Quick Fighter fix? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

tyckspoon

2011-07-25, 01:32 PM

So...then why introduce the Aptitude exploit back?

It doesn't. Weapon Aptitude lets you take feats that say 'Select a weapon that this feat applies to' and change which weapon that is. It's mostly useful if you're doing primarily random loot, as it lets you swap your Focus/Specialization/Improved Crit over to that bizarrely powerfully enchanted mace your DM rolled up when you'd been using a longsword previously (and most high-op ignores it, because high-op doesn't use the Focus/Specialization lines that the feature primarily is meant for.)

The Aptitude weapon enhancement, on the other hand, says 'this weapon now counts as whatever special weapon is required by your feat.' Which is quite different- your Aptitude weapon can fake being a boomerang for Boomerang Daze and a light mace for Lightning Maces. Weapon Aptitude doesn't apply to those feats because you never made a choice in what weapon to use with them; the feats themselves can only use one weapon.

Edit: Also, the Aptitude enhancement is only troublesome if there are very powerful feats that are 'balanced' by requiring you to use them with weak weapons. I haven't heard of anything like that showing up in Pathfinder yet.

Erloas

2011-07-25, 02:31 PM

The change seems to basically make a fighter less gear dependent, not so much that they don't still need a lot of it, but that they can change to whatever is the best weapon for the situation rather then the weapon they picked at level 1.
So if you pick up a fancy magic mace you can still be good at using it even if you used to use a longsword. Or more importantly you carry both for different uses. Run into Rust Monsters, pull out your wooden spear, run into skeletons and pull out your bludgeoning mace.

As for how much it would improve the fighter, I think it mostly depends on how you run the game. If you tailor your loot drops to the party then you won't run into the problem of the awesome weapon drop being one the fighter isn't specialized in. You also aren't going to run into too many problems of DR that the fighter can't get around if you don't put those things in their way.
How much improvement they need depends a lot on the rest of the party though and what levels you expect the players to go through. But it doesn't do much to change the fact that most of what a fighter does is hit stuff.

Human Paragon 3

2011-07-25, 02:45 PM

Had an idea just now-- what if fighters got Favored Tactics, just like Rangers got Favored Enemy? They could get a +X/+X to hit and damage if they are using their chosen tactic. For example:

Higher Ground
Giant Fighting (vs two size categories up)
Swarm (with x allies adjacent)
Phallanx (with a shield, adjacent to an ally with a shield)
Dirty Fighting (After using the dirty fighting manuever)
Feinting (after a successful feint)

etc.

LTwhitebread

2011-07-26, 04:42 PM

I suppose I'm not entirely certain what your version is, but the Pathfinder fighter actually gets something like this by core rules:

Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.

It's only every four levels, but that seems semi-arbitrary to me. I wouldn't see it being terribly game-breaking if it was allowed at every level, or after a suitably long in-game break.

stainboy

2011-07-27, 01:47 AM

Weapon Aptitude is a catch-all patch for poor design earlier in 3e's life. It doesn't mean much balance-wise. It's just there to remove needless overspecialization. Go ahead and give it to fighters. Hell, give it to everyone.

Shpadoinkle

2011-07-27, 02:10 AM

Fighters are so fundamentally screwed up that there IS no "quick" fighter fix. Fighters are the Gordian Knot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_knot) of classes. One or two little snips here or there isn't going to do anything notable in the long run; you're going to have to do something drastic like Alexander did.

So how much would Weapon Aptitude a la the warblade fix the fighter? Barely at all. It would definitely be nice to have, so the fighter can use that +4 flaming burst vorpal guisarme you randomly rolled on the random treasure table (slightly) more effectively, but it's a drop in the bucket.

navar100

2011-07-27, 08:50 AM

This isn't quite so necessary for Pathfinder Fighters. Pathfinder Fighters already get as class features bonuses to hit and damage for various weapon groups. The bonus increases a bit as the level increase and another weapon group is added. Weapon Focus/Specialization for the specific weapon stacks with it.

Also as a class feature, Pathfinder Fighters can change/retrain a feat if a player doesn't want it anymore for whatever reason. He can't change one that's a prerequisite of another he has. If a player has Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, it would take a couple of levels to retrain both, one for Weapon Specialization then another for Weapon Focus. If anything, house rule that class feature to allow retraining of more than one feat, but in a case by case basis. For example, if the player specialized in great sword, all happy about it, but then at level 14 he got this magical great axe of super awesomeness, house rule he can change both Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization to great axe. If he also got Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization, rule he can change those two for weapon focus/specialization great axe, still has weapon focus/specialization with great sword, then at another level he can change weapon focus/specialization to greater weapon focus/specialization to great axe. This reflects taking time to acclimate his training to great axe.

HunterOfJello

2011-07-27, 09:28 AM

most classes don't really have quick fixes.

PF fighters do get the benefit of a few extra class features and a myriad of different feats that weren't present in 3.5e (although there are some missing also).

Giving all Fighters (or just all classes) the Weapon Aptitude ability of a warblade does sound like a good idea. I don't think it will be a major fix for the Fighter class in PF, but it could go a long way if you roll items off a randomized table as a DM.

The Fighter is still a one or two trick pony, and giving them weapon aptitude isn't going to change that. Actually, giving them weapon aptitude and then weapon's that aren't efficient for their specific build might be less effective in the long run if it doesn't improve their ability to disarm/trip/bull rush/whatever like they could with a specific type of weapon.

Person_Man

2011-07-27, 11:13 AM

The general consensus on the Pathfinder Fighter is that it's not that much better then the regular Fighter, and in some ways it's worse, because Pathfinder nerfed a variety of Feats which Fighters generally get early in their progression and rely on heavily.

Big Fau

2011-07-27, 11:15 AM

This just means they can spend feats on Weapon Focus and not care when their weapon goes MIA. It really doesn't change much.

And it doesn't do a damn thing to fix the Fighter in general.

Blisstake

2011-07-27, 11:23 AM

Depends what you mean by fix. If you want to put them at the same level as an optimized wizard, then there's no "quick" fix for that, and honestly, not the direction PF is trying to go at all.

But if you just want to give them more versitality with their weapon choices, it's a fairly decent change.

Seerow

2011-07-27, 11:26 AM

Honestly you could allow the weapon specific feats to apply to any weapon ever without even the hour of downtime aptitude requires, and not budge the game balance one bit. This isn't a fighter fix, it's just making it so your fighter isn't gimped by you giving him the wrong kind of weapon.

Godskook

2011-07-27, 11:45 AM

Fighter's #1 problem has always been that it's feats never really exceeded the power of low-level spells. This means that by level 20, a fighter is *STILL* picking options that are balanced around level 5. Its #2 problem is the lack of diversity in his feat choices. A class only needs so many bonuses to attack rolls.

Understanding that, and then designing feats to work with it will give you a much more powerful fighter. I tried it, and my feats actually landed on the ToS tier list(which is a different, more powerful list that measures build strength). They're not fully balanced, but an interesting read if you want to break a subconscious "fighter's can't have nice things" mentality that pervades most 'fixes'.

Elegonn

2011-07-27, 12:11 PM

Divide by Zero

2011-07-27, 12:13 PM

Alright, I'm missing something here...

What (according to you) makes the Fighter irrelevant?

How does this fix that?

I don't think this was ever really answered. In order to fix the fighter, you need to have a clear idea of what exactly is wrong with it, and how exactly your proposed fix solves those problems. "Improve" is meaningless without the proper context.

Frosty

2011-07-27, 12:17 PM

Big Fau

2011-07-27, 12:42 PM

I like the buttloads of alternative class features that PF Fighters get in the Advanced Player's Guide. Makes a lot of archetypes possible. Full-attack after moving? We've got that. Specifically a Mounted-Combat style? We've got that too. Polearm and Shield? Hells yes. Archery expert? Yep. And lots more! Go check it out!

It's still only good at combat. And a lot of those ACFs replace the same abilities, meaning you can't take more than one or two of them. And even worse, a lot of those ACFs are just minor bonuses.

Hell, some of those abilities aren't even fully written out (Savage Warrior) or utterly irrelevant at the level obtained (Shielded Fighter doesn't get basic Evasion until 20th level).

Spoiled because I have a habit of derailing threads when I talk about Pathfinder.

Godskook

2011-07-27, 01:59 PM

I don't think this was ever really answered. In order to fix the fighter, you need to have a clear idea of what exactly is wrong with it, and how exactly your proposed fix solves those problems. "Improve" is meaningless without the proper context.

I'm pretty sure the Duke was asking the OP so that the OP would ask the introspective questions you're mentioning.

(If you realized that, just ignore me, I'll be over there....)

Gavinfoxx

2011-07-27, 02:07 PM

So what would it take to have the PF benefits, but add the things that PF nerfed for fighters back into the game as un-nerfed options?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-07-27, 02:15 PM

Full-attack after moving? We've got that.Yeah... at level 20. Just a wee bit late.

So what would it take to have the PF benefits, but add the things that PF nerfed for fighters back into the game as un-nerfed options?Well, allowing 3.5 feats to supercede PF feats would go a long way.

Godskook

2011-07-27, 02:22 PM

First, the fighter was never 'in the game', such that de-nerfing something will bring him back to it.

Second, some basic ideas for buffing the fighter up into being a strong compliment to casters:
-A use for swift *and* immediate actions(note: Was done in ToB)
-Ability to 'answer' multiple foe-types without gimping himself(Allowing him to select a ranged and a melee weapon for his select-weapon feats would help here, but only slightly). Notable types are sneaky, controller, save-or-suck/die, bruiser, tank, and 'outside-range', with the last being the widest category, including ethereal, incorporeal, flying, burrowing, etc.
-A skill set that provides usefulness, especially if its in roles that fighters would take in a more realistic setting, like captain of the guard, or mercenary. Useful skills for this would be Gather Information, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, a couple of knowledge skills(local, history, nobility, geography and religion mabye), search and use rope(Seriously, up until the last 100 years or so, a good soldier could tie a knot as good as anyone).
-More generically, things to do when the right answer isn't 'combat'. Almost every other class gets lots of stuff to do, but not really with Fighter. He's mostly expected to sit there and wait for a fight to break out.

faceroll

2011-07-27, 03:21 PM

Here's my favorite fighter fix:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692

It's still only good at combat.r.

Hmmm, with a class name like "fighter", what were you expecting?

Big Fau

2011-07-27, 03:27 PM

Hmmm, with a class name like "fighter", what were you expecting?

I'd like it if every Fighter was capable of mechanically contributing to a wide array of non-combat encounters without needing magic items or role-playing bonuses.

Because I shouldn't have to sit on my hands every time the Rogue decides to scout ahead.

Hawriel

2011-07-27, 04:00 PM

I'd like it if every Fighter was capable of mechanically contributing to a wide array of non-combat encounters without needing magic items or role-playing bonuses.

Because I shouldn't have to sit on my hands every time the Rogue decides to scout ahead.

Then put skill ranks in stealth and don't wear plate. If a player can't find a way for their character to contribute in a way that a real person could it's not the class that is a problem it's the player.

Just because a class can not do somthing as well as another does not mean it's broken. A class is a job, or way of life. If the big guy in plate can not sneak around like the little guy with no armor, it does not mean it's broken. It was a choice made by the player.

PF did a good job in changing the skill system. Any class can pick any skill. The character will be competent in skills they phocus on. A wizard can be stealthy, a fighter can be diplomatic, and a rogue can treat injuries. This means that a fighter can train in knowledge arcane so he can asses magical threats.

However I do think that PF made a mistake by giving fighters only two skill points. Four would allow them a more divers skill selection.

MeeposFire

2011-07-27, 04:08 PM

Fixing would require you show what level of ability you want the class to have. For instance if you use the tier system used here so much do you want fighters to go up to tier 4? Tier3? Tier1? I like tier 3. Tiers 1+2 would be really hard to design while remaining what most people call here a fighter. So in order to make a tier 3 fighter let us compare it to a tier 3 fighter analogue-the warblade. The warblade has a few things that make it tier 3 that fighter need.

1. A better skill list and skill points. 4 skills points helps as does adding the perception skills, talking skills, and other skills warriors should have.

2. Better standard action attacks. fighters are too stuck on full attack actions

3. Varied and useful utility maneuvers that use swift actions and immediate actions. These do things like making you have better saves.

So those are the things you want to add to the fighter. The biggest two are the the first two as it helps you out of combat and helps you when you can't make a full attack (if you can make a full attack fighters do well).

Big Fau

2011-07-27, 04:30 PM

Then put skill ranks in stealth and don't wear plate. If a player can't find a way for their character to contribute in a way that a real person could it's not the class that is a problem it's the player.

That means it isn't the Fighter class that's doing the job (it's the skill system, of which the Fighter has limited access due to 2+Int skill points and Int being a tertiary stat at best).

Just because a class can not do somthing as well as another does not mean it's broken. A class is a job, or way of life. If the big guy in plate can not sneak around like the little guy with no armor, it does not mean it's broken. It was a choice made by the player.

A class not being able to do something is expected. A class not being able to do what it is labeled as being able to do is an example of a poorly designed class. The Fighter is billed as being the ultimate combatant, yet it is incredibly limited in combat forms (able to use two of the special combat actions reasonably well, but horribly outclassed as soon as it tries something outside of that expertise).

Pathfinder has not changed that aspect of the Fighter class. They changed the way the combat system works, but the Fighter as an individual gained almost no practical benefit from those changes.

navar100

2011-07-27, 05:38 PM

That means it isn't the Fighter class that's doing the job (it's the skill system, of which the Fighter has limited access due to 2+Int skill points and Int being a tertiary stat at best).

But the rogue is also using the skill system, so the rogue class doesn't matter either.

The point is, the character can do stuff out of combat.

charcoalninja

2011-07-28, 11:30 AM

But the rogue is also using the skill system, so the rogue class doesn't matter either.

The point is, the character can do stuff out of combat.

Other than the fact that the rogue class grants him 8+INT mod skillpoints.
I never understood what thought process felt the fighter should only have 2+INT mod for skillpoints. It's just... bizzar

Divide by Zero

2011-07-28, 12:07 PM

I never understood what thought process felt the fighter should only have 2+INT mod for skillpoints. It's just... bizzar

I wouldn't give 2+Int to anything except Int-focused casters, both because they'll have plenty of points anyway and because they can circumvent most skill checks with magic.

navar100

2011-07-28, 06:14 PM

Other than the fact that the rogue class grants him 8+INT mod skillpoints.
I never understood what thought process felt the fighter should only have 2+INT mod for skillpoints. It's just... bizzar

2+Int does disappoint. Even with Pathfinder getting rid of cross-class skills the number is small.

A fighter can get something from it though. Start with 2 per level. Play human. That's 3 per level. Dedicate favored class bonus to skill points. That's 4 per level. Some feats require 13+ Intelligence. That's 5 per level. Not the greatest, certainly, but ok. No cross-class garbage, so every rank is one for one. At low level the fighter is not skill-savvy. Point to call that Suckage, but forgiveable considering he's low level. The rogue needs this skill spotlight. At 6th level, the fighter has 30 skills points to play with. Now we're talking a decent amount. He can afford not to max out class skills since he gets +3 bonus to those. He can have 6 ranks in Perception. The rogue also has 6 ranks + 3 class bonus Perception. Both can easily have the same wisdom. The fighter isn't that far behind.

The rogue, though, has 6 ranks + 3 class bonus + high Dex modifier to Stealth. Say 18 Dex so rogue has total +13 to hide vs fighter's +6 to Perception. That is a feature, not a bug. The rogue is supposed to be so stealthy. That's the whole point. If a particular skill is really important to a fighter, or any character, Skill Focus is worth taking. The fighter has so many feats he can afford it. Skill Focus gives +3, but it becomes +6 when you have 10 ranks. A fighter taking Skill Focus (Perception) is not a bad idea. Fighter now has +9 total Perception, equalling rogue's Perception and vs. rogue's +13 Stealth. Not an even chance, but better odds for the fighter while the rogue is still better as he should be.

Now let's go to level 10. Fighter has 10 ranks + 6 for Skill Focus = +16 Perception. Rogue has 10 ranks + 3 class bonus for +13 Perception. Skill Focus for the win. Rogue's Stealth is 10 ranks + 3 class bonus + 5 Dex say for a total of +18 Stealth. The fighter is only 2 behind. That is very good. If the rogue wants better odds, he'll need to take Skill Focus (Stealth) himself. While he has more feats than in 3E, a feat is still valueable. The rogue might take it if it's really important to him. That is a matter of player/NPC choice, not a function of rogue or fighter. The fighter meanwhile has 40 other skill points to have played around with. Decent.

Hawriel

2011-07-31, 04:31 AM

That means it isn't the Fighter class that's doing the job (it's the skill system, of which the Fighter has limited access due to 2+Int skill points and Int being a tertiary stat at best).

A class not being able to do something is expected. A class not being able to do what it is labeled as being able to do is an example of a poorly designed class. The Fighter is billed as being the ultimate combatant, yet it is incredibly limited in combat forms (able to use two of the special combat actions reasonably well, but horribly outclassed as soon as it tries something outside of that expertise).

You cant be an expert in every thing. A person focuses on one or two areas of combat. Swords and archery for example. You should not expect a sword master or a master archer to be just as good with a halberd or axe. Different weapon different skill. However the base attack and str of the fighter allows them to do well with any weapon they pick up. Most feats are not required to work with only one weapon any way.

I had a fighter with imp graple beat the living tar out of a drow fencer. I never drew his weapon. he was focused in disarming and fainting I had imp unarmed strike and imp grapple. The drow had a higher dex. I went up against an apponent better than me is somthing. So did the drow. He lost I won. If I chose a different tactic I could have seriosly lost that fight.

That character also uses a bastard sword because of the versatility.

As for skill points I agree. I think fighters should get four per level. All classes with two should get four. With that house rule in my group my fighter had a desent stealth, perseption, bluff, diplomacy, and knowledge arcane. His INT was 14. I used skill points for his favored class. These skills where not maxed out. I also put in some athletics and other usfull skills at 3 to 5 ranks. You dont have to max out skills to have a good character. having 4 ranks in swim with a 16 str fighter is good enough.

Ardantis

2011-07-31, 10:35 AM

And yet Dungeon Crasher pushed the fighter up from Tier 4 to Tier 3 with just a few unusual abilities.

I still think that the best improvements to fighters involve imagining something beyond the abilities given, or re-envisioning access to those abilities.

Check out my thread on Fighter Alternate Class Features:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209567

Divide by Zero

2011-07-31, 11:19 AM

And yet Dungeon Crasher pushed the fighter up from Tier 4 to Tier 3 with just a few unusual abilities.

5 to 4. You have to be relevant outside of combat to be Tier 3.

faceroll

2011-07-31, 04:42 PM

5 to 4. You have to be relevant outside of combat to be Tier 3.

What do ToB classes get that makes them relevant outside of combat? A handful more skills/skill points and shadow jaunt?

Flickerdart

2011-07-31, 04:47 PM

What do ToB classes get that makes them relevant outside of combat? A handful more skills/skill points and shadow jaunt?
Mountain Hammer and such are very good alternatives to Open Lock, Disable Device, Passwall... :smallbiggrin:

tyckspoon

2011-07-31, 04:53 PM

What do ToB classes get that makes them relevant outside of combat? A handful more skills/skill points and shadow jaunt?

Swordsages are 6 skill points/level with a decent list (Listen, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Hide, although curiously not Spot or Search.) Warblades and Crusaders both have Diplomacy in-class. Maneuvers can give movement options and, as mentioned above, Stone Dragon gives an easy way to break anything, which solves a problem in a fairly direct way more often than it really should.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-07-31, 05:00 PM

What do ToB classes get that makes them relevant outside of combat? A handful more skills/skill points and shadow jaunt?

Better skills, more combat versatility (so you don't suck against the Rakshasa when you don't have a holy spear), things like Leaping Dragon Stance and Shadow Jaunt for out of combat versatality.

Divide by Zero

2011-07-31, 05:01 PM

Also, even a significantly toned-down reading of Iron Heart Surge lets warblades brute-force their way through a lot of magical effects, and the Diamond Mind save maneuvers can be good in trap-heavy campaigns. There's a lot of utility maneuvers if you look for them.

Big Fau

2011-07-31, 05:03 PM

Oh, and save replacements (Diamond Mind) to help find traps without being screwed over by them.

Socratov

2011-07-31, 07:16 PM

Here's my favorite fighter fix:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692

Hmmm, with a class name like "fighter", what were you expecting?

so basicly, the fighter fix is warblade :smallsmile: albeit with a very limited manuever etc. choice.

I personally think that to fix the fighter without resorting to warblade would be to give him a variation on the ranger's combat styles. Instead of giving him all the feats, give him a bonus feat every 5 levels, and give him classfeatures by making choices in combatstyles. Instead of generalist when it comes to weapons, the fighter could be a real specialist in a given tactic, weapon, area, whatever. choices could be specializing in a certain weapon tree (like spears, javelins and the like), a specific tactic (like charging, sword and shield, TWF), against specific enemies(combat styles specifically designed to counter skeletons, mages or beasts). You could call these specialisations schools, and when you pick a school, you must ban another, or when you get to pick a school, you can pick 1 scool from a certain category (for instance at lvl 3 you choose between weapon schools, at lvl 6 you pick armor styles, at lvl 9 you pick enemies (a bit like the favored enemy class feature borrowed again from those great rangers), at lvl 12 you pick tactics, and at levels 15, 18 you will get upgrades in respect to the schools you have chosen. At level 20 you will gain change of focus, which would allow to retrain a certain school after 4 hours of weapon training and 2 hours of meditation, to use this you have to be proficient with the weapons (you will keep proficiencies, but gain penalties for using weapons not in your specialisation, and gaining bonuses to weapons in your specialization)

Or instead of furhter bonuses you could grant the fighter at lvls 15 and 18 an extra weapon/armor school, tactic or specific enemy

This way the fighter actually gets to grow to a point where he can do anything, as long as it is connected to fighting ina martial way. this won't give the fighter a leg up to tiers 1 or 2, but at least make him more viable to actually class all the way through instead of dipping for those 2 extra feats.

Edit: ok, a fix, but not that quick apparently :smallyuk:

faceroll

2011-08-01, 06:56 AM

Mountain Hammer and such are very good alternatives to Open Lock, Disable Device, Passwall... :smallbiggrin:

So is an adamantine weapon.

Swordsages are 6 skill points/level with a decent list (Listen, Move Silently, Sense Motive, Hide, although curiously not Spot or Search.) Warblades and Crusaders both have Diplomacy in-class. Maneuvers can give movement options and, as mentioned above, Stone Dragon gives an easy way to break anything, which solves a problem in a fairly direct way more often than it really should.

Yeah, I just don't see ToB really giving you T3 toys outside of combat. So you're approaching rogue or expert level skills, and you can do the same work as an adamantine weapon. Stuff that's easily replicable by magic items isn't worth much. It's what make classes like Arcane Archer and Soulknife junk. Stone Dragon also suffers from requiring you to stand on stone or earth. Kind of limiting, imo.

The movement options are all pretty much for combat. It's not like you can use shadow jaunt to teleport to the center of the moon to build a secret base. I guess moving through difficult terrain could potentially double your move speed through stuff like underbrush or whatever. But a monk gets speed boosts such that difficult terrain doesn't really matter outside of combat when having her speed.

Better skills, more combat versatility (so you don't suck against the Rakshasa when you don't have a holy spear), things like Leaping Dragon Stance and Shadow Jaunt for out of combat versatality.

That's quite marginal compared to, say, a bard or a beguiler. Furthermore, the movement boosting stuff is really just good for being in combat. Shadow Jaunt and Leaping Dragon Stance can be mostly copied with a ladder. Real movement versatility would be getting a fly speed, a phantom steed, or real teleportation that takes you miles. Or etherealness, incorporeality, or plane travel. The movement stuff ToB gets is almost entirely limited to usefulness in combat and trivializing things a climbing kit would have been necessary for.

Oh, and save replacements (Diamond Mind) to help find traps without being screwed over by them.

Hmm, never thought of the save replacements like that before. That's fairly legit.

Big Fau

2011-08-01, 11:03 AM

So is an adamantine weapon.

Since when is an adamantine weapon a 3rd level class feature?

Yeah, I just don't see ToB really giving you T3 toys outside of combat. So you're approaching rogue or expert level skills, and you can do the same work as an adamantine weapon. Stuff that's easily replicable by magic items isn't worth much. It's what make classes like Arcane Archer and Soulknife junk. Stone Dragon also suffers from requiring you to stand on stone or earth. Kind of limiting, imo.

In all honesty, the limitation on Stone Dragon is BS. It's supernatural in nature, but the entire school (save maybe Earthstrike Quake) is Ex. Seriously, they really should not have put that line in there.

The movement options are all pretty much for combat. It's not like you can use shadow jaunt to teleport to the center of the moon to build a secret base. I guess moving through difficult terrain could potentially double your move speed through stuff like underbrush or whatever. But a monk gets speed boosts such that difficult terrain doesn't really matter outside of combat when having her speed.

The teleport tricks may not be able to get you to the moon and back, but they are incredibly more useful than the Monk's 1/day DD, and don't require Shadow Pounce or Sun School to make attacks afterwards. The Swordsage is also capable of flight at 13th level (a bit late, but welcome nonetheless), something that separates it from the lower tier classes.

That's quite marginal compared to, say, a bard or a beguiler. Furthermore, the movement boosting stuff is really just good for being in combat. Shadow Jaunt and Leaping Dragon Stance can be mostly copied with a ladder. Real movement versatility would be getting a fly speed, a phantom steed, or real teleportation that takes you miles. Or etherealness, incorporeality, or plane travel. The movement stuff ToB gets is almost entirely limited to usefulness in combat and trivializing things a climbing kit would have been necessary for.

The movement boosters are actually decent with scouting, since they let you cover more ground while hiding and can provide an emergency escape option. And the Swordsage has Incorporeality/Etherealness and a Fly speed, and the Crusader/Warblade can pick that up thanks to having Full IL.

Divide by Zero

2011-08-01, 08:14 PM

They don't need to be amazing outside of combat. I'm not expecting them to compete with the rogue for skillmonkeying. The point is that they're relevant, unlike the fighter.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-01, 08:21 PM

That's quite marginal compared to, say, a bard or a beguiler. Furthermore, the movement boosting stuff is really just good for being in combat. Shadow Jaunt and Leaping Dragon Stance can be mostly copied with a ladder. Real movement versatility would be getting a fly speed, a phantom steed, or real teleportation that takes you miles. Or etherealness, incorporeality, or plane travel. The movement stuff ToB gets is almost entirely limited to usefulness in combat and trivializing things a climbing kit would have been necessary for.

Bards and beguilers are better out of combat, ToB classes are better in combat.

Hawriel

2011-08-02, 05:09 PM

Since when is an adamantine weapon a 3rd level class feature?

With a crowbar I dont need a dumb class feature when a crowbar would do. I could also use a rope, hammer, horse, ranks in climb, ladder, vial of grease, oil or any number of items I can use intelligently

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-02, 05:16 PM

With a crowbar I dont need a dumb class feature when a crowbar would do. I could also use a rope, hammer, horse, ranks in climb, ladder, vial of grease, oil or any number of items I can use intelligently

All of those only work in certain situations. Mountain Hammer works in all situations, plus helps against opponents with DR, plus deals extra damage.

faceroll

2011-08-02, 09:49 PM

All of those only work in certain situations. Mountain Hammer works in all situations, plus helps against opponents with DR, plus deals extra damage.

All situations that you're standing firmly on stone or earth, yeah.

Big Fau

2011-08-02, 10:56 PM

All situations that you're standing firmly on stone or earth, yeah.

Again, that is the dumbest restriction in the entire game for an Ex style.

Greenish

2011-08-02, 11:00 PM

Bards and beguilers are better out of combat, ToB classes are better in combat.I don't know, the average bard will be doing a different thing in combat, but I shouldn't think it's contribution is any lesser than a martial adept's.

*.*.*.*

2011-08-02, 11:04 PM

All situations that you're standing firmly on stone or earth, yeah.

Fill your boots/shoes with dirt, if the books want to be stupid so can I

MeeposFire

2011-08-02, 11:05 PM

Again, that is the dumbest restriction in the entire game for an Ex style.

They should have said a solid surface only since I could see a reason saying you need better leverage and the like to pull this stuff off.

Greenish

2011-08-02, 11:06 PM

if the books want to be stupid so can IWith 3.5 books, you'd probably need a string of severe concussions.

Big Fau

2011-08-02, 11:30 PM

They should have said a solid surface only since I could see a reason saying you need better leverage and the like to pull this stuff off.

Agreed, at least then it would make sense.

faceroll

2011-08-03, 12:25 AM

Again, that is the dumbest restriction in the entire game for an Ex style.

RAW is RAW bro. Doesn't really matter how much you fanboi over the book, it's not going to change RAW. I think Orb of Fire ignoring SR and working in an AMF is dumb, too. Doesn't change the fact that by Raw, the orb spells still work in AMFs.

Fill your boots/shoes with dirt, if the books want to be stupid so can I

Having your boots full of sand doesn't really count as "having contact with the ground."

*.*.*.*

2011-08-03, 12:38 AM

RAW is RAW bro. Doesn't really matter how much you fanboi over the book, it's not going to change RAW. I think Orb of Fire ignoring SR and working in an AMF is dumb, too. Doesn't change the fact that by Raw, the orb spells still work in AMFs.

Having your boots full of sand doesn't really count as "having contact with the ground."

I disagree

1.
the solid surface of the earth; firm or dry land: to fall to the ground.
2.
earth or soil: stony ground.
3.
land having an indicated character: rising ground.
4.
Often, grounds. a tract of land appropriated to a special use: picnic grounds; a hunting ground.
5.
Often, grounds. the foundation or basis on which a belief or action rests; reason or cause: grounds for dismissal.

RAW is RAW bro.

faceroll

2011-08-03, 01:41 AM

I disagree

RAW is RAW bro.

Hmm, I don't see "dirt in boots" as counting as "the ground" in any of those. It's like trying to conflate "salt water" with "the ocean".

Bosh

2011-08-03, 01:49 AM

faceroll

2011-08-03, 02:01 AM

Another potential thing to consider is having Fighters get saving throw bonuses that only start kicking in when they get to higher levels (to prevent excessive dipping) when the fighters really start falling behind the power curve. One of the things that fighters had going for them in TSR-D&D was that at high levels they had awesome saves. I think that would be a useful thing for fighters to get in D&D.

Yeah, I've never really understood why fighters and barbarians piss themselves when a dragon shows up, and wizards are just like "meh". Fightin' men like wrestling leviathans.

*.*.*.*

2011-08-03, 03:47 AM

Hmm, I don't see "dirt in boots" as counting as "the ground" in any of those. It's like trying to conflate "salt water" with "the ocean".

The 2nd definition says "Earth or soil", so I stand behind my statement.

faceroll

2011-08-03, 04:35 AM

The 2nd definition says "Earth or soil", so I stand behind my statement.

That's not what the ground is, though. The ground may be composed of earth or soil, but earth and soil aren't the ground. Your method of equivocation, while entertaining, results in a lot of nonsense.

soil

Make dirty
- he might soil his expensive suit
- a soiled T-shirt

(esp. of a child, patient, or pet) Make (something) dirty by defecating in or on it

Bring discredit to; tarnish

Does that mean a warblade can initiate maneuvers simply by virtue of having a bad reputation?

*.*.*.*

2011-08-03, 04:52 AM

Does that mean a warblade can initiate maneuvers simply by virtue of having a bad reputation?

Duh

I was so going to link the definition of soil, but I concede my point. However, if a DM wants to stick with RAW over Stone Dragon, the next three words from my character would be "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu"

Stardot OUT

Zale

2011-08-03, 06:54 AM

I find it amusing that Barbarians get 4 skill points, while Fighters get 2. :smallconfused:

They really should get four, at the very least.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-03, 09:52 AM

I find it amusing that Barbarians get 4 skill points, while Fighters get 2. :smallconfused:

They really should get four, at the very least.

...why?

Certainly they should get Listen and Spot added to their list of class skills. But why should Fighters get more than 2 + Int?

Unless everyone gets upped to 4 + Int (except maybe Wizards*), or some combat skills are included in the game (Iajutsu Focus), I'd readily expect Fighters to have among the least skill points in the game.

I was so going to link the definition of soil, but I concede my point. However, if a DM wants to stick with RAW over Stone Dragon, the next three words from my character would be "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu"

Stardot OUT

"Sorry, we're not running a game with Pazuzu."

--------------------------------
*Wizards have INT as their primary stat, so their 2 + Int skills is secretly already is 4 + Int.

Zale

2011-08-03, 09:57 AM

...why?

Certainly they should get Listen and Spot added to their list of class skills. But why should Fighters get more than 2 + Int?

You like fluff, right?

Then tell me why the savage barbarian gets more skill points than a fighter.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-03, 10:02 AM

You like fluff, right?

Then tell me why the savage barbarian gets more skill points than a fighter.

Fighters dedicate their lives towards the mastery of weapons, leaving little time to develop the largely non-combat traits that skills represent? Verses barbarians, who live out in the wild and so have ample opportunity to practice learning a variety of skills. Barbarians aren't just warriors, and their skill points and list of class skills reflects that. Fighters...their name says it all.

Of course, I can easily see an argument for, well, just about every class getting 8 + INT skills. That's where mechanical considerations come into play.

Zale

2011-08-03, 10:06 AM

Fighters dedicate their lives towards the mastery of weapons, leaving little time to develop the largely non-combat traits that skills represent? Verses barbarians, who live out in the wild and so have ample opportunity to practice learning a variety of skills. Barbarians aren't just warriors, and their skill points and list of class skills reflects that. Fighters...their name says it all.

Of course, I can easily see an argument for, well, just about every class getting 8 + INT skills. That's where mechanical considerations come into play.

I'll give you that.

But, honestly, will it suddenly unbalance the game if Fighters get 4 + INT skill points?