PDA

View Full Version : What Does Melee Need to be Tier 3? (3.5)



Alabenson
2012-09-03, 06:55 PM
I'm just curious, precisely what abilities should a fix give to a class like Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, etc., to bring them up to Tier 3?

I realize that they need viable options in combat besides simply attacking their opponent, and some capacity to function out of combat, but I'm wondering if there's anything more specific that I should be considering.

wayfare
2012-09-03, 07:16 PM
Its a tough goal, but some common suggestions are:

Better skill lists (diplomacy, UMD, etc)

Ways to break action economy.

Ways to gain alternate movement type (fly, teleport, etc).

Zelkon
2012-09-03, 07:29 PM
Well, a way to boost all melee is to make full attack a Standard action. Better skills help, and buffing the core feature. Also, give them more flexble options.

Kane0
2012-09-03, 07:34 PM
In a word? Versatility is the most agreed upon option.

Most melee can deal damage respectably, but either have to be built specifically for it, like uberchargers, or focus on some other form of attack, like lockdown builds. To be effective they have to make limited builds where other classes have flexibility. So the question becomes what kinds of flexility do we give them?

Some good ideas are:
-Movement and action economy (standard action full attack is very popular, as is alternate movement speeds)
-Moar skills. Helps those desperately in need of things to do out of combat
-Capstones and special class abilities that reward dedication to one melee class and provide both useful and flavorful benefits to do so. This is a big difference between core melee classes and classes like those in the ToB
-The ability to have fall back options if the preferred method of combat does not work. Gambit/Shock Trooper fighter taking a bit of a beating? Good thing you can still change to your defensive fighting style that works as a backup.

And so on.

Alabenson
2012-09-03, 08:14 PM
Improving class skill lists and increasing skill points (which is generally the first change I make during a fix) seems to be a common suggestion. I'm just wondering, is that by itself enough to cover a class' ability to contribute outside of combat, or do they need noncombat class features in addition?

Kane0
2012-09-03, 08:26 PM
That depends on what they have already. For instance the ranger has some tracking ability, so that is a neat little out of combat ability. Give every melee class one or two abilities like that and it makes things a lot more interesting.

wayfare
2012-09-03, 09:10 PM
Improving class skill lists and increasing skill points (which is generally the first change I make during a fix) seems to be a common suggestion. I'm just wondering, is that by itself enough to cover a class' ability to contribute outside of combat, or do they need noncombat class features in addition?

I think it depends on the intended role of the class. But a few nice social abilities or ACFs wouldn't be a bad idea.

Yitzi
2012-09-03, 09:26 PM
It needs:
A. Useful noncombat abilities. This usually means a better skill selection, although minor spellcasting ability (especially with spells that other classes can't get) or reflavored versions of the same (which can work well for a more mystical martial class, or in a setting where there is magical power inherent in being awesome) can do the job too.
B. More combat capability.

That said, I would advise (especially if you don't feel that every character has to be equal in each encounter, just equal overall) that some martial classes (most notably fighter) not be made tier 3 at all, but rather a very strong tier 4; such a class would work well in a tier 3 group despite not having the versatility to be technically tier 3. The key here is taking approach B and dialing it up to 11 (rule of thumb: If a wizard of the same level has a better than 30% chance of winning against your remade fighter, you're not doing this approach correctly.)

The_Ebolanator
2012-09-04, 03:53 PM
Honestly, the easiest way to obtain Tier 3 status is to do what ToB did, and that's create a "list" of abilities outside of the character's class table.

There are so many Tier 3+ classes that have these so-called "lists" that I can't even think of one class that is at least Tier 3 under the power of its table alone (I'm probably wrong, so don't quote me on that). You have spell lists, psionic powers, martial maneuvers, and other such extra powers and abilities.

These "lists" are what give versatility in its largest quantity without making the class "look OP". For example, let's take a neophyte DnD player first cracking open a PHB; that person will look through, and see how little class features the Wizard gets vs. the Monk and say "Wow, the Monk has so much more stuff! It's totally more powerful than a Wizard . . . but the Wizard does get spells, so I guess that's balanced".

Because the Wizard gets all of it's best stuff outside of its table, it gets a larger margin of power and versatility to choose from than the classes lacking those "lists".

Obviously there are exceptions, Like Rangers and Paladins, but that's because of other issues (MAD and lack of synergy being some of them). Generally speaking, lists are the easiest way to make a Tier 3+ class.

So give a class a spell list, a psionics list, a martial maneuver list, or even make one up. That would be the easiest way, IMO. (But do it right, lest ye end up with another Paladin/Ranger failure).

Yora
2012-09-04, 03:58 PM
I think that is an unneccessary arms race. Why does a fighter need to be versatile in every imaginable situation? And why does a wizard?

The Problem are not the tier 4 classes, but the tier 1 classes. Tier 1 should not exist!
Everything that ends up in tier 1 went horribly wrong.

The_Ebolanator
2012-09-04, 04:34 PM
I think that is an unneccessary arms race. Why does a fighter need to be versatile in every imaginable situation? And why does a wizard?

The Problem are not the tier 4 classes, but the tier 1 classes. Tier 1 should not exist!
Everything that ends up in tier 1 went horribly wrong.

That's true, but the ToB classes have lists, as do psychic warriors and bards, and they're Tier 3. All one needs to do is limit what the lists entail.

Alabenson
2012-09-04, 05:12 PM
Honestly, the easiest way to obtain Tier 3 status is to do what ToB did, and that's create a "list" of abilities outside of the character's class table.

There are so many Tier 3+ classes that have these so-called "lists" that I can't even think of one class that is at least Tier 3 under the power of its table alone (I'm probably wrong, so don't quote me on that). You have spell lists, psionic powers, martial maneuvers, and other such extra powers and abilities.

These "lists" are what give versatility in its largest quantity without making the class "look OP". For example, let's take a neophyte DnD player first cracking open a PHB; that person will look through, and see how little class features the Wizard gets vs. the Monk and say "Wow, the Monk has so much more stuff! It's totally more powerful than a Wizard . . . but the Wizard does get spells, so I guess that's balanced".

Because the Wizard gets all of it's best stuff outside of its table, it gets a larger margin of power and versatility to choose from than the classes lacking those "lists".

Obviously there are exceptions, Like Rangers and Paladins, but that's because of other issues (MAD and lack of synergy being some of them). Generally speaking, lists are the easiest way to make a Tier 3+ class.

So give a class a spell list, a psionics list, a martial maneuver list, or even make one up. That would be the easiest way, IMO. (But do it right, lest ye end up with another Paladin/Ranger failure).

To be honest, I consider giving a class a spells, psionics, maneuvers, etc. as part of a fix to be taking the lazy way out.
My goal when trying to fix a class is to find a way to bring them up to Tier-3 capability without resorting to tacking on a "list" that changes the basic identity of the class.


I think that is an unneccessary arms race. Why does a fighter need to be versatile in every imaginable situation? And why does a wizard?

The Problem are not the tier 4 classes, but the tier 1 classes. Tier 1 should not exist!
Everything that ends up in tier 1 went horribly wrong.

I prefer to improve classes rather than nerf them whenever possible. Most of the problems with the Tier-1 and Tier-2 classes can be easily solved by fixing individual spells. The problems with the lower tiers, on the other hand, tend to be much more deeply ingrained, sometimes requiring the classes to be almost entirely rebuilt.

nonsi
2012-09-05, 02:19 AM
1. Mobility.
2. Customizabilty: build strategies.
3. In-combat alternatives: tactics
4. Solid action economy edge.
5. More class skills & skill points so you can have nice in-combat and out-of-combat stuff.
6. Way more lasting power.

See this as an example (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242257).

zegram 33
2012-09-05, 05:51 AM
possibly, change wha your thinking of when you say "fighter"?
so rater than having "angry man with stick" think more in terms of a Dante style charismatic swordsman?

as said, they could have manouvers or signature "attack" abilities that can really mess a guy up, and with the charisma they can act as a party "face"
too

also, and iv never seen anyone but me think that so this might be bull****:
increaseing the functionality of, and number of, combat options beyond attack". if disarming, bull rushing, and so on are al decent options in there own right, then suddenly a melee combatant beome a lot more dangerouson the battlfield.

maybe a few low key "leader" type buffs to the whole party (bonuses to will save, morale bonuses, etc) with scaling ones for a round when a succesful disarm or what have you is completed. my thinking is that in fiction the warrior is almost aways the leader, and d+d already draws so much from fiction that would work too.
so like.....he's at the front of the pack, inspiring his allies with his efforts, and when he does something particularly flashy, everyone benefits (in both the "that 8 foot tall mostrous swordsman no longer has his sword"and in a straight benefits/inspirations way)
i feel that if there was a reason to look more at the combat options tactically (with attack being the "damn, i cant use something better" choice) the playing a melee combatant would be much more interesting, unlike now when 95% of the time, its best to go for some variation on "stab the bad man"


that particulr set-up would work best with fighter, but thats the sort of path id go down

Veklim
2012-09-05, 06:33 AM
Hrm, seems like everyone has put a fairly big emphasis on skills, spells/manoeuvres, mobility and action economy already, so I won't go there (except to chime in with my general agreement on the issue). I feel I should point something out though...the OP title 'What does melee need...?' is answered quite simply. More.

Melee alone is not enough to make a good T3 class, no matter how many feats and abilities you throw at it, and if you start giving them extra stuff like more skills, spells, etc you usually end up standing on the toes of other classes. Truth is, the fighter isn't a badly designed class, it's just not been designed at all. If someone told me the fighter class in 3.0/5 had been printed as a baseline layout for the other combat classes, and had only been put in the book by mistake, I'd be inclined to believe them.

House rules to allow full attacks as standards help out everyone, and so the fighter gains little help himself. Extra skills are nice, but without class features to give them flavour/utility the fighter doesn't gain much from out-of-combat options with them, and usually what it does gain is still not as effective as a bard, ranger or rogue using the same skill at the same level.

To make a fighter T3 would be best achieved by giving them something other classes can't/don't do. As it stands, they are the only class I can think of which doesn't have a 'schtick' which is solely (or at least mostly) theirs alone. I don't count fighter feats, since we all know the trouble with linear progressions and non-scaling bonuses by now, I'm sure! Add some mobility options to this, and give them unique action economies (like climb-fighting/extraordinary jumping abilities to deal with fliers or automatic Spring Attack/Cleave augmenting abilities without useless feat tax so movement doesn't preclude or limit combat effectiveness). You should end up with something good if you can do all this well...

...or you could just use nonsi's Warrior (since that does rather rock).

nonsi
2012-09-05, 11:07 AM
Truth is, the fighter isn't a badly designed class, it's just not been designed at all. If someone told me the fighter class in 3.0/5 had been printed as a baseline layout for the other combat classes, and had only been put in the book by mistake, I'd be inclined to believe them.
. . .
As it stands, they are the only class I can think of which doesn't have a 'schtick' which is solely (or at least mostly) theirs alone.

Indeed.
QFT.




Add some mobility options to this, and give them unique action economies (like climb-fighting/extraordinary jumping abilities to deal with fliers or automatic Spring Attack/Cleave augmenting abilities without useless feat tax so movement doesn't preclude or limit combat effectiveness). You should end up with something good if you can do all this well...

All good calls, except . . .
I'm a bit uneasy with extraordinary jumping if it means circumventing the rules for skill checks, because it conveys an unnatural feel to a class that supposes to grant the edge via superior combat understanding.
Bonuses to Jump checks (and to some other skills maybe), OTOH, I'm all in favor of.

Veklim
2012-09-05, 11:29 AM
I'm not suggesting he goes all silly with the jumping stuff, but allowing extra damage when dropping or leaping onto a target would be nice, along with some scaling class bonus to jump. There are a fair few skill tricks which could be referred to for funky but still (Ex) abilities which you could incorporate into the fighter table too. Also, give them tumble. If nothing else then at least that!

Another thought is to give them Str to intimidate checks instead or Cha, and allow them to use their BAB in place of bluff ranks for feinting in combat (including meeting requirements for feats, etc). These things will help enormously.

TopCheese
2012-09-05, 12:13 PM
Well what D&D 3.5 should have done is not start at level one but start at Epic Levels for each class then go backwards.

That way you are not working with weak to strong but strong to weak.

Example: If the fighter started out at Epic Levels and had a ton of abilities this would show what you want the class to become.

You will have a goal.

So when creating a tier 3 PC start at level 21 so you have a tangible goal on paper.

Let's say in the beginning the Wizard and Fighter was made starting at level 21 with the idea of tier 3 in mind.

The Wizard at level 21 is Tier 1. Dang we need to scale back on the utility/power etc. Hmm if we give class features and less spells (d necro, beguiler, and warmage) the Wizard drops.


The Fighter at level 21 is tier 5. Dang we need to boost his utility/power a bit. Say we think an epic Fighter should be able to grapple *anything* in his way? Well we give a scaling ability to give the fighter graplling ability. Let's call this "powerful build 1 - 5" which gives a bonus to more than grapple (str checks) which in turns makes you a better tripper, bull rusher, and even breaking down doors! :)

So create what you want a class to become and make it tier 3. The let it trickle down through the levels

Or just scratch non tier 4/3 classes.

NichG
2012-09-05, 03:50 PM
It really comes down to having a distinct, difficult-to-replicate or undesirable-to-replicate role. The second is always easier than the first in D&D 3.5, where you have so many ways to build whatever you want.

What I mean by undesirable-to-replicate is, a necessary job that costs actions, such that people who have other things to do will not want to do it. Of course the problem there is that the result could easily get pigeonholed by group pressure like a heal-bot cleric.

Another consideration is 'what do they do when out of combat'. Most classes aside from dedicated melee have at least some kind of out of combat role. Rogues are huge skill monkeys, wizards have a toolkit of things to play with, Clerics have divinations and can just make some problems like disease or death go away, Druids can wildshape to go into hostile environments or to spy, etc.

So, a couple suggestions:

- Give melee zone control abilities beyond what they have. Fighters can threaten reach+5 or reach+10 instead of just their reach. They can now do other things than a standard AoO when things provoke within their reach, even acting as a barrier that can only be passed by someone fighting past them. They flank a larger area. They can reactively defend others for an immediate action, giving them an AC bonus or even taking the blow for them.

- Give melee the ability out of combat to determine someone's classes after a minute of interaction, basically sizing up an opponent, possibly using a modified level check. At higher levels, they can detect their feats and/or skill ranks.

- Give melee the ability out of combat to guard against surprise attacks and the sudden initiation of hostilities. A melee character taking part in negotiations negates any surprise round that is initiated by an attack from a character of their level plus their Wis mod or below. Additional melee characters add 1/4 their modified level value to this threshold.

SinsI
2012-09-05, 05:23 PM
There are dozens of melee fighter classes that accentuate some specific ability or role- Weaponmaster, Dungeon Crusher, etc.

If, instead of having that role set in stone during level up, one could easily change it (i.e. using different set of weapons/armor, or by combining his abilities with specially chosen henchmen by occupying the same square and creating a new "unit" that fights as one entity), then said flexibility would make it a perfect Tier 3.

gooddragon1
2012-09-05, 05:42 PM
I agree with alabenson because spellcasting gives the versatility that is required to deal with strange encounters but there are problem spells. So if you don't have a spellcaster you shouldn't expect to be able to fight unusual stuff (like flying enemies). However, I also think items that can allow stuff like that should be much easier to get access to and much more durable.

wayfare
2012-09-05, 07:32 PM
There are dozens of melee fighter classes that accentuate some specific ability or role- Weaponmaster, Dungeon Crusher, etc.

If, instead of having that role set in stone during level up, one could easily change it (i.e. using different set of weapons/armor, or by combining his abilities with specially chosen henchmen by occupying the same square and creating a new "unit" that fights as one entity), then said flexibility would make it a perfect Tier 3.

Sinsi, i created a fighter that sort of worked on the idea you are talking about, but it seems that without extensive action economy breaking folks dont consider it T3:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250002

I still think its pretty cool, though.

DracoDei
2012-09-05, 08:46 PM
Two threads that y'all should consider reading:
This one for theory. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/printthread.php?t=149854)
The traditional fighter resource thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159429)
Of course, if you want to expand on ToB there is the Age of Warriors project, but I don't think that is what you are going for (although we did some pretty good work there if I do say so myself).

Yakk
2012-09-06, 06:03 PM
An easy step would be to compress them to 10 level classes.

I suspect that after doing so, with double everything per level, you'd still find that they wouldn't be massively overpowered. :)

TopCheese
2012-09-07, 06:49 AM
An easy step would be to compress them to 10 level classes.

I suspect that after doing so, with double everything per level, you'd still find that they wouldn't be massively overpowered. :)

So we are back to 2nd edition are we?

:D

But I think if the fighter had a way to be useful outside of charger/tripper builds then that would be a good start.

Ever try playing a caster in 2e without a meat shield? It sucked... You never could cast since your spells could be distrupted so easily. 3.5 is difficult to have a caster only party at low levels but doable.

Take the concentration check out of 3.5 AND make the fighter/rogue/barbarian/Paladin/ranger tier 3 and you could leave the sorcerer/wizard/cleric/druid alone but still have a better game. The *need* for the other classes would make them so much better right off the bat cause no matter what, your character is important.

Alabenson
2012-09-07, 09:07 AM
Alot of people are mentioning the action economy as a place where melee needs an edge, and was hoping someone could clarify:

Are you referring to abilities that actually give extra actions, such as the celerity line of spells or white raven tactics, or are you referring to the ability to make better use of their actions, such as giving melee useful things to do with their standard and swift actions?

TopCheese
2012-09-07, 12:03 PM
Alot of people are mentioning the action economy as a place where melee needs an edge, and was hoping someone could clarify:

Are you referring to abilities that actually give extra actions, such as the celerity line of spells or white raven tactics, or are you referring to the ability to make better use of their actions, such as giving melee useful things to do with their standard and swift actions?

Not extra actions but a use of all the actions someone gets.

Most mundane melee gains: Standard, Move/5ft step, Free. As actions

Other actions that exist are... Swift and Immediate. These two are key for some of the wizards ability. Wizards get a ACF that let's you as an immediate action teleport X feat. Immediate actions can be taken at ANY time... So if you are being swung at you can teleport away and no long be in that square thus ruining the attack. Slightly messed up actually lol.

Yakk
2012-09-07, 01:18 PM
The 10 level fighter. When a mechanism is considered unacceptable (Greater than good saves, BaB > 1 per level, more than 1 HD per level), an additional mechanic is added to be roughly equivalent.

Saves: all good.
HD: d10
BaB: +1/level
Skill points: 4/level (same list)

Features: All of these features are (Ex)
Weapon Mastery: When making a weapon, unarmed or improvised attack, you gain a bonus to your attack roll equal to your fighter class level.

Second Wind: You have a second wind pool of 2d10 per fighter class level. When you spend your second wind, you can roll up to 1 plus half your fighter class level and gain that many temporary HP. If you are healed while you have second wind temporary HP, you can spend those temporary HP to increase the amount you are healed, up to doubling the amount you are healed. You can spend your second wind at the end of a long rest, by taking the total defence action, whenever you crit with an attack, or whenever you are healed and did not spend temporary HP to increase the amount healed. Note that for the purpose of this ability, regeneration effects do not count as being healed.

Paragon: You gain a bonus to your class skills equal to your fighter class level, but no more than the number of skill points you have invested in the skill.

Quickness: At level 4, once during your turn you can make a melee or ranged attack as a free action. At level 8, you can do this twice during your turn.

Feats: You gain 1 fighter bonus feat for every class level.

Toughness: You gain a +1 bonus to your Fortitude save every odd Fighter level.

...

Similar transformations of Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians don't end up being all that gross either. (I'd change some of the Second Wind triggers, but keep the Second Wind mechanic. Quickness and Weapon Mastery would remain.)

wayfare
2012-09-07, 01:25 PM
Not extra actions but a use of all the actions someone gets.

Most mundane melee gains: Standard, Move/5ft step, Free. As actions

Other actions that exist are... Swift and Immediate. These two are key for some of the wizards ability. Wizards get a ACF that let's you as an immediate action teleport X feat. Immediate actions can be taken at ANY time... So if you are being swung at you can teleport away and no long be in that square thus ruining the attack. Slightly messed up actually lol.

Way more than slightly messed up -- this alone counts for at least 25% of why melee is considered sub-par. The thought that, in a defense based conflict resolution system, you can take an action to just not be there is utterly gamebreaking for combat based characters.

Veklim
2012-09-07, 01:29 PM
As far as melee is concerned the main trouble for action economy is this (fighter/wizard comparison is extreme, but illustrates trouble nice and clearly):

level 1, wizard can cast a 1st level spell as a standard.
Fighter can hit someone once as a standard.
This is fine.
level 6, wizard can cast a 3rd level spell as a standard, and probably has the use of a few swift spells too now, meaning 2 spells + move in a turn.
Fighter can hit someone once as a standard. Has to give up the chance to do anything else at all in the round, including moving, to get his iterative attack.
Troubles emerging...?
level 11, wizard is now quickening spells, using swift spells, running about with 6th level spells as standard actions.
Fighter can hit someone once as a standard. Has to give up the chance to do anything else at all in the round, including moving, to get either of his TWO iterative attacks, but by now can't generally hit half of what he's trying to anyway because they move too fast or fly, and he can't actually swing more than once a round anyhow because he has to move to engage, meaning he now only ever charges in combat until something gets stuck in front of him somehow.
Now we certainly have a problem.

This is basically everything you need to know about the action economy debate. Melee has little to do with swift or immediate actions, and honestly hardly gets to use a move for anything except moving, because otherwise they don't do ANYTHING in a round at all. They never get more than a single attack as a standard, meaning at least half the advantages of a high BAB and melee oriented abilities are lost whenever the enemy isn't conveniently within reach at the start of your turn, and doesn't have one of the myriad of evasive tricks used with those swift/immediate actions which the fighter doesn't get to use himself.

To fix melee, you must address this.

Yitzi
2012-09-07, 01:55 PM
As far as melee is concerned the main trouble for action economy is this (fighter/wizard comparison is extreme, but illustrates trouble nice and clearly):

level 1, wizard can cast a 1st level spell as a standard.
Fighter can hit someone once as a standard.
This is fine.
level 6, wizard can cast a 3rd level spell as a standard, and probably has the use of a few swift spells too now, meaning 2 spells + move in a turn.
Fighter can hit someone once as a standard. Has to give up the chance to do anything else at all in the round, including moving, to get his iterative attack.
Troubles emerging...?
level 11, wizard is now quickening spells, using swift spells, running about with 6th level spells as standard actions.
Fighter can hit someone once as a standard. Has to give up the chance to do anything else at all in the round, including moving, to get either of his TWO iterative attacks, but by now can't generally hit half of what he's trying to anyway because they move too fast or fly, and he can't actually swing more than once a round anyhow because he has to move to engage, meaning he now only ever charges in combat until something gets stuck in front of him somehow.
Now we certainly have a problem.

I'd say that the problem is with the wizard, though.

That said, it suggests that maybe the way to fix the fighter for action economy is simply by imitating the wizard; give him a few swift-action feats, plus a feat that lets him make an extra attack as a swift action at a -8 penalty to the attack roll (and to BAB for any other BAB-dependent abilities).

Alabenson
2012-09-07, 01:55 PM
So when people mention the action economy, they're referring to the need to give melee ways to make better use of it, i.e. using swift and immediate actions. That's good to know, and I think I have a good idea how to incorporate that into the Fighter fix I'm working on.

As for the ability to make full attacks without having to stand still, is having that be a situational ability sufficient (such as Pounce granting the ability to make a full attack on a charge), or does melee absolutely need the ability to make a full attack as a standard action?

Veklim
2012-09-07, 03:09 PM
As for the ability to make full attacks without having to stand still, is having that be a situational ability sufficient (such as Pounce granting the ability to make a full attack on a charge), or does melee absolutely need the ability to make a full attack as a standard action?

Melee needs to be able to hit more than once as a standard, at the very least.


That said, it suggests that maybe the way to fix the fighter for action economy is simply by imitating the wizard; give him a few swift-action feats, plus a feat that lets him make an extra attack as a swift action at a -8 penalty to the attack roll (and to BAB for any other BAB-dependent abilities).

That is actually a rather good idea...perhaps something like:

Follow Up Strike
Requires: BAB +6
You may take iterative attacks as part of a standard action attack, but all attacks you make that round are at a -3 penalty.

Rapid Tactical Strike
Requires: BAB +11
You may make a single attack, trip, disarm or sunder attempt as a swift action each turn. This attack is at your full bonus with a -8 penalty.

Yitzi
2012-09-07, 03:18 PM
So when people mention the action economy, they're referring to the need to give melee ways to make better use of it, i.e. using swift and immediate actions.

Although removing swift and immediate actions completely (except for some very special cases such as Feather Fall) would also probably work well; after all, what really matters isn't action economy but relative action economy.


As for the ability to make full attacks without having to stand still, is having that be a situational ability sufficient (such as Pounce granting the ability to make a full attack on a charge), or does melee absolutely need the ability to make a full attack as a standard action?

If the situation isn't too uncommon in cases where a FRA isn't available, it would probably be ok.


Melee needs to be able to hit more than once as a standard, at the very least.

Not exactly; removing iterative attacks altogether and boosting melee damage to compensate would work too. What matters is that melee should not have to sacrifice mobility for power substantially more than other attack styles do.

DracoDei
2012-09-07, 03:44 PM
So when people mention the action economy, they're referring to the need to give melee ways to make better use of it, i.e. using swift and immediate actions.
Sometimes. Maybe all the time for fighters. But Celerity and such are discussed under those terms.

Oddly enough my current project would probably be underpowered if it required more than a swift action to cast most of its spells, but it is... very unusual in its approach to combat.

nonsi
2012-09-07, 11:44 PM
That said, it suggests that maybe the way to fix the fighter for action economy is simply by imitating the wizard; give him a few swift-action feats, plus a feat that lets him make an extra attack as a swift action at a -8 penalty to the attack roll (and to BAB for any other BAB-dependent abilities).

No. Not as feats.
These should either be BAB-related or features.
Putting something that's practically mandatory (i.e. if you don't take it you're shooting yourself in the leg) in the feats department just leeches feat slots.
I came up with this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13775625&postcount=10) a few days ago and I think it's worth taking into consideration as a source of inspiration (if not per-se).





As for the ability to make full attacks without having to stand still, is having that be a situational ability sufficient (such as Pounce granting the ability to make a full attack on a charge), or does melee absolutely need the ability to make a full attack as a standard action?

At mid-high levels - absolutely.
It's also less bookkeeping intensive.





Not exactly; removing iterative attacks altogether and boosting melee damage to compensate would work too. What matters is that melee should not have to sacrifice mobility for power substantially more than other attack styles do.

Spellcasters never fear scoring 1 on a d20 roll !!

ArkenBrony
2012-09-07, 11:52 PM
No. Not as feats.
These should either be BAB-related or features.
Putting something that's practically mandatory (i.e. if you don't take it you're shooting yourself in the leg) in the feats department just leeches feat slots.
I came up with this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13775625&postcount=10) a few days ago and I think it's worth taking into consideration as a source of inspiration (if not per-se).

what if you made a large list of feats, giving versatility, so that instead of being required feats, they are all good feats that you are limited to a number of?



Spellcasters never fear scoring 1 on a d20 roll !!
but they also never get the joy of a natural 20, what if you made various critical hit rules, as a number of places have done

SinsI
2012-09-08, 06:52 AM
Maybe some MetaMelee feats might help?

Quicken Attack: make one attack as a free action, at -8 BAB. No more than once a turn.
Maximize Attack: All variable damage effects of attack modified by this feat are maximized. You make this attack at -6 BAB.
Widen Attack: You can attack up to three enemies that are standing in front of you next to each other. You make this attack at -6 BAB.
Swift Attack: make one attack as a swift action, at -5 BAB.

nonsi
2012-09-08, 09:22 AM
what if you made a large list of feats, giving versatility, so that instead of being required feats, they are all good feats that you are limited to a number of?

Good luck balancing them up.
I've seen so many feats rehauls that I hardly ever click them anymore.
I've never seen a feats-rehaul that managed to balance them up.




but they also never get the joy of a natural 20, what if you made various critical hit rules, as a number of places have done

Regarding crit, I came up with this not too long ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249375), but it covers only numbers, not combat strategies (the sad verdict of almost everything that revolves around crit).




Quicken Attack: make one attack as a free action, at -8 BAB. No more than once a turn.
Maximize Attack: All variable damage effects of attack modified by this feat are maximized. You make this attack at -6 BAB.
Swift Attack: make one attack as a swift action, at -5 BAB.

All are no-brainers at mid-high levels, where attack rolls are aiming to the stratosphere.




Widen Attack: You can attack up to three enemies that are standing in front of you next to each other. You make this attack at -6 BAB.

Without other feats as prereqs, this could be a reasonable rival to Whirlwind Attack.

ArkenBrony
2012-09-08, 09:56 AM
Good luck balancing them up.
I've seen so many feats rehauls that I hardly ever click them anymore.
I've never seen a feats-rehaul that managed to balance them up.

i dont click on them either :smallamused:
what would you think about a semi-large list of "feats", that you could switch between every day?


Regarding crit, I came up with this not too long ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249375), but it covers only numbers, not combat strategies (the sad verdict of almost everything that revolves around crit).

oh, i remember that thread, i get that crits aren't strategy, i was just saying 1's arent a reason wizards are so much better then fighters

Waargh!
2012-09-08, 11:20 AM
One thing missing is Melee locking. That is the basic thing.

If you think about it a Wizard has the ability while fighting a Swordman in melee to survive and even cast a spell in his face. That implies that the Wizard has actually enough fighting skills to do this. Then a Bowman can similarly take 5 feet back and shoot in his face. So everyone has the same ability to fight in melee just not to attack in melee. That makes no sense but worst it makes melee characters seem useless. The Brut-types maybe not, but the actual skilled fighters just got nothing to make them act as one. In 4e this was improved, even though lightly.

My suggestion around this is to give introduce a melee fighting expertise feature that will allow to handle melee locking more accurately and indirectly impose a penalty to classes that just don't have the expertise or skill to fight as well. This can be "Melee expertise = BAB + Fighter class levels". This doesn't necessarily need to be tied with the Fighter class, all classes that will practically be able to fight effectively in melee can have this bonus. Fighter class should give option for additional bonuses. If used without actually wielding a melee weapon you are proficient with, the BAB bonus should be negated. All classes will gain the BAB bonus as long as they are wielding a melee weapon or a shield of some kind.

That been said this penalty can be given to certain checks that kind of break the melee locking:
-Defensive casting
-Tumble
-...

Then the AoO should be enhanced as to prevent the action that triggered it if it hits. You basically disrupt the action than just dealing a small amount of damage.

Finally, it should impose a melee expertise check to perform certain actions. So moving 5-ft away from the someone you are locked in melee with should require an opposite melee expertise role to be successful. With failure you lose a move action. This can seem that you add extra rolls, but practically it won't be used often since there is a action penalty. There can be other such examples. You should be able to take 10 (on opposing role as well). So if you have a higher bonus, you won't need to role. You can give simple options to fighters to avoid making this role, as if you perform an attack you can take a 5-ft without any check or something between these lines.

The result would be that a Wizard can still be more powerful than a mere soldier with a sword in his hand, but he will need to make sure she actually keeps the distance, flies, turn invisible or anything like that. If an actual melee encounter does occur then certainly it shouldn't be a question who survives.

You still need to make a fighters more powerful as to keep the balance when fighting a monster. So some of the ideas already posted should be kept.

Regarding defenses, a Fighter should have better saves in general in an encounter. The reflex saves of a warrior or certainly not the same as someone that hasn't spent their life fighting. Their will is also much greater. A spell caster can have elevated defenses against magic, but it should be specifically against magic. If the big bad dude with the scars and huge axe starts running before the bookworm Wizard upon facing a Dragon, then there is certainly something wrong.

Outside of combat there is not much you can do as to give more skill points. Since there trait should require less time than manipulating magic, they will have more time practically to exercise other skills. While the Wizard is using his magic to fly over a wall a Fighter is using his climbing skill. I would give a Fighter 8 skill points same as a Rogue, even though for different reasons. They should also have the same access on the Skills.

Concluding, a melee fighter is still going to be useless if there is actually not so much up-to-the-face-and-personal encounters. If a Wizard is sitting in their castle flying around and picking the right encounter, there is practically nothing really you can do to make the fighter useful. Fighting in a small dungeon, having monsters ambush the party and all the other situations can be the chance where a melee fighter shields the non-warrior characters from harm while they have the time and space to perform wonders. The problem now is even under those circumstances they are not that useful...

Yitzi
2012-09-09, 08:10 PM
No. Not as feats.
These should either be BAB-related or features.
Putting something that's practically mandatory (i.e. if you don't take it you're shooting yourself in the leg) in the feats department just leeches feat slots.

It's no more mandatory than Quicken Spell (which is what it's designed to match, and is closely based on). I don't see a problem in requiring the fighter to take a feat in order to match the action economy capability that the wizard spent a feat to get. (The "natural" swift actions should be features rather than feats, though, but should be quite a bit weaker than normal actions just as "natural" swift action spells are.)


I came up with this suggestion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13775625&postcount=10) a few days ago and I think it's worth taking into consideration as a source of inspiration (if not per-se).

That pushes action economy strongly in favor of the fighter, rather than simply balancing it.

The next bit you quoted as by me was not in fact by me. That said...


At mid-high levels - absolutely.

Why? What's so horribly wrong with only being able to make a full attack when either charging or standing in place? The vast majority of cases will be one of those anyway...


Spellcasters never fear scoring 1 on a d20 roll !!

No, they fear the other guy scoring 20 on a d20 roll (well, unless they use no-save spells, but no-save spells that singlehandedly change the course of the battle are irreparably broken anyway, and the thread is about making tier 3, not tier 1.)

nonsi
2012-09-10, 05:20 AM
It's no more mandatory than Quicken Spell (which is what it's designed to match, and is closely based on). I don't see a problem in requiring the fighter to take a feat in order to match the action economy capability that the wizard spent a feat to get. (The "natural" swift actions should be features rather than feats, though, but should be quite a bit weaker than normal actions just as "natural" swift action spells are.)

1. There are already enough swift action spells to make the lives of melees a living hell without the need for Quicken Spell.
2. Feats have no prayer of allowing melees to keep up - not in numbers and not in quality. And spellcasting feats are way better and way less istuational.




That pushes action economy strongly in favor of the fighter, rather than simply balancing it.
. . .
Why? What's so horribly wrong with only being able to make a full attack when either charging or standing in place? The vast majority of cases will be one of those anyway...
. . .
No, they fear the other guy scoring 20 on a d20 roll (well, unless they use no-save spells, but no-save spells that singlehandedly change the course of the battle are irreparably broken anyway, and the thread is about making tier 3, not tier 1.)

Follow this thread at your leisure (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19528042/In-Depth_Game_Design:_So_You_Wanna_Fix_the_Fighter).

NichG
2012-09-10, 06:48 AM
One aspect of melee that I don't think has been addressed is its lack of reconfigurability. Usually Fighters and other basic melee classes are suggested for beginners because they're simple. However, its easier to get stuck with a non-functioning character as melee than it is for a wizard (who just needs to go and buy the right spells and memorize a different set when he realizes the spells he has been using are no good) or the cleric/druid (who doesn't even have to buy new stuff).

To make things worse, melee also needs to be more selective with their feats despite having more of them. Lots of tricks that help melee keep up either have long feat chains, or combine feats from multiple sources that a new player won't necessarily know about. ACFs and the like are also important here (Lion Totem Barbarian for example is an easy little trick that makes a huge difference in power).

Highly optimized melee and moderate-optimization casters can coexist just fine, as can moderately optimized melee and low-optimization casters. That tells me that one of the big things with melee is, it really should be for experienced players only as it stands.

Now, this also means that the question of how to fix melee is going to have different answers for different optimization levels. I'd say the pattern is something like this:

Low-op: Melee is too inflexible compared to casters. Everyone is learning the game, and the casters can immediately use what they learn whereas the melee often needs to make a new character. Even if the melee players could reconfigure, there are often stylistic differences that will be offputting (they don't yet know enough to make any concept work, so to make a working character they're crammed into a much smaller set of feasible concepts). At this point we mostly have 'I hit things with a sword'.

Medium-op: Melee lacks the versatility to solve problems other than 'the next thing I point to will die'. Trip builds, grapple builds, AoO zone control builds, and charge builds start to appear here but we're not yet up to ubercharger, huge multi-attack builds, etc. This doesn't help them unlock a door, find where a lich has hidden his phylactery, or for that matter defeat magical protections. At this point, melee needs a few tricks that only they get, especially ones useful outside of a fight somehow. Action economy doesn't really do them much good though - they still can't really do anything but defeat other melee-based or unprotected foes.

High-op: Melee here knows what items to take. They can fly, get a full attack on a charge (if thats their thing), possibly teleport. If the conditions of one of their 'tricks' are satisfied, usually the thing they're looking at dies in one round, is incapable of getting an action ever, etc. Lots of energy is going into making sure that trick applies. They still haven't become much more versatile though. Also, at this level of optimization its becoming pretty clear 'I could supplement my tricks a lot if I dipped caster' - Rhino's Rush, Wraithstrike, Bloodstorm Blade, etc become really attractive tricks. Magical defenses still pose a huge problem as well. So here I think is where you really need to start considering an action economy advantage to overcome the fact that partial casters make better melee than pure melee. There has to be something real that you sacrifice for dipping caster if pure melee is still going to be an option here. Then again, this thread is asking for Tier 3, not Tier 1.

Yitzi
2012-09-10, 09:00 AM
1. There are already enough swift action spells to make the lives of melees a living hell without the need for Quicken Spell.

Then melee should have swift actions to match them...but that's not the same as Rapid Tactical Strike.

Also, some examples please? (Also, powerful swift action abilities without even needing a feat are probably tier 1 or 2 rather than tier 3 features, and so aren't really relevant to this thread.)


2. Feats have no prayer of allowing melees to keep up - not in numbers and not in quality.

They can, however, match those spellcasting advantages which are feat-based, such as quicken spell.


Follow this thread at your leisure (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19528042/In-Depth_Game_Design:_So_You_Wanna_Fix_the_Fighter).

Going through the main points:
-Items as vertical advancement, and the resulting problems, is a very valid point, but has nothing to do with action economy or the fact that saves have the same minimum chance of "nothing happens" as attacks do.
-Similarly with feats: It identifies what needs to be done to fix the fighter (in fact, I'd say that making fighter feats into primarily horizontal advancement is the one key idea that will make or break any fighter fix that isn't essentially a class rewrite), which has absolutely nothing to do with the stuff you responded to.
-"Combat basics" is really just repeating the same stuff as before: The problem with fighters as compared to wizards is that fighters need to spend feats for "standard" vertical advancement, whereas wizards get it for free and then can spend feats for horizontal advancement (which they also get for free quite a bit).
-Action economy...here's where we get to the stuff relevant to my post. So taking things one at a time...
-Familiar acting: Familiars aren't very useful in combat, and if you let them out of your pocket they represent an extra vulnerability as well. If you want to give fighters the ability to match it, though, let them take a feat (as without the Improved Familiar feat, familiars are totally useless in combat except for delivering touch spells which is an extra action for the caster anyway) to get a follower at level equal to the fighter's level divided by 2.
-Phantom steed: That's another liability, and a fighter can ride a horse or (at later levels) pegasus or even more exotic mounts.
-Swift spells: There don't seem to be very many effective combat swift spell except via Quicken spell and those which modify a standard action; quicken spell can be matched with a feat-unlocked fighter ability, modifying a standard action can be done with an automatic class-feature ability, and the few others can also be swift action class features. So some other boosts are needed, but very few of the action economy sort.
-Standard action: corresponds to standard action for fighter.
-Movement isn't that much of an issue once you give every fighter Pounce, and what remains usually won't be helped by giving them non-charge standard full attacks. Archers could use it to help them keep away, but by definition that's not melee.
Also, having to choose between full-power attacks and movement does not make you lower than tier 3. It makes you lower than tier 1, but this thread isn't titled "what does melee need to be tier 1".
-Mundane methods not countering magic as effectively as magic counters mundane approaches is another problem that has nothing to do with my earlier points. (The answer there is either to boost saves without boosting DCs, and give fighters better saves in general, or to strip every defensive spell that is useful against noncasters.)
-"Playing the same games" is really more of a design philosophy, and one that I personally disagree with (I feel that every class present in the party needs to have a chance to shine over the course of each adventure, but not over the course of each encounter). It definitely has nothing to do with the other points in this thread, though.

So thanks for the link, but I don't really see anything that really answers the points you linked in response to. Perhaps if you explained in your own words, I'd see what you're getting at.


One aspect of melee that I don't think has been addressed is its lack of reconfigurability. Usually Fighters and other basic melee classes are suggested for beginners because they're simple. However, its easier to get stuck with a non-functioning character as melee than it is for a wizard (who just needs to go and buy the right spells and memorize a different set when he realizes the spells he has been using are no good) or the cleric/druid (who doesn't even have to buy new stuff).

Some sort of retraining method would work there; while general retraining is probably a poor idea because it's too easy to abuse, suggesting that the DM let a poorly built character retrain his selections is probably all that would be needed to fix this.


Lots of tricks that help melee keep up either have long feat chains, or combine feats from multiple sources that a new player won't necessarily know about.

Of course, if the casters didn't combine spells from multiple sources, melee wouldn't have such a hard time keeping up...

I feel that a large part of the caster/martial imbalance is simply that casting classes need a far lower investment to open up new features, and as a result benefit far more from including more books.


ACFs and the like are also important here (Lion Totem Barbarian for example is an easy little trick that makes a huge difference in power).

Personally, I prefer Wolf totem, as it lets you build a tripper without having to spend on INT. Then again, I'm not really into the "maximum DPR" style of building.


So here I think is where you really need to start considering an action economy advantage to overcome the fact that partial casters make better melee than pure melee. There has to be something real that you sacrifice for dipping caster if pure melee is still going to be an option here.

An action economy system probably wouldn't help much there...what you'd really need is for melee to grow in power fast enough that one more level of a melee class is (for certain styles, at least) worth more than one level's worth of melee-boosting spells. Strongly scaling feats (to the point where after level 10 you need to start writing things that aren't available from any feat in official stuff) is probably the way you'd want to go, although scaling feats have their own issues if not done carefully.

Alabenson
2012-09-11, 09:44 AM
So, thus far from this thread, I've gathered that a fix for a melee class needs to include the following:

1) Out of combat utitlity, whether via improved class skills, noncombat class features, or some combination of the two.

2) Ways for melee classes to utilize swift and immediate actions.

3) The ability to mkae a full attack without sacrificing mobility, or, failing that, the ability to deal significant damage while maintaining mobility.

Is there anything else I'm missing?

Edit:
Adjusted my wording to clarify what I meant. I'm trying to fix individual classes, not melee itself.

Yitzi
2012-09-11, 09:50 AM
So, thus far from this thread, I've gathered that a melee fix needs to include the following:

1) Out of combat utitlity, whether via improved class skills, noncombat class features, or some combination of the two.

2) Ways for melee classes to utilize swift and immediate actions.

3) The ability to mkae a full attack without sacrificing mobility, or, failing that, the ability to deal significant damage while maintaining mobility.

Is there anything else I'm missing?


Technically, (1) isn't necessary to be "fixed" or competitive with tier 3, but is necessary to be actually tier 3 or to fulfill encounter-level non-uselessness.

(2) is also not strictly necessary to be "fixed", but not doing it means that your fix needs to weaken casters as well. (In other words, for a tier 3 fix, removing swift and immediate actions entirely is a legitimate approach, but if you don't do that then you need (2).)

(3) is absolutely essential; some decrease in effectiveness for mobility is acceptable (particularly if everyone else has the same penalty), but not too much.

Jane_Smith
2012-09-11, 06:28 PM
Hows this?


New Actions (Anyone can use);

Move Action: You may make a single attack with a weapon you wield at your full bab bonus. This replaces the single attack you make as a standard action. You may attack twice, move twice, or attack and move once each in a single round, as normal move action rules.

Standard Action: You may choose to charge an enemy at least 10 feet away, up to a maximum of twice your move speed, and attack them one time at the end of the charge. You gain a +2 bonus to damage with that attack, or perform a full attack.

Full Round Action: You may choose to perform a powerful full attack. You may only move 5 ft. before or after the full attack with this option, but you gain a bonus attack with each weapon you possess at your highest bab.


Just the general idea. Move actions = skirmish tactics, standard actions = full on assault, full round action = AAAAAAAAH DIE ALREADY :P

Kyuu Himura
2012-09-11, 10:23 PM
What about giving standard-action attacks a damage boost based on how many attacks your BAB allows.

Say, you have BAB +16, that's 4 attacks, as a standard action, you may make one attack with bonus damage equal to 3d6 per attack your BAB allows (+9d6 in this case).

Monks get to add 3d6 per Flurry of Blows attack, Two-weapon-fighters get +1d6 per off-hand attack and any feat that allows additional attacks in a full attack (slashing flurry and others) add +1d6.

Opinions?

EDIT: This only addresses the problem with the damage output after movement, not the other problems.

Yakk
2012-09-12, 10:56 PM
The first step would be to make sure your melee can stand up to CR-appropriate monsters. A level 20 fighter (with standard treasure) is a CR-appropriate monster, and so is a pit fiend.

Ideally this should be "core" competence, and not require a particular complex feat-based combo to pull off. Ie, moderate selection of feats should be sufficient, much like how tier 3 classes don't need to pick the very very best spells in their spellbook to stand up to a CR-appropriate opponent.

Then, you need some breadth to extend your competence beyond combat: if you are only useful in combat, you need to be extraordinary in it.

As an example, a Gnoll to a level 1 fighter should be as much challenge as a Pit Field is to a level 20 fighter.

Fawriel
2012-09-13, 07:23 AM
Just a little thought: Wouldn't the Fighter be exponentially improved without actually going against the spirit of the class at all, by basically making it a stretched-out Battle Trickster? It already gets a fighter bonus feat at every even level (granted, that's a bit much to say of a PrC with 3 levels), and at every level that it doesn't, it gets a bonus Skill Trick, and at every third level (that is, third level), it gets a +1 bonus on attack and damage after using a skill trick. Make those bonuses stack, maybe come up with some more fightery skill tricks, and there you go. You're still left with a guy who simply fights and concentrates on learning a lot of stuff to do with his weapons when he fights.

With the exception of Intimidate and maybe some other class skills, it's exactly the same as a normal Fighter, except it gets more stuff, none of which goes against his flavor.

Veklim
2012-09-13, 08:39 AM
I've tried this, there's a small problem with it though. Skills aren't the fighter's forte, they have very few on their list, and only 2+int per level to attain requirements. To make the skill trick thing work you need to do 2 things:
1. Create plenty more physical skill tricks.
2. Give fighters AT LEAST 4+int skills and add a few skills to the class list. (Bluff, Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) and Tumble are all immediately obvious suggestions).

Fawriel
2012-09-13, 08:42 AM
The Battle Trickster also has 4+Int skill points. Should have mentioned that, sorry.

Yitzi
2012-09-13, 08:53 AM
While discussing fighter fixes in particular, here's a 3.5-ization of the main ideas in what I'm planning for my rebuild:

1. A fighter does not get bonus feats by level. Instead, at 1st level and every 3rd level afterward he gets a "fighting style"; each fighting style consists of a number of feats (which must be marked as bonus fighter feats and for which he is eligible) equal to the number of styles he gets (so 1 at level 1, 2 at level 3, 3 at level 6, etc.) A fighter can only use one fighting style at a time; he can stop using a style as a free action, and start using one at the end of the next round as a swift action, or switch immediately as a move action. (For a bit more power, you can make it a swift action regardless.)
A fighter can spend two skill points for another fighting style, but does not increase his feats per style accordingly.

Yakk
2012-09-13, 10:17 AM
If you line up the number of feats/style to be the same as an existing fighter (1 + half fighter level), you simplify the problem. Existing fighter "builds" work as one of the styles of the fighter.

Start with 2 styles at level 1. Add a new style at level 5, 9, 13 and 17.

You can change styles as a free action on your turn, once per turn. While it is tempting to make a complex subsystem of action costs, why bother? :)

That leaves 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 as "dead" levels for this fighter.

Let's break the action economy:

Level 3: You gain a bonus standard action per round.
Level 11: You gain a bonus standard action per round.
Level 19: You gain a bonus standard action per round.

Level 7: You gain a bonus move action per round. If you are within the area or targeted by a spell, effect or ranged attack that you are aware of, you may take your next turns bonus move action immediately before the attack, spell or effect evaluates.

Level 15: You gain a bonus move action per round.

Next, deal with the skill problem:
Physical Prodigy: At each level, you gain an additional number of skill points equal to the highest of your str, dex and con ability bonus. You can only spend these additional skill points on skills tied to str, dex or con, and you cannot spend more points on skills for a given stat than you have a bonus in that stat.

which gives them plenty of (physical only) skills. The remaining 2+int (times 4 at level 1) can be spend wherever.

This still leaves the class with problems, in that the power gain over level 10 to 20 is not all that great. The other problem is that a Wizard 17/Fighter 3 becomes tempting, being able to cast two 9th level spells in one round. :)

Ingus
2012-09-13, 10:53 AM
You may find some suggestion here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243620)

DracoDei
2012-09-13, 12:30 PM
The other problem is that a Wizard 17/Fighter 3 becomes tempting, being able to cast two 9th level spells in one round. :)
Say those actions can only be used for single attacks, or converted into move actions actually used to move.

Or would that ruin the intended point?

GunbladeKnight
2012-09-14, 12:31 AM
This still leaves the class with problems, in that the power gain over level 10 to 20 is not all that great. The other problem is that a Wizard 17/Fighter 3 becomes tempting, being able to cast two 9th level spells in one round. :)

Just make normal spells a full-round action (and while at it, make concentration replace AC when casting defensively with a hit causing the spell to fail) and that would solve that problem.

Also, the fighter would be gaining quite a bit of standard actions, so martial study would be a feat tax for them, especially at higher levels where they can essentially nova all day though they would get at most level 5 maneuvers. Alternatively, Warblade 1/Fighter 4/Warblade 15 looks promising.

Yitzi
2012-09-14, 06:45 AM
If you line up the number of feats/style to be the same as an existing fighter (1 + half fighter level), you simplify the problem.

You also end up with more power than I'm really looking for; keep in mind that this method is designed to give the fighter horizontal progression, so reducing vertical progression somewhat isn't such a problem.


Existing fighter "builds" work as one of the styles of the fighter.

Those builds tend to be too powerful to be available to someone with a lot of options, at least IMO.


Start with 2 styles at level 1. Add a new style at level 5, 9, 13 and 17.

So more at earlier levels, fewer at later levels? Doesn't really seem such a good idea.


You can change styles as a free action on your turn, once per turn. While it is tempting to make a complex subsystem of action costs, why bother? :)

The idea is that "transitioning" through a no-style round should be "cheaper" than switching directly.


The other problem is that a Wizard 17/Fighter 3 becomes tempting, being able to cast two 9th level spells in one round. :)

This is the fundamental problem with all "break the action economy" fighter fixes; they make fighter a great dip, but unless they come in late enough to not help earlier on, they don't make fighter worth taking as a non-dip.

Better to just fix the action economy issue (by giving them equality to wizards), and fixing the remaining power issues in different ways.

Yakk
2012-09-21, 05:46 PM
Ya, no, even full on Fighter feat cheese builds are not "too strong".

The idea that you should have to "give something up" if you improve the Fighter is a natural one. But that isn't the Fighter's problem in reaching T3. The Fighter's problem is that the Fighter is neither tall, nor broad enough, at least past low levels.

Yitzi
2012-09-22, 08:10 PM
Ya, no, even full on Fighter feat cheese builds are not "too strong".

Actually, they are. Not by as much as optimized wizards, though, and not in a way that makes them T3.