aside for now.




So...why doesn't the FIGHTER work? Seems that the problem is the Fighter, not the system. Otherwise those other classes wouldn't be able to function in a martial aspect, which all can do very well.

Fine.
I have some goals somewhere at the horizon that need to be met before I'm ready to declare a rule-tweaking-autonomous class-fix a success:
1. Power-wise, I understand where 'Dice" is coming from, but unlike him I do subscribe to the analysis presented by the alexandrian regarding skills, combat feats and how they reflect on RL when confined to levels 1- 5. I do believe that I've managed to paint a picture of a bound to earth combatant when it comes to those levels, due to the fact that all "maintain" aspects of Combat Focus (and some of the "expend" aspects) have no noticeable visual effect. I wish to maintain that feel&touch in the next incarnation to come (and among other things, to keep the class from being too frontloaded).
2. I don’t want to lose any of the things my Warrior can do, because: 1) I think they’re cool. 2) They provide a lot of important options.
3. I also don’t want to compromise on its robustness and lasting & recovery power.
4. The class still needs to be able to deal with force effects and still needs action freedom.
5. Good tanking is most desirable as well.
6. All of the above need to be hardwired.
7. The new fix needs to be autonomous from ToB mechanics.
8. And yes. I still intend it to enable all mundane martial classes (at least theme-wise, because the Knight’s compulsions just feel so wrong to me).

Those are my objectives – a real bone-cracker.
Can it be done just with a class fix? Remains to be seen.


Okay, let’s set sails and see where this ship takes us.
Start pouring them ideas, trying not to start by scrapping my Warrior altogether.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-20, 05:27 PM
How so? Extraordinary abilities are stated to be able to break laws of physics from the get go. At least the SRD definition states so. Extraordinary is better defined by not being powered by the essence of outer planes (like all else magic seems to be), and not being affected by antimagic fields.

So why complain if the fighter can cleave through mountains, or get so angry his sword bursts into flames powered by his passion for combat?

Oslecamo
2010-05-20, 05:35 PM
The most fundamental answer is, you can't. At least, not until you choose where "magic" begins and "mundane" ends.
...
If I need to continue, I can bring up rogues dodging meteor swarms dropped into 10 x 10 rooms, hulking hurlers throwing moons across continents, the fact that even the shoddiest-built of Dervishes can literally slaughter entire armies in the space of exactly six seconds, and that you can drop a monk from orbit and he will, in all likelihood, survive. All Ex abilities that should, by the definition of Extraordinary, be Su.

I'm ok with those Ex abilities, because they actualy even happen in your average action movie. Let's take your badass cop wich is 100% human and whitout magic powers whatsoever.

-Huge explosion? Hero walks out without a scratch while the mooks are all dead.
-Fall from high places? If you don't find the body, he isn't dead.
-Hiding? Guns, cars, trucks, space ships, they can somehow sneak it all under the bad guy's nose!
-Take huge damage and keep going, no problem!
-Slaughter entire armies in a few seconds? Ever saw a Rambo movie?

So basically, Ex can do outragenous "impossible" things, and supernatural does even moure outrageous WTFWERETHEYSMOKING! things like breathing fire and flying whitout wings, etc, etc.

Anyway, the psi warrior, swordsage and duskblade clearly have those WTFWERETHEYSMOKING stuff like creating a column of fire around yourself, growing claws, sheating your sword in lighting, etc, etc

lesser_minion
2010-05-20, 05:38 PM
OK, well, start by clarifying what you want the fighter to do.

To me, it's "modal jack". The fighter should be able to do a variety of things, just not all at the same time, and to varying degrees based on your choices.

So you're going to need:

Abilities to help the fighter co-ordinate allies A way to control the battlefield. This should probably be movement - possibly an out-of-turn movement ability, and probably some way of making attacks of opportunity harsher and more likely to be available. A re-write of the key fighter feats. Power attack needs some work, certainly, and combat expertise needs to be more about 'fighting smart' than simply knowing how to defend yourself. A way to obtain a wider range of combat manoeuvres, and keep them available.



I don't like the combat focus mechanic you've suggested, and I still think a modal fighter is the way forward.

Also, the fighter doesn't need that much toughness - I'd cut the hit dice down to either d8 or maybe even d6. Hitpoints don't really help that much anyway, and no character should exist to soak attacks - in fact, the 'defender' role fits the rogue infinitely better than it fits the fighter.

Frozen_Feet
2010-05-20, 05:39 PM
So why complain if the fighter can cleave through mountains, or get so angry his sword bursts into flames powered by his passion for combat?If the goal is to have a fighter standing against legendary beasts, that's exactly what a fighter should be doing in my opinion. Though setting a swrod in fire with passion of your heart is needlessly convoluted. You could just swing it so fast the friction heats it molten hot, or cover the thing in oil and strike stone with it. :smallwink:

If the fighter isn't doing those things past, oh, level 10, level 15 at latest, then he is screwed in default environment created by the rules.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-20, 10:47 PM
1. Power-wise, I understand where 'Dice" is coming from, but unlike him I do subscribe to the analysis presented by the alexandrian regarding skills, combat feats and how they reflect on RL when confined to levels 1- 5. I do believe that I've managed to paint a picture of a bound to earth combatant when it comes to those levels, due to the fact that all "maintain" aspects of Combat Focus (and some of the "expend" aspects) have no noticeable visual effect. I wish to maintain that feel&touch in the next incarnation to come (and among other things, to keep the class from being too frontloaded).

Note that I didn't say I disagree with the Alexandrian's conclusion, just that I don't subscribe to his exact reasoning; while his argument has several flaws, I agree that "realistic = low levels" is a perfectly valid conclusion.

Where I take issue with realism in this fix is (A) your focus on realism over balance and fun and (B) your focus on realism at higher levels. Regarding the former, take a look at Oslecamo's list--we see people surviving impossible situations, falling from ridiculous heights, etc. in the movies and don't question their mundanity at all, yet someone using a particular fighting style out of sync with the real-world version is unacceptably unrealistic to you. Sometimes, it's okay to let realism take a back seat.

Regarding the latter, as I mentioned before a lot of your higher-level abilities are things the warrior should be able to do at those realistic levels, whether you consider them 1-4, 1-8, or somewhere in between; 10th level warriors really should be breaking the laws of physics on a regular basis. As pointed out, (Ex) doesn't mean "mundane" but rather "doesn't go away in an antimagic field." Chopping mountains in half, drinking oceans, and diving from the stratosphere are all "mundane" or "realistic" by D&D standards at those levels.

nonsi
2010-05-21, 03:18 PM
Where I take issue with realism in this fix is (A) your focus on realism over balance and fun and (B) your focus on realism at higher levels. Regarding the former, take a look at Oslecamo's list--we see people surviving impossible situations, falling from ridiculous heights, etc. in the movies and don't question their mundanity at all, yet someone using a particular fighting style out of sync with the real-world version is unacceptably unrealistic to you. Sometimes, it's okay to let realism take a back seat.

Actually, I’m trying to find some kind of golden path between realism and balance, which I admit to be most challenging.
As for the higher levels, things don’t have to be necessarily realistic, but they should not feel magical either.
You know, I just had an idea. What if Combat Focus was always on except when expanded or lost due to conditions, and it took a certain amount of time and/or action-cost to regain? (lowering the cost with level progression). This will certainly solve the problem that the Warrior suffers from a glass jaw when out of combat.




Regarding the latter, as I mentioned before a lot of your higher-level abilities are things the warrior should be able to do at those realistic levels, whether you consider them 1-4, 1-8, or somewhere in between;

Okay, but...
1. What (alternate?) mechanics do you propose ?
2. How do I keep the features that are already there ?
3. What would you then fill the higher levels with ?




10th level warriors really should be breaking the laws of physics on a regular basis. As pointed out, (Ex) doesn't mean "mundane" but rather "doesn't go away in an antimagic field." Chopping mountains in half, drinking oceans, and diving from the stratosphere are all "mundane" or "realistic" by D&D standards at those levels.

1. As was pointed out, Slow Fall is not Featherfall and it doesn’t protect you vs. vacuum.
2. Unlike Bardic Music, HiPS is just poorly written without prereqs.
3. I see nothing about Evasion that tosses the laws of reality out the window.
4. I find it hard to accept the claim that for a feature to be cool, it has to defy the mechanics of reality.
5. Chopping mountains in half and drinking oceans are things I don’t remember to have seen in D&D.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-21, 04:04 PM
3. I see nothing about Evasion that tosses the laws of reality out the window.

10x10 foot room. Improved Evasion. 20ft diameter fireball. The entire room is engulfed in flame, and the rogue emerges completely unharmed. Me? I'm a pretty damn fast and evasive guy, after 13 years of fencing training. I might not be able to dodge bullets, but I reckon I could come pretty damn close. Under that situation, however, I'd be burnt to a crisp...because there's no space not on fire to dodge to!


5. Chopping mountains in half and drinking oceans are things I don’t remember to have seen in D&D.

Yet this sort of thing happens often in the legends that D&D is largely based upon. Thor drinks most of an ocean, and is probably just a divinely powered fighter. Sarpaedon from the Illiad throws a boulder that a dozen men couldn't lift...and he throws it far. Diomedes fights Ares himself off the battlefield. Beowulf bodily rips off the limbs of a terrible monster using only his bare hands. Rama singlehandedly kills 14,000 demons in battle. Samson kills hundreds with a donkey's jawbone. A character in the Ramayana whose name eludes me severs all the limbs of a giant demon with thousands of arrows in the space of a few seconds.

All are most likely Fighters, or one sort or another.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-21, 04:45 PM
Aside from that, remember that the fighter has to compete for cool factor and balance with the likes of spells, supernatural abilities, twenty foot explosions, shonen animes, et cetera. Of course he has to rape physics to be cool. I've got a cousin who's obsessed with knives. She can kill a man in more ways than I can care to name with her bare hands. And she's not cool. She's efficient. Watching her fight is a lot like surgery, just much less voluntary. If she whipped out a knife and it lit on frakking fire, though, I'd think twice about the cool factor of the whole ordeal.

Oslecamo
2010-05-21, 04:59 PM
I'd be burnt to a crisp...because there's no space not on fire to dodge to!

Then what it's the regular reflex save for half of the fireball? When you save you don't move from your place. So it's just the fireball that doesn't fill the room with flame all at once. Or everybody has imba dodging tecniques.



Yet this sort of thing happens often in the legends that D&D is largely based upon. Thor drinks most of an ocean, and is probably just a divinely powered fighter.

Honestly, I fail to see the utility of that.



Sarpaedon from the Illiad throws a boulder that a dozen men couldn't lift...and he throws it far.

Well with throw anything and if you don't care about precise aiming a 22 str fighter can lift something pretty big and throw it 50 foot.



Diomedes fights Ares himself off the battlefield.

And Aquilles runs away from a minor river elemental. Greek legends aren't very precise on the power of gods.



Beowulf bodily rips off the limbs of a terrible monster using only his bare hands.

I'm pretty sure that one was pimped out by magic, and even then, you can apply power attack to unarmed strikes and massive bare-handed damage if you want.



Rama singlehandedly kills 14,000 demons in battle.

Non-teleporting non SLA demons? Easy. Just get me my power attack+greater cleave and go to town!



Samson kills hundreds with a donkey's jawbone.

Again, even a fighter can carve his way trough mook hordes.



A character in the Ramayana whose name eludes me severs all the limbs of a giant demon with thousands of arrows in the space of a few seconds.

Now that's more like talking.

I agree that the fighter should be able to do cool things, but you need to realize some of that stuff is already in the game (or at least the basis), while other would actualy be plain boring whitout changes to the core rules. Hundreds of enemies at once? Easy, but a book keeping nightmare for the DM unless you use something like my custom mob/unit rules. "Drinks like a god" isn't usefull at all. Riping limbs is cool and should be effecient, but the base rules don't really say what happens when you've ripped out the left arm out of a giant. What if it's a purple worm? Beholder? Ghost? Living graveyard? Does the mind flayer cares at all if you rip off his limbs if he can still kill you with his brain?

Hmm, perhaps generic dismembrement special attack that causes ability damage of your choice?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-21, 11:14 PM
Okay, but...
1. What (alternate?) mechanics do you propose ?

If I knew that, I'd have my own fighter fix. :smallwink: More seriously, try to think outside the current systems--instead of adding more numbers or extra 5-foot steps/attacks/etc., think of things that aren't already there or aren't available non-epic. Something like chopping limbs off with arrows (more generally, a limb-lopping mechanic) would be great, and doing things like changing the skill DCs so "balance on a cloud" drops from 120 to something like 40 would be another good thing.


2. How do I keep the features that are already there ?

Simply move them down a bunch of levels. It'll have a lot of stuff in the early levels, but then again so do casters.


1. As was pointed out, Slow Fall is not Featherfall and it doesn’t protect you vs. vacuum.

Your point?


2. Unlike Bardic Music, HiPS is just poorly written without prereqs.

Why? Personally, by mid levels I think an ability that makes you effectively invisible (or close to it) just by standing still is an excellent ability for a sneaky class.


4. I find it hard to accept the claim that for a feature to be cool, it has to defy the mechanics of reality.

Cool? No. Better? Yes. If your wizard goes from summoning a dretch for a few rounds for binding a balor for weeks, and your cleric goes from healing a bruise to resurrecting the dead, and your fighter goes from hitting stuff hard to hitting stuff harder, that's something you need to fix.

nonsi
2010-05-22, 04:39 PM
try to think outside the current systems--instead of adding more numbers or extra 5-foot steps/attacks/etc. , think of things that aren't already there or aren't available non-epic.

Second Wind, Tide of Battle, Array of Stunts and Through the Haze are quite outside the box. I don’t remember seeing anything similar.




Something like chopping limbs off with arrows (more generally, a limb-lopping mechanic) would be great

I thought we agreed not to tinker with game-mechanics for now.




, and doing things like changing the skill DCs so "balance on a cloud" drops from 120 to something like 40 would be another good thing.

This particular bonus seems more fitting for the monk or rogue, but I get the point.
Any ideas ?




Simply move them down a bunch of levels. It'll have a lot of stuff in the early levels, but then again so do casters.

But this would just make Mr. Fighter-Fix a frontloaded cherrypicky-mac-dipalot.




Your point?

That according to the description, it doesn’t exactly defy the laws of physics, that’s all.




Why? Personally, by mid levels I think an ability that makes you effectively invisible (or close to it) just by standing still is an excellent ability for a sneaky class.

Except it’s not how you picture it. HiPS is only as good as your Hide check goes, which makes it an insight addendum based on your hiding experience, not some mystical power to change your colors like a chameleon.




Cool? No. Better? Yes. If your wizard goes from summoning a dretch for a few rounds for binding a balor for weeks, and your cleric goes from healing a bruise to resurrecting the dead, and your fighter goes from hitting stuff hard to hitting stuff harder, that's something you need to fix.

And what do you propose to put in there?



Oh, and what about my idea regarding making Combat Focus active most of the time ?

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-22, 04:44 PM
Then what it's the regular reflex save for half of the fireball? When you save you don't move from your place. So it's just the fireball that doesn't fill the room with flame all at once. Or everybody has imba dodging tecniques.

Hide under your cloak. Throw yourself to the ground. Anything to ensure that your entire body isn't the part lit on fire - just, y'know, some of it. It's easier to dodge SOME fire than ALL of it.

Also, Beowulf ripped the arm off through sheer badassery. Then killed Grendel's mother and a dragon using more or less the same method. For all future reference.

EDIT: Does it specify WHEN during his fall that a Monk must be within arm's reach of a wall, or can I drop his ass a thousand feet and he slowfalls in the last 5 with a stone fence?

Oslecamo
2010-05-22, 05:46 PM
Hide under your cloak. Throw yourself to the ground. Anything to ensure that your entire body isn't the part lit on fire - just, y'know, some of it. It's easier to dodge SOME fire than ALL of it.

We're talking about enough fire to instantly burn a lv1 dude to a crisp. A simple cloack ain't gonna even slow it down. And if it does, well, the rogue is just able to completely cover himself in the cloack.:smallamused:



Also, Beowulf ripped the arm off through sheer badassery. Then killed Grendel's mother and a dragon using more or less the same method. For all future reference.

Mind you, but wikipedia says Beowulf had some hax armor that made him immune to those monster attacks. He also kills the mother with a magic sword. The monster doesn't even seem to be that strong since it was reduced to attacking sleeping oponents. Inpenetrable skin can easily be explained by DR10 (a human with 10str can't bypass it), wich isn't all that uncommon on monsters under CR10.

He took down the dragon with help of a cohort and even then died. So basically a frenzied berseker with deathless rage that managed to kill the dragon before his frenzy ended, then died due to being too much in the negatives.

So actualy hax equipment, great strenght, stupid enemies (fighting just near a stash of weapons that can hurt you) and a final phyrric victory. Doesn't seem that much "sheer badassery" to me, just a good barbarian with improved unarmed strike.



EDIT: Does it specify WHEN during his fall that a Monk must be within arm's reach of a wall, or can I drop his ass a thousand feet and he slowfalls in the last 5 with a stone fence?

Slow Fall (Ex)

At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm’s reach of a wall can use it to slow her descent.

Hmm, well, so much for droping the monk from orbit then.:smallyuk:

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-22, 05:48 PM
Except it’s not how you picture it. HiPS is only as good as your Hide check goes, which makes it an insight addendum based on your hiding experience, not some mystical power to change your colors like a chameleon.

Which works well, until you have to explain how, in an well-lit, empty 10x10 foot room with featureless white walls, Mr. Fighter can be staring continuously at Mr. Sneaky McRogue, and then simply cease to see him.

Oslecamo
2010-05-22, 05:50 PM
Which works well, until you have to explain how, in an well-lit, empty 10x10 foot room with featureless white walls, Mr. Fighter can be staring continuously at Mr. Sneaky McRogue, and then simply cease to see him.

Well, that's pretty common even in action movies. Quick distraction(smoke bomb, powder to the eyes), then jump to the roof and hold yourself into the corner with your imba acrobatic skills, and the fighter never remembers to look up.:smalltongue:

Eldan
2010-05-22, 05:59 PM
It's, obviously, Somebody Else's Problem.

Though realistically, that should be a bluff check, not hide.

Oslecamo
2010-05-22, 06:04 PM
Though realistically, that should be a bluff check, not hide.

Bluff won't help you get in position fast enough. It helps geting the distraction, but honestly, how many bluff ranks do you need to throw something in your oponent's eyes? Geting to the ceiling and staying still it's the tricky part.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-22, 06:07 PM
Well, that's pretty common even in action movies. Quick distraction(smoke bomb, powder to the eyes), then jump to the roof and hold yourself into the corner with your imba acrobatic skills, and the fighter never remembers to look up.:smalltongue:

Yeah...which would work, if you actually MOVED to make a Hide check. Probably is that even if the fighter looks up, he won't see you.

For that matter, if you and the Fighter are in a 5x10x6ft room and standing next to each other watching each other closely, you CAN STILL HIDE FROM HIM. There's literally nowhere for you to go.

Eldan
2010-05-22, 06:07 PM
Somebody didn't get the reference, it seems. That was a Hitchhiker Joke.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-22, 06:08 PM
Somebody didn't get the reference, it seems. That was a Hitchhiker Joke.

I noticed. :smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo
2010-05-22, 06:11 PM
Yeah...which would work, if you actually MOVED to make a Hide check. Probably is that even if the fighter looks up, he won't see you.

You also don't move to make a reflex check, don't even drop prone, yet somehow you manage to take less damage from an attack from all directions.



For that matter, if you and the Fighter are in a 5x10x6ft room and standing next to each other watching each other closely, you CAN STILL HIDE FROM HIM. There's literally nowhere for you to go.

Well by the rules you cannot be on the same square of an oponent unless you're grappling each other, in wich case you can't use HIPS at all.:smallwink:

Eldan
2010-05-22, 06:14 PM
As Action movies tell us, turning your head aside and covering it in your hands (or headgear, if oyu have any) makes you survive explosions.

Really, though. It's an abstraction in the rules. If reflex saves needed diving for cover, they would probably get pretty messy in a fast, battle-map based game, and otherwise, it's not necessary in most cases and can just be described that way.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-05-22, 06:14 PM
You also don't move to make a reflex check, don't even drop prone, yet somehow you manage to take less damage from an attack from all directions.

I'm aware. I'm pointing out that most extraordinary and "realistic" abilities are nonsense anyway, so the Fighter can be as well.



Well by the rules you cannot be on the same square of an oponent unless you're grappling each other, in wich case you can't use HIPS at all.:smallwink:

Technically you're in adjacent squares in that amount of space. 5x10ft will hold two characters.

lesser_minion
2010-05-22, 08:06 PM
A fireball in a 10ft. by 10ft. room? Roll max damage and square it. Do not pass go, do not save for half.

The reason it doesn't work realistically is that a realistic fireball would actually be semi-decent, and Evocation Can't Have Nice Things.

Or, in less strawmanny terms, it would probably be a little on the strong side.

Eldan
2010-05-22, 08:12 PM
Well, I redid fireball back in the core spell rewrite project so that it did include the effects of explosive spell. That seemed quite decent.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-22, 08:17 PM
Second Wind, Tide of Battle, Array of Stunts and Through the Haze are quite outside the box. I don’t remember seeing anything similar.

They're, respectively, a variation on Iron Heart Surge, a common fighter feat fix, and a more limited version of true seeing.


I thought we agreed not to tinker with game-mechanics for now.

Did we? I must have missed that.


But this would just make Mr. Fighter-Fix a frontloaded cherrypicky-mac-dipalot.

If you take a level in sorcerer, you get 6 spells known and 8 spells a day; getting 2-4 class abilities from fighter should be comparable. The reason most people dip martial classes is to pick up prerequisites; you don't pick up a level of two or fighter or rogue for the fun of it, you do it because you need an extra feat or +1 BAB or evasion for your PrC of choice.


Oh, and what about my idea regarding making Combat Focus active most of the time ?

Sounds good to me.

nonsi
2010-05-23, 08:42 AM
They're, respectively, a variation on Iron Heart Surge, a common fighter feat fix, and a more limited version of true seeing.

A feat that resembles Tide of Battle? Where?




Sounds good to me.

Okay, How does this sound:
======================================

Combat Focus (Ex)
Starting at 3rd level, a Warrior’s survival instinct, and his alertness and combat insight make him much less prone to mental influence. He gains +4 to all Will-saves vs. compulsions (fear, charm, hold, CHA-based skills etc) and +2 against all illusions.
Any condition that disables the Warrior, totally prevents him from taking any willful action or hampers his determination (e.g. fascinated, panicked, paralyzed... etc.) also causes him to lose his Combat Focus.
Also, as an immediate action, a Warrior can voluntarily end his focus to gain a bonus to a single d20 roll (save, attack roll, ability check, level check, etc) equal to 1/2 his class level. He may choose to do so after learning the result, possibly changing a failed result into a successful one.
If a Combat Focus is lost due to a condition, it returns on the Warrior’s next combat-turn to come after it has ended. If it is expended voluntarily, it is regained after 1d4 rounds. At levels 9, 14 and 19 this waiting period is reduced to 1d3 / 1d2 / 1 round(s) respectively.
As a Warrior gains levels, new benefits are gained that are based on this feature. These benefits either derive from Combat Focus maintained state or by expending it to perform tasks that are beyond the capabilities of others.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-05-23, 09:52 PM
A feat that resembles Tide of Battle? Where?

I missed Tide of Battle in there, but you can already achieve its effects in a few ways. One or two ToB maneuvers let you take extra 5-foot steps when a certain condition is met (usually "hit someone"); there are a few ways to get extra move actions, the best of which for a fighter is Travel Devotion; and a higher-level ToB stance gives you an extra immediate action every round to use counters. Granted, that's three feats, one of which requires a high initiator level, but condensing feats and lowering their level is a common tactic for fixing feats so that's in line with what you'd get under this system.

Lord_Gareth
2010-05-24, 01:36 PM
I've been wanting to say this for awhile;

If you want to rebalance the Fighter - and the whole system - into something that is still cool, you need to make D&D stop looking like this (http://leeharps.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Chess-Board2.jpg) and make it START looking like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7vKrBDXx_s). That is all.

lesser_minion
2010-05-24, 02:04 PM
I've been wanting to say this for awhile;

If you want to rebalance the Fighter - and the whole system - into something that is still cool, you need to make D&D stop looking like this (http://leeharps.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Chess-Board2.jpg) and make it START looking like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7vKrBDXx_s). That is all.

Well, the first link is seriously broken (403), and the second... well, you don't need to be a crossover of Final Fantasy and Dead or Alive to be cool. It merely helps.

Even theoretical physics can be cool. Although the striders are a PITA if you don't have a way of dealing with them.

Realms of Chaos
2010-05-25, 12:10 AM
I thought we agreed not to tinker with game-mechanics for now.

How does slicing off arms with an arrow require tinkering with game-mechanics? :smallconfused:

My fighter fix from awhile back (which you commented on) can could do tons of stuff like that by simply modifying the old called shot rules and tacking them onto the fighter exclusively.

nonsi
2010-05-28, 04:08 PM
I'm still willing to lend a hand, nonsi...but first, you'll have to get off your high horse and decide to fix the FIGHTER, rather than everything around him. The Barbarian works. The Rogue works. The Psychic Warrior works. The Duskblade works. The Swordsage works. The Crusader works. The Warblade works. These are all attacking classes...which says to me that the rules for martial combat are fine. Maybe not tier 1-2, but still fine.

I just had to say this:
- The Psychic Warrior and Duskblade could work (given they have magic on their side), provided the right powers or power-combinations are selected/exploited – this requires some CO experience. I’ve tried to make a class with some solid foundations that even a beginner can’t trash.
- Of the martial adepts, only the Swardsage has means of decently dealing with range (provided the player chooses the necessary maneuvers). The Warblade needs to be a quantum-physics professor to be decent and the Crusader doesn't have much to offer action-wise (and both of them suck at range combat).
- Rogues work best with the Penetrating Strike ACF (Dungeonscape) and feats that increase the viable range for SA (provided you put enough points to UMD and have a generous DM). Other builds are really weak if the DM has any clue what he's doing.
- As for the Barb – it absolutely doesn’t work unless the DM really sucks mammoth at running encounters. All this class poses is being an engineblock with some pumped up stats. There’s absolutely no combat action a Barb can take that the core Fighter cannot (at the same level or even sooner), save for rage dependant feats (which a player needs to know where to look) and pounce (which just makes it serve as a 1-level dip), but dealing with charging is ridiculously easy. Also, the weapon-spec tree, combined with melee weapon mastery, make rage obsolete offense-wise. And last but not least, +4 to Will saves while raging - at level 14 - is a joke and the Crusader is still harder to take down HP-wise.

Anyway, if you have some useful tweaks for my Warrior, do share.

nonsi
2010-05-30, 02:55 AM
Okay guys, I could use some help here.

There’s a change I wish to make with my Warrior that requires some brainstorming.

Given:

1. I’m a big subscriber to the approach that confines mortal men to 5th level.
2. I think Uncanny Dodge should be within the reach of a mortal-level warrior (reminder: I categorize the barbarian type among many another types of warriors – all under the Warrior class).
3. I think the Warrior still needs a bit more robustness.
4. Every Fighter-Fix discussion I ever came across (including “Fixing the Fighter”) ends up with the inevitable insight that a non-magic-ish Fighter-fix is impossible without mechanical game tweaking, so I don’t intend to ditch my proposed changes.
5. My Warrior gains only bonus feats at levels 5, 11 and 17.

I wish to make the following changes:

1. Move Uncanny Dodge down to 5th level.
2. Add True Grit (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1977.0;wap2) at 11th.
3. (And here’s where I need a helping hand) Add another cool feature (17th) that relates to robustness, but I just don’t have a clue what it would be. I do know that I don’t want it to be something along the lines of Mind Blank, Foresight or True Seeing, but it should be something of equal value. It should be cool, it should be useful and it should increase the chances of survival when facing epic-bordering threats.


Any idea might help, so share whatever pops to mind.

Eldan
2010-05-30, 05:24 AM
Well, one that came up in my feat change thread, and one I intend to make a feat out of some day would be this:

Whenever the Warrior fails a fortitude save or constitution check, he can ignore the effects for X rounds.

So, you fail your save vs. death... you still fight on for twenty seconds before collapsing.

nonsi
2010-06-01, 12:06 PM
Well, one that came up in my feat change thread, and one I intend to make a feat out of some day would be this:

Whenever the Warrior fails a fortitude save or constitution check, he can ignore the effects for X rounds.

So, you fail your save vs. death... you still fight on for twenty seconds before collapsing.

Thanks for the inspiration. This is what I have for now (probably for good):

=====================================
Uncanny Dodge (Ex) – 5th


True Grit (Ex)
Warriors must learn to tough it out under fire.
A Warrior of 11th level or higher may add his constitution bonus to any save he has to make (twice over for Fort saves).


Improved Mettle (Ex)
Whenever a 17th level Warrior is subject to a Fort or Will save that has partial effect(s) defined for a successful save, he instead takes only the partial effect(s).
In case of Fort or Will saves that have full or no effect, the Warrior gains an immediate second save. Only on a second successive failure does he succumb to the effect, but only after [1 round per CON-mod] (min 1) have passed.

In the case of Unfettered Warrior, the 17th level feature would be Improved Evasion.
Sure, it doesn’t come close to Improved Mettle, but Unfettered Warrior is already the more attractive variant of the lot, so this would balance it with the others.

Poppatomus
2010-06-01, 05:33 PM
Not to nitpick, but i think that ability might be more straightforward if it gave a bonus to the save, rather than allowing a second role. (flavor justification: The character is tougher, not luckier, than others, which is why she has a better chance of success.) Suggested modification, humbly proposed:

Improved Mettle (Ex)
Whenever a 17th level Warrior is subject to a Fort or Will save that has partial effect(s) defined for a successful save, he instead takes only the partial effect(s).
In case of Fort or Will saves that have full or no effect, the Warrior gains a +6 toughness bonus to the save. Even should the warrior fail such a roll, he is able to resist succumbing to the effect for [1 round per CON-mod] (min 1) have passed. If the warrior is considered in combat, or if a failure would result in the warrior's death, he may make a second attempt to resist the effect. If this second attempt fails the results of the failure apply as normal

As above, I think the reordering of the rolls would put the flavor emphasis back on the toughness element, rather than the luck element. Also, the +6 bonus provides a general improvement to the character's ability to resist effects, which is somewhat more useful than just the re-roll given the number of situations where one may find themselves simply outmatched.

Not sure if +6 is the right amount of bonus. Wanted to make it something more like an opposed roll, but that assumes an opponent.

nonsi
2010-06-02, 12:58 AM
Not to nitpick, but i think that ability might be more straightforward if it gave a bonus to the save, rather than allowing a second role. (flavor justification: The character is tougher, not luckier, than others, which is why she has a better chance of success.) Suggested modification, humbly proposed:

Improved Mettle (Ex)
Whenever a 17th level Warrior is subject to a Fort or Will save that has partial effect(s) defined for a successful save, he instead takes only the partial effect(s).
In case of Fort or Will saves that have full or no effect, the Warrior gains a +6 toughness bonus to the save. Even should the warrior fail such a roll, he is able to resist succumbing to the effect for [1 round per CON-mod] (min 1) have passed. If the warrior is considered in combat, or if a failure would result in the warrior's death, he may make a second attempt to resist the effect. If this second attempt fails the results of the failure apply as normal

As above, I think the reordering of the rolls would put the flavor emphasis back on the toughness element, rather than the luck element. Also, the +6 bonus provides a general improvement to the character's ability to resist effects, which is somewhat more useful than just the re-roll given the number of situations where one may find themselves simply outmatched.

Not sure if +6 is the right amount of bonus. Wanted to make it something more like an opposed roll, but that assumes an opponent.

Good tip. Thanks.
But instead of a flat +6, I think I'll make it +1 for each 5 levels (rounded up), because given how robust the Warrior already is, a +6 bonus pre-epic would practiaclly make it immune to most Fort and Will based attacks. This would also give something more to gain by taking epic Warrior levels.