PDA

View Full Version : Simplest Noncaster Fix of All [PEACH]



Amechra
2013-02-08, 11:31 AM
The Fighter is no longer a class.

You now acquire new Fighter feats as if you were a Fighter of a level equal to your BAB.

Any class that you have that has full BAB counts towards your "Fighter" level for the purposes of prerequisites.

Discuss.

Yora
2013-02-08, 11:34 AM
Everyone is gestalt fighter//something?

Morph Bark
2013-02-08, 11:35 AM
Removing something isn't the same as fixing it, in spite of the fact that with a lot of problems the removal of it does fix it.

Deepbluediver
2013-02-08, 11:57 AM
The issue with the fighter is that is was supposed to be "all about the feats" much in the same way a sorcerer is "all about the spells". The problem is, feats are not powerful or interesting enough in most cases to keep up with either spells or even the class features of most other melee-heavy classes, and only 11 of them spread across 20 is lackluster at best.

Personally, I think that more feats all around and more feats that anyone can gain access to are a good thing, but in order to make the fighter really be attractive to most experienced players, you need to give it some unique features that other classes CAN'T get.

Amechra
2013-02-08, 12:16 PM
The point of this is that, really, if you get rid of the fighter and shift its goodies around...

1. Naturally having a high BAB is a good thing, since it gives you more feats.
2. Other classes become more playable, since they can get access to combat tricks, allowing them to dedicate general feats elsewhere.
3. The fighter staying around is a legacy thing. Having the Fighter be a class is rather disingenuous.

#3 is something I have to elaborate on; in 2e, Rangers and Paladins were subsets of the Fighter class. The Fighter got some goodies that were then inherited by the Ranger and Paladin (and other subclasses introduced later.) The reason the Fighter was even a class is because, due to ability score requirements, you couldn't always access the Ranger or Paladin classes.

In 1e, the Fighter got extra benefits from having high Strength, (they got to go into percentiles, which, iirc, no-one else could) and about half the magic items only worked for Fighters.

Now, fast-forward to 3e; the focus of the game turned to multiclassing. Ability score prereqs for classes were dropped, meaning that the Fighter no longer had to be the back-up fighting guy.

Due to the aforementioned multiclassing focus, you can't elegantly make magic items that only work with Fighter levels (which, due to Use Magic Device, would've ended up being spread around anyway), AND the way that ability scores were used was standardized between classes, to help with the fact that, hey, multiclassing is the name of the game.

The fighter doesn't really have a place as a class, thematically or mechanically; actually, it does have one mechanically, but it's a place that is entirely unnecessary if you make even such a small change as what I suggested in the OP.

Deepbluediver
2013-02-08, 12:23 PM
The Fighter had a purpose when the other classes where "Healer", "sneaky-Thief", and "Arcane blaster". IMO, the name of the class should be changed to "Warrior" and be described as "someone who is trained in the practice of warfair", which is purposefully ambiguous enough to allow lots of additional goodies to be added in.

Giving other classes more feats is a fix for melee in general; it has nothing to do with fixing the Fighter.

Basically, you are saying, "The fighter is unfixable, we should just get rid of it", making your thread mis-titled, at best.

Amechra
2013-02-08, 12:24 PM
True...

Wait a sec...

EDIT: There, that less of an untruth?

And yeah, I'm saying that the Fighter as a concept is unfixable in the current paradigm of 3.5e.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-02-08, 12:32 PM
You know, I'm actually kind of surprised that the Fighter hasn't been fixed by accident, through the release of extra materials.

One of the (many) reasons why Wizards and Archivists are so powerful is that they kept getting access to new spells, as additional books were released. It seems like the same would be true of feats, and that eventually, there'd be enough really top-notch feats out there to make fighters into a good class.

Deepbluediver
2013-02-08, 12:39 PM
You know, I'm actually kind of surprised that the Fighter hasn't been fixed by accident, through the release of extra materials.

One of the (many) reasons why Wizards and Archivists are so powerful is that they kept getting access to new spells, as additional books were released. It seems like the same would be true of feats, and that eventually, there'd be enough really top-notch feats out there to make fighters into a good class.


First, as I said earlier, feats are not good enough to keep up with spells, and the higher level you go the worse it gets. Even the feat that lets any class learn ToB Manuvers makes things tier 3, at best, because that's what ToB is.

Also, any fighter can only have a certain number of feats at a time, while a wizard or archivist can change their entire spell selection with 8 hours downtime.
That's why I compared the Fighter to a Sorcerer instead, and why so many fighter-fixes grant rapid retraining or abilities like "practice for 1 hour to relearn feats".

nonsi
2013-02-08, 03:53 PM
. . . in order to make the fighter really be attractive to most experienced players, you need to give it some unique features that other classes CAN'T get.



IMO, the name of the class should be changed to "Warrior" and be described as "someone who is trained in the practice of warfair", which is purposefully ambiguous enough to allow lots of additional goodies to be added in.


I may be bias her, but the above sounds awfully familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13182574) to me.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-08, 04:12 PM
IMO, the name of the class should be changed to "Warrior" and be described as "someone who is trained in the practice of warfair", which is purposefully ambiguous enough to allow lots of additional goodies to be added in.

That is, uh... pretty much exactly the same as what the fighter has now.

Deepbluediver
2013-02-08, 04:59 PM
I may be bias her, but the above sounds awfully familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13182574) to me.

It's highly probable that I saw and read your fix at some point. I read just about all the core fixes I see for ideas and inspiration. I think I had posted my own Fighter fix before then, but if I ever redo it I'll probably review all the various threads I have bookmarked.


That is, uh... pretty much exactly the same as what the fighter has now.

What I mean is, the Fighter Warrior needs class features other than feats. Having lots of feats can certainly be a part of the class, but they don't really go far enough IMO. There is a limit on what you can accomplish, even with feat-mongering, and since feats are technically available to every class, you don't want to change feats so much that they create more balance problems.
Plus, most of the feats are designed for use with small-group dungeon crawling tactics and combat. If you expand the focus of the class, it becomes easier to incorporate other things with more of a utility function.

Also, there are people who seem to think that because the class is named "Fighter" then all it SHOULD do is fight, completely without magic or even anything vaguely magic-like. Hopefully by altering the name and the philosophy behind the class we can do away with that whole history of problems.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-08, 05:14 PM
Also, there are people who seem to think that because the class is named "Fighter" then all it SHOULD do is fight, completely without magic or even anything vaguely magic-like. Hopefully by altering the name and the philosophy behind the class we can do away with that whole history of problems.

I'm quite aware of what the problems with the class are. And I see your point about people rejecting useful fixes; I just find it silly to bow to them.

Rakoa
2013-02-08, 05:20 PM
Fighter fixes have been tried again and again. None have ever really lifted off the ground as the penultimate solution, because there really isn't one. The Fighter as a concept specializes in wearing armour and hitting things with metal. Sometimes magical metal. Good job Fighter, thats really nice.

The Wizard, on the other hand, has the potential to learn every spell in existence, and to access all of them with a simple 8 hours of preparation. One of these spells can obliterate any Fighter who happens to not have the best will save in the game.

We all know this. The point is, for a Fighter to ever really be "fixed", he needs to be able to match the Wizard for power and versatility. And when he can do that, he really isn't a Fighter anymore. The entire concept of the Fighter is flawed.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-08, 05:26 PM
Fighter fixes have been tried again and again. None have ever really lifted off the ground as the penultimate solution, because there really isn't one. The Fighter as a concept specializes in wearing armour and hitting things with metal. Sometimes magical metal. Good job Fighter, thats really nice.

The Wizard, on the other hand, has the potential to learn every spell in existence, and to access all of them with a simple 8 hours of preparation. One of these spells can obliterate any Fighter who happens to not have the best will save in the game.

We all know this. The point is, for a Fighter to ever really be "fixed", he needs to be able to match the Wizard for power and versatility. And when he can do that, he really isn't a Fighter anymore. The entire concept of the Fighter is flawed.
The wizard is not a point anyone should be balancing against. Instead, we should be looking at things like the ToB classes, Factotum, Bard, and Psionic Warrior.

Deepbluediver
2013-02-08, 05:33 PM
You now acquire new Fighter feats as if you were a Fighter of a level equal to your BAB.

Does this mean that full-casters with the worst BAB will also gain fighter bonus feats?


Fighter fixes have been tried again and again. None have ever really lifted off the ground as the penultimate solution, because there really isn't one. The Fighter as a concept specializes in wearing armour and hitting things with metal. Sometimes magical metal. Good job Fighter, thats really nice.

The Wizard, on the other hand, has the potential to learn every spell in existence, and to access all of them with a simple 8 hours of preparation. One of these spells can obliterate any Fighter who happens to not have the best will save in the game.

We all know this. The point is, for a Fighter to ever really be "fixed", he needs to be able to match the Wizard for power and versatility. And when he can do that, he really isn't a Fighter anymore. The entire concept of the Fighter is flawed.

You might say that the Wizard is equally broken because the concept is overly broad. Ignoring, for the moment, that individual spells are considered broken and the magic system is unabalanced at best, any class that can completely shift it's focus within a single day, every day, is not well designed IMO.

That's why I think that for any homebrew you should state what it is you are trying to achieve. Lacking that, I (personally) assume people are trying to balance around tier 3, the most common balance point and the highest of the non-gamebreaking tiers.

Amechra
2013-02-08, 06:08 PM
Yes, they will.

Why? Because making an exception results in wonkiness. And I dislike wonkiness.

The feats are a function of BAB; while you aren't going to get additional feats by casting Divine Might (I should add that in, right?), you still are advancing BAB.

Zman
2013-02-08, 06:14 PM
I don't believe the fighter needs to be written off completely. There are many abilities that can and should be added to make him competitive. The Fighter as is is boring, simplistic, and horribly flawed.

The route I took... See Homebrew Signature for details.

Good Reflex Save
4+Int Skill Points
Improved Skill List
Obstinate: Limited Roll Two wills saves, choose the better.
Precise Strike: Sacrifice a iterative Aattack for bonus to hit and Damage.
Quick Strike: Two attacks on Standard Action or charge.
Armored Comfort: +1 Max Dex, -1 ACP, +1 AC at 5th,10th,15th levels.
Battlefield Movement: Take two 5' steps per turn.
Veteran: Expand Critical Range, stacks.
Legend: Auto Confirm Critical.
Press the Advantage: Full Attack as Standard or Charge Action.


Now, my changes to the other classes are also designed to make the Fighter Better, ie removing easy access to Pounce via Barbarian, making most casters Spontaneous, and trying to limit the Game Breaking Classes, etc.

There is no simple fox for the Fighter, it requires a multifasceted Approach targeted at improving and expanding the fighter while reigning in the CODs.

Acanous
2013-02-08, 06:15 PM
Hm. I could see it working that instead of getting a feat every 3 levels, you get a feat every 3 BAB. Wizard bonus feats now matter a whole lot, most prestige classes are going to be entered at 11th level, and metamagic isn't so easy to toss around anymore.

Keep the Fighter bonus feats the same, and it now stands out from other melee, and while they don't keep up with casters, they can have something to do that the caster cannot simply do better (At least not easilly or without going for that thing in particular)

Rakoa
2013-02-08, 06:27 PM
The wizard is not a point anyone should be balancing against. Instead, we should be looking at things like the ToB classes, Factotum, Bard, and Psionic Warrior.

That is all well and good, but ToB classes are not casters. The Factotum is not a caster. The Psionic Warrior is not a caster. The Bard is barely a caster. Magic is a huge part of D&D, and if you want to balance against these classes that's fine, but that isn't going to fix the gap between magic and sword at all. Given that the point of the thread is to fix noncasters, I assume the gap between noncasters and casters is the point to be addressed.

Amechra
2013-02-08, 06:57 PM
Hm. I could see it working that instead of getting a feat every 3 levels, you get a feat every 3 BAB. Wizard bonus feats now matter a whole lot, most prestige classes are going to be entered at 11th level, and metamagic isn't so easy to toss around anymore.

Keep the Fighter bonus feats the same, and it now stands out from other melee, and while they don't keep up with casters, they can have something to do that the caster cannot simply do better (At least not easilly or without going for that thing in particular)

The thing is that that makes Rogues and the like very poor classes, and it actually makes the Monk weaker. Which is honestly a sadness-making thing.

Oh, and Rakoa? All of the Tier 1+2 classes are pretty poorly designed, and it is generally accepted that it would be nigh-impossible to make non-casters hit that level of versatility.

Additionally, casters literally break the game, as in they make various parts of the game mechanics and mathematics nonfunctional (large bonuses to things making the RNG pointless, ways of tinkering with the RNG, ways to utterly ignore the RNG...)

It is generally accepted in the optimization community that ToB and the fixed-list spontaneous casters are about the sweet spot for class design, in that they aren't totally incapable of contributing in most situations, and aren't limited to just one trick.

But in any case, if you don't have anything constructive to add, please stop posting; we've had enough "Wizard vs. Fighter"-esque threads, and they don't get productive results.

Instead, give suggestions about how we could rebalance out sword and spell. Accept that they will probably be beyond the scope of this thread (which never promised to entirely close the gap; indeed, if you scan upthread, you'll see that this used to be the "Simplest Fighter Fix of All", with the point being that the Fighter is in a defunct conceptual space.), but please, voice them, rather than "this will never shape up to a Wizard" comments.

Thank you.

Also, Zman, I don't disagree that a class called "Fighter" could be more interesting to play; however, most fixes aren't conceptually based in anything other than "fight good". And changing the name to "Warrior" doesn't help things either, since the entire concept still stems from "fight good".

I mean, let's look at some of the other mundane classes that need fixing:

Rangers have several conceptual bases; they have "survivalist". They have "specialist in <creature type>", which feeds into survivalist. They have "beast master" in there (poorly implemented, but it could be salvaged), and they have "fight good."

Barbarians also have a couple of conceptual bases; "tough guy", "Wild Man", "Uncultured man", and "fight good."

Paladins have "holy man", "healer", "leader of men", "zealot", and "fight good."

And so on and so forth.

The essential nature of the Fighter is "fight good", something that all classes that have been given full BAB (and quite a few with 3/4ths BAB) share. While other classes share schticks between each-other, Fighter is pretty much the only one that is entirely overlapped by other classes.

Rakoa
2013-02-08, 07:14 PM
Instead, give suggestions about how we could rebalance out sword and spell. Accept that they will probably be beyond the scope of this thread (which never promised to entirely close the gap; indeed, if you scan upthread, you'll see that this used to be the "Simplest Fighter Fix of All", with the point being that the Fighter is in a defunct conceptual space.), but please, voice them, rather than "this will never shape up to a Wizard" comments.
I won't be held accountable for the misleading name of your thread. If you want to call your thread a fix for noncasters (which puts heavy emphasis on the fact that they are not as powerful as casters and need to be fixed) and then not address the issue of noncaster vs. caster, so be it. I will take my leave.

With that said, I wish you luck in achieving the goal you're trying to obtain in this thread.

Amechra
2013-02-08, 07:33 PM
"Noncasters" is only there because people whined when I had "Fighter" there instead.

Even though dropping the Fighter is a fix. Technically. If you squint a bit.

Anyway, what do you think the title should be? Replace "fix" with "alteration"? Cry at the bloody stupid nature of the English language?

Rakoa
2013-02-08, 07:37 PM
It's safe to say there was a slight communication error. You can't really call it a fighter fix since you're replacing the fighter class (which I have no problem with, I personally do see that as a legitimate fix) but the noncaster thing caused me to fall into the trap that I did.

I don't know what to suggest for a better name, though...since the focus of the thread isn't on the fact that they are noncasters, maybe call it something like "Fix: Removing the Fighter" or something along those lines.

Anyways, sorry if I sounded aggressive, and also for not getting the point of the thread right off. I will add more to the thread if I feel that I can.

nonsi
2013-02-08, 07:39 PM
Fighter fixes have been tried again and again. None have ever really lifted off the ground as the penultimate solution, because there really isn't one. The Fighter as a concept specializes in wearing armour and hitting things with metal. Sometimes magical metal. Good job Fighter, thats really nice.

The Wizard, on the other hand, has the potential to learn every spell in existence, and to access all of them with a simple 8 hours of preparation. One of these spells can obliterate any Fighter who happens to not have the best will save in the game.

We all know this. The point is, for a Fighter to ever really be "fixed", he needs to be able to match the Wizard for power and versatility. And when he can do that, he really isn't a Fighter anymore. The entire concept of the Fighter is flawed.

Again, I beg to differ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13182574#post13182574).