PDA

View Full Version : Questions regarding Fighters and Combat (3.5)



Nakun
2012-03-18, 07:39 AM
I think we all know there are a plethora of fighter fixes out there that attempt to bring the fighter (and martial/ melee characters in genera) up to par with the spell casters.

There are many good fixes out there, but I am still trying to make my own fix. I've run into a problem with the concept of actions in combat, and I'd like to know the community's opinions and thoughts on the matter. The crux of the issue is fighters need to be able to do more in combat so that they have more utility and more options available to them.

The most obvious thing to do is make new feats and improve old feats because fighters get lots of feats. Pathfinder added in some new stuff along this line...
However there's a trend on this board to make a new mechanic that gives fighters more abilities in combat. Some examples include: combat techniques (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217700), stances and focus abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178361), or buffs to old mechanics dispersed throughout the levels (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12460617&postcount=2).

I'm wondering if there's a general consensus on what feats should achieve and what class abilities should achieve, or what would be a good way to implement different types of new options for fighters.

EDIT: Fixed that first link, sorry.

lesser_minion
2012-03-18, 08:13 AM
I believe the usual reasoning is:

Odd levels of fighter are boring -- aside from 1st level, all you get are numerical increases that don't actually expand what you can do at all.
The fighter as written isn't unique -- there's nothing a fighter can do that can't be done by someone else. This is basically because it gets all its class features in the form of feats.


I think you'll probably need to improve feats and do something new with the class.

Feats should really be things that are useful to a range of different classes -- note how anyone who can cast spells can make use of a metamagic feat, for example. Likewise, most characters who fight in melee can get some mileage out of power attack.

There's no real point making a class-exclusive feat when you can simply write the same feat as an explicit class feature.

Nakun
2012-03-18, 08:56 AM
I agree with that, but is there a thing as too many new class features (for the fighter?)

And, should the fighter have more feats available to it like Weapon Specialization that have fighter levels as prereqs?

Cieyrin
2012-03-18, 08:57 AM
T.G. Oskar has been talking for a while about for his fix is to use Fighter level as a method to scale combat feats, like getting a better exchange rate on Power Attack and Combat Expertise, quicker Whirlwind Attacks, multiple trips, etc, which I find somewhat novel. When he get it written up and posted, it should be interesting, as he has said he can't think of a way to make Fighters better in a way that doesn't duplicate Warblades otherwise.

Yitzi
2012-03-18, 09:01 AM
The fighter as written isn't unique -- there's nothing a fighter can do that can't be done by someone else. This is basically because it gets all its class features in the form of feats.
[/list]

That's like saying that there's nothing a wizard can do that can't be done by a sorcerer. Yes, someone else can get any particular feat (with a few exceptions), but if feats gave the same variety of options that spells did, then fighters would have a substantial advantage over other martial classes.

NeoSeraphi
2012-03-18, 09:03 AM
That's like saying that there's nothing a wizard can do that can't be done by a sorcerer. Yes, someone else can get any particular feat (with a few exceptions), but if feats gave the same variety of options that spells did, then fighters would have a substantial advantage over other martial classes.

Yes, but they don't. So either Nakun has to write some class features or some better feats.

And even if the fighter got souped up feats, he would still have 9 dead levels. No matter how good the feats got, unless those levels got plugged up, he wouldn't be good enough to take for all 20 levels.

Nakun
2012-03-18, 09:17 AM
Yeah, and I've already got some improvements, for example I want to make Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple the same feat. And I think it goes without saying that the Weapon Focus tree (and feats like it) should be all one feat, or else it's too taxing for the fighter... And then add new feats like:

Follow Up Attack
Prereq: Base Attack Bonus +4, Power Attack, Cleave
Benefit: When you deal damage from a melee attack against a single opponent but do not drop them, you may make another melee attack against the same opponent at a -2 (-5?) penalty as a minor action.

But then there are things like allowing more 5-ft. steps:
Pathfinder adds the Step Up Feat (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html)
Realms of Chaos uses the Pursue Combat Technique (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217700)
And Grod adds it as other class features. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12460617&postcount=2)

Which method is best, which makes the most sense, is easiest, fits with other already implemented rules? Is there a way to even decide this?

NeoSeraphi
2012-03-18, 09:21 AM
Improved Unarmed Strike should improve the character's unarmed damage as well (Maybe to that of a longsword sized for your character?)

Nakun
2012-03-18, 09:26 AM
I was thinking to 1d6 (1d4 small) lethal/ non lethal by your choice...That's what Monks get for having the feat.

I suppose this is also making it inevitable that I post lots of feat fixes...

Yitzi
2012-03-18, 10:05 AM
Yes, but they don't. So either Nakun has to write some class features or some better feats.

True; I was simply pointing out that the second would work too.


And even if the fighter got souped up feats, he would still have 9 dead levels. No matter how good the feats got, unless those levels got plugged up, he wouldn't be good enough to take for all 20 levels.

He could be if they're good enough to take the dead levels in order to get the feats...but changing it to "every level not divisible by 3" probably would be better and make there be no real dead levels (as on the ones divisible by 3 you also get feats).

lesser_minion
2012-03-18, 11:16 AM
And, should the fighter have more feats available to it like Weapon Specialization that have fighter levels as prereqs?

Every feat with levels in a particular class as a pre-requisite is a feat that could just as easily have been written as a class feature or an optional class feature: class-exclusive feats are redundant.

Feats should be improved, but class-exclusive feats don't actually add anything to the game. A good feat is useful to a range of character classes; isn't so good that a player can't see any credible alternative to it; and, IMHO, doesn't arbitrarily limit itself to certain character classes.


That's like saying that there's nothing a wizard can do that can't be done by a sorcerer.

Yes, it is. Uniqueness exists to make characters more interesting, not necessarily to make characters more powerful.

Yitzi
2012-03-18, 01:18 PM
Yes, it is. Uniqueness exists to make characters more interesting, not necessarily to make characters more powerful.

I think that with interesting, and even more importantly situational, feats, the fighter will be interesting simply by virtue of having so many different options, and the choice between them would be what makes it interesting.

MammonAzrael
2012-03-18, 01:47 PM
There are many good fixes out there, but I am still trying to make my own fix. I've run into a problem with the concept of actions in combat, and I'd like to know the community's opinions and thoughts on the matter. The crux of the issue is fighters need to be able to do more in combat so that they have more utility and more options available to them.


I'll have to disagree on a point here. The Fighter's problem is not just needing more options in combat. What it really needs is options for out of combat. Part of why I think Warblade is an effective Fighter fix is because it uses Int as a secondary stat, ensuring it has a decent number of skills (and even then it probably wouldn't suffer from a couple class features that didn't apply to combat).

Nakun
2012-03-18, 05:26 PM
I'll have to disagree on a point here. The Fighter's problem is not just needing more options in combat. What it really needs is options for out of combat.

I agree with the idea that the fighter needs more than, "now it's easier for me to hit enemies" or "now I hit enemies and make them suffer bleed, etc."
I've found some good ideas for out of combat abilities and I know for sure what I want to use regarding the fighter's general utility.

However, in order to make a more interesting class, I think that the fighter should have something beyond "I attack." or even "I attempt to grapple" as options in combat. Something to keep the class refreshing and interesting. That's what I'm having trouble figuring out.

Kane0
2012-03-18, 07:59 PM
The problem is that while we all can see what the fighter needs (more options and versatility both inside and outside of combat) the hard part is execution because of how diverse fighters can be.

There are 'subsets' of fighters that focus on different things (swashbuckler, samurai, marshal, archer, etc), but the fighter itself needs to be flexible yet interesting, which can be difficult. In order to get the versatility you often need to be a little generic, so the abilities arent useless.

Anyway, to mix it up a bit you could give a bonus on certain skills (which you choose) or skills associated with a particular attribute (which you choose), then add a limit or penalty to balance it out.
Or maybe push a certain path like the subsets mentioned above. You could offer paths like ranger TWF/Archery or provide a mix of all the subsets to make a jack of all trades martial fighter, capable of decent archery, melee and rallying allies.

TLDR: My 2 cents.

Yitzi
2012-03-18, 10:59 PM
I'll have to disagree on a point here. The Fighter's problem is not just needing more options in combat. What it really needs is options for out of combat. Part of why I think Warblade is an effective Fighter fix is because it uses Int as a secondary stat, ensuring it has a decent number of skills (and even then it probably wouldn't suffer from a couple class features that didn't apply to combat).

Of course, it can be argued that that's less a flaw with the fighter than a specific choice that helps characterize the class.

Even so, I think it would make a lot of sense to make some sort of semi-class (likely consisting of a handful of skills added as class skills and given some bonus skill points usable only on them) that is taken alongside the main class to help round it out. Personally, I think it's best to flavor it as a background...so in addition to what you do as an adventurer, you might be a scholar or an outdoors sort or even a nobleman.

lesser_minion
2012-03-19, 09:18 AM
A few points:

As of 3rd edition, there was a vague assumption that the fighter was meant to be elite -- essentially the fantasy cultural equivalent to a knight or a samurai (this is one reason why neither of those classes actually offered anything of value to the game).

Particularly if you might be a samurai, you want your fighter to be proficient in a wide range of weapons and fighting styles, not just one or two -- you can still specialise, but you should still be damned good no matter what you use.

Classical knights weren't too keen on ranged weapons (see also: the earlier parts of the hundred years war), but that shouldn't really be reflected in a D&D fighter (who is a fantasy cultural equivalent, with different needs and a different world view).

Finally, try to concentrate on giving your character building blocks that can be combined, rather than packaged, concrete abilities. I think that's probably going to be the easiest way to give the class variety without overwhelming players who probably want to play a fighter because they don't like bookkeeping or micromanagement.

Deepbluediver
2012-03-19, 11:01 AM
He could be if they're good enough to take the dead levels in order to get the feats...but changing it to "every level not divisible by 3" probably would be better and make there be no real dead levels (as on the ones divisible by 3 you also get feats).

What I did in my fighter fix was simply give fighters a bonus feat at every single level, thereby eliminating the dead-level issue altogether. (that's not all I did, but it's the most pertinent)

Frankly, I like the idea that the fighter is fairly basic class, but one who definitely needs to be able to excel at battle. Other classes can dip in and out as needed for improved battle proficiency.

I don't mind having most of a Fighter's power coming from feats, and I think with enough splatbooks you can get a decent number of good feats. If you feel that the fighter still needs more, what about giving him some of the ToB manuevers? Or would that make him too similar to the ToB classes?

Cieyrin
2012-03-19, 12:06 PM
What I did in my fighter fix was simply give fighters a bonus feat at every single level, thereby eliminating the dead-level issue altogether. (that's not all I did, but it's the most pertinent)

Frankly, I like the idea that the fighter is fairly basic class, but one who definitely needs to be able to excel at battle. Other classes can dip in and out as needed for improved battle proficiency.

I don't mind having most of a Fighter's power coming from feats, and I think with enough splatbooks you can get a decent number of good feats. If you feel that the fighter still needs more, what about giving him some of the ToB manuevers? Or would that make him too similar to the ToB classes?

Going very much into ToB would naturally lead into "Why not Warblade?" Warblades are a very good replacement for Fighters, which is a large problem when trying to brew a new Fighter.

Deepbluediver
2012-03-19, 12:58 PM
Going very much into ToB would naturally lead into "Why not Warblade?" Warblades are a very good replacement for Fighters, which is a large problem when trying to brew a new Fighter.

That's what I figured. I'm working on fixes for most of the core classes, and one thing that I've concluded is that many melee classes are exceedingly similar to OTHER melee classes, with nor more than minor tweaks. (Magic classes CAN be like this, but magic tends to be more varied, so there's more room to avoid overlap.)

I'm finding that taking good abilties from 2 or 3 similar classes, and making one class with the best parts of it's predecessors seems to solve a lot of issues. The Fighter is a very basic class; nearly every other primary melee can be described as "Fighter's with less feats and [insert class feature here]".

I don't mind if the fighter being a fairly bland class in the RAW; I think that lets the player add any flavor they want, or multiclass as little or as much as they want. But what that means is that even a straight fighter needs to be very good at the basics of combat.
This is why I think that feats are a good feature for the fighter; because they provide whatever kind of combat specialization that the player wants.
Now, I certainly agree that some feats and feat-chains need improvement, but that's more complicated than a fighter fix.

If you want to keep the feel of a fighter, what might be a good class to combine it with, or to copy class features from?

Nakun
2012-03-19, 08:42 PM
The Fighter is a very basic class; nearly every other primary melee can be described as "Fighter's with less feats and [insert class feature here]".


This is true. I think that's a bad thing in 3.5, a little bit because fighters feel they can't do anything "special." When I rewrite, I try to make it so that only fighters get bonus feats so that their sheer number of feats is that much more impressive.

I've also be considering doing a "basic" rewrite where the only base classes are Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Other things are prestige classes. I think that's a little trendy nowadays...But in that case, I really feel the bonus feats work well, although the game balance is altered a little...



If you want to keep the feel of a fighter, what might be a good class to combine it with, or to copy class features from?

I always start by giving it some time of save bonus. Pathfinder used bravery to boost saves vs fear, but I feel that's too weak. I use the hexblade's mettle to increase fighters' durability from magic.

Also, not Fast movement per se, but something that makes the fighter faster even though he's wearing armor is nice.

I think what lesser_minion said about having different building blocks is also key. I've been looking into Pathfinder's alternate class features and I feel that some of those (and new things like those) would be beneficial to the fighter.

NeoSeraphi
2012-03-19, 08:52 PM
This is true. I think that's a bad thing in 3.5, a little bit because fighters feel they can't do anything "special." When I rewrite, I try to make it so that only fighters get bonus feats so that their sheer number of feats is that much more impressive.


Hm? But, you know, there are some other situations where bonus feats are not only needed, but applicable. After all, a swashbuckler without Weapon Finesse really doesn't make much sense, does it?

And what about a samurai? His first two "class features" are bonus feats. Take away the samurai's free Two-Weapon Fighting and you're just gimping a terrible class even more.

What do you replace the ranger's combat style with? Also, a ranger who can't Track is kind of...awful, isn't it?

I agree that the fighter shouldn't have 9 dead levels, and that it seems like a pretty lackluster class, but taking away other class's bonus feats doesn't seem to be a very good answer...

Nakun
2012-03-19, 09:01 PM
Didn't mean that I just rob other classes! Couldn't do that. I do limit my players to the core typically because those are the books available, so I've never had to rewrite the Samurai and the Swashbuckler (although I did try a fighter that had those as variants.)

The ranger is really hard without bonus feats. I used Pathfinder's Track (tracking got collapsed into the survival skill and the Track feat was removed and the ranger just gets a 1/2 level bonus to the check as a replacement.)

NeoSeraphi
2012-03-19, 09:21 PM
The ranger is really hard without bonus feats. I used Pathfinder's Track (tracking got collapsed into the survival skill and the Track feat was removed and the ranger just gets a 1/2 level bonus to the check as a replacement.)

Ah, so not only do you make the ranger less unique by letting anyone with ranks in Survival track, but you also take away Combat Style and Endurance, which are his second and third level class features, respectively. Which means that, your ranger has its first dead level at 2nd, and then it has another dead level at 3rd? :smallconfused:

So...if my barbarian can Track anyway and I don't have to spend a feat on it, and my first dead level comes in at 2nd, why would I play a ranger again?

Siosilvar
2012-03-19, 09:49 PM
Ah, so not only do you make the ranger less unique by letting anyone with ranks in Survival track, but you also take away Combat Style and Endurance, which are his second and third level class features, respectively. Which means that, your ranger has its first dead level at 2nd, and then it has another dead level at 3rd? :smallconfused:

So...if my barbarian can Track anyway and I don't have to spend a feat on it, and my first dead level comes in at 2nd, why would I play a ranger again?

The ranger's class features suck. Why so antagonistic? Obviously they'd need new ones.

NeoSeraphi
2012-03-19, 10:18 PM
The ranger's class features suck. Why so antagonistic? Obviously they'd need new ones.

I'm antagonistic because, as of yet, he hasn't said that he even offered his players a replacement. He makes it sound like he just took away those feats without giving the ranger anything in return. If he replies with something like "I gave them Favored Terrain at 2nd" or "I bumped the Animal Companion up" or even "In my game, rangers get Camoflauge at 3rd level", then I'd be just fine with it (well, except for that last one). But just taking away a ranger's 2nd and 3rd levels to make the fighter more special is not a good example of balancing classes.

jiriku
2012-03-20, 12:35 AM
I've run into a problem with the concept of actions in combat, and I'd like to know the community's opinions and thoughts on the matter.

In general, casters can typically move, take a normal action (e.g. cast a spell), and, at higher levels, take a secondary action (e.g. cast a swift-action spell). For a fighter, this translates into the ability to move, perform a full attack or an action of equivalent value, and, at higher levels, take a secondary action of lesser value (e.g. make a single attack or perform a minor special maneuver).


I'm wondering if there's a general consensus on what feats should achieve and what class abilities should achieve, or what would be a good way to implement different types of new options for fighters.

There's definitely not. That's why there are so many fighter fixes. Naturally, I'm partial to my own, but since I spent almost a year developing it, I'm obviously biased. The issue is that the fighter should be a very broad and well-rounded class, but is actually a straight-jacketed, limited one. Since you need to add versatility an options to bridge that gap, you need to essentially create new class content from whole cloth. Naturally, when the creative canvas is that broad, everyone has their own take on things and there's more than one right answer. I think you're on the right class by looking at everyone else's work, stealing what works best for you, and blending it with your own ideas (that's what I did).

Nakun
2012-03-20, 04:37 AM
as of yet, he hasn't said that he even offered his players a replacement. He makes it sound like he just took away those feats without giving the ranger anything in return.

I haven't really worked on the ranger yet, so there's not much for me to say...It's not my intention to just take all of the ranger's toys away at all (although I did also remove endurance as a feat and made the endurance skill which is essentially the same, but with concentration thrown in as well.)

I want the ranger to keep the combat styles, but I was thinking of making some new class features that were ranger specific. The ranger wouldn't have to take two weapon fighting or any archery feats, but would get other abilities.
Perhaps the ability to flank with ranged weapons, or make ranged disarm attempts. Maybe something like making attacks of opportunity with both weapons.

But again, any of those options would make good feats...so I'm a little stuck again.



There's definitely not. That's why there are so many fighter fixes. Naturally, I'm partial to my own, but since I spent almost a year developing it, I'm obviously biased. The issue is that the fighter should be a very broad and well-rounded class, but is actually a straight-jacketed, limited one. Since you need to add versatility an options to bridge that gap, you need to essentially create new class content from whole cloth. Naturally, when the creative canvas is that broad, everyone has their own take on things and there's more than one right answer. I think you're on the right class by looking at everyone else's work, stealing what works best for you, and blending it with your own ideas (that's what I did).

Do you think using something like alternate class features would be viable? Like maybe players can choose if they want their fighters to be able to take multiple five foot steps or if they want an additional attack of opportunity; perhaps representing nimble fighters in two different ways?

Coidzor
2012-03-20, 04:59 AM
This is true. I think that's a bad thing in 3.5, a little bit because fighters feel they can't do anything "special." When I rewrite, I try to make it so that only fighters get bonus feats so that their sheer number of feats is that much more impressive.

Making a system that is feat-starved because of the existence of the fighter causing feats to be devalued and feat chains and taxes to have been brought into existence "out of necessity" even more feat starved for everyone else is more robbing peter to pay paul than a legitimate fix though. :smalltongue:


Ah, so not only do you make the ranger less unique by letting anyone with ranks in Survival track

There's a quote in someone's signature about Track being the DMing railroading trick disguised as a class feature and Rangers all falling for it.

Getting rid of Track and Trapfinding as unique abilities rather than straight functions of the skill system and instead giving those characters something real is all for the better. :smalltongue:

Yitzi
2012-03-20, 10:39 AM
well, except for that last one

Yeah, that would be extremely broken.