Farus-Ashan
2013-02-19, 06:58 PM
Hello, OotS forum. I've been a long time reader of the comic but have only been playing actual DND for the past 6 months (verson 3.5). This is, by the way, my first forum post here so if I am breaking any rules or posting this in the wrong place, then bear with me, please.
I've read and heard a lot about Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards and I understand that 3.5 follows this straight as an arrow. 4.0 from what I hear is much more balanced but suffers from feeling like it's an MMO rather than a tabletop. The first character I made was a fighter (easy learning curve, I was told) but soon came to be deeply disappointed by how quickly I was overshadowed by all my other teammates. This was, admittedly, because I didn't know jack what to take to optimize - I took a weapon focus feat, for Tempus' sakes - but simply it seemed impossible even if I'd taken the correct feats.
I've got a few issues I want to discuss, specifically revolving around fighters and a few revolving on other stuff such as skill-based feats that I know won't be ''homebrewed'' but that I feel would make the game enjoyable for all classes (though I remain aware that a lot of people like fighters specifically because they're hard to master, but to each his own).
1 - Fighter feats, specifically weapon focus. First time I took this I didn't know it was a crippling overspecialization that shoehorned you into a single weapon. I thought it'd put me on a single weapon type like a polearm or sword or mace, not specific weapons like falchions, glaives, and the like. I'd like to know how broadening the scope of weapon focus feats to encompass wider categories would result in greater options for players.
2 - Fighter skill points. It seemed really, really strange to me that fighters only get 2 + int skill points per level while barbarians - the one class that can't even read by default - gets 4. It's possible that barbarians get more to offset their low int, but int is a dump stat for fighters, too. Furthermore, I always picture fighers as professional soldiers, generals, mercenaries, and other professions of the sword that, while requiring a lot of effort to perfect their martial skill, nevertheless would also supplement their swordsmanship with other skills and have time to improve on those skills, limited as the fighter's class skill options may be when compared to others. For instance, Romance of the Three Kingdoms describes Guan Yu, who is pictured as a god of war and celebrated hero in several Chinese artwork, as also being adept with music, poetry, etc. Perhaps I'm missing something in the logic here, but it just makes more sense that fighters would have more or equal skill points to barbarians.
3 - Empty Fighter levels. Every even level, Fighters get zilch. No special abilities, no further bonuses, nothing. Just basic increase in attack, save, HD, and skill points, maybe a regular feat or ability point if it's time. The main thing about Fighters is the bonus feat every odd level. This issue was actually addressed in Pathfinder (aka 3.75) and while I did not select a fighter for that, one of my friends did and so far he's enjoying it quite a lot. We're only level 4, though, so we'll see how it goes.
4 - Skill feats. An absolute waste of time for just about anyone who wants to kick some ass in a fight with little return for those who want to be the skill monkey of the party. A basic skill feat like Persuasive will only give a +2 in two different skills (Buff and Intimidate). I have never heard of anyone opting for these feats. I imagine that if we were to bump the bonus to +5 for both (or +7 or even +10 to a single skill) then they would really make the choice between kicking more ass in combat and taking bigger names out of it much more meaningful.
*cough* I apologize for the long post in advance. It's a bad habit of mine. Have not yet broken it.
I've read and heard a lot about Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards and I understand that 3.5 follows this straight as an arrow. 4.0 from what I hear is much more balanced but suffers from feeling like it's an MMO rather than a tabletop. The first character I made was a fighter (easy learning curve, I was told) but soon came to be deeply disappointed by how quickly I was overshadowed by all my other teammates. This was, admittedly, because I didn't know jack what to take to optimize - I took a weapon focus feat, for Tempus' sakes - but simply it seemed impossible even if I'd taken the correct feats.
I've got a few issues I want to discuss, specifically revolving around fighters and a few revolving on other stuff such as skill-based feats that I know won't be ''homebrewed'' but that I feel would make the game enjoyable for all classes (though I remain aware that a lot of people like fighters specifically because they're hard to master, but to each his own).
1 - Fighter feats, specifically weapon focus. First time I took this I didn't know it was a crippling overspecialization that shoehorned you into a single weapon. I thought it'd put me on a single weapon type like a polearm or sword or mace, not specific weapons like falchions, glaives, and the like. I'd like to know how broadening the scope of weapon focus feats to encompass wider categories would result in greater options for players.
2 - Fighter skill points. It seemed really, really strange to me that fighters only get 2 + int skill points per level while barbarians - the one class that can't even read by default - gets 4. It's possible that barbarians get more to offset their low int, but int is a dump stat for fighters, too. Furthermore, I always picture fighers as professional soldiers, generals, mercenaries, and other professions of the sword that, while requiring a lot of effort to perfect their martial skill, nevertheless would also supplement their swordsmanship with other skills and have time to improve on those skills, limited as the fighter's class skill options may be when compared to others. For instance, Romance of the Three Kingdoms describes Guan Yu, who is pictured as a god of war and celebrated hero in several Chinese artwork, as also being adept with music, poetry, etc. Perhaps I'm missing something in the logic here, but it just makes more sense that fighters would have more or equal skill points to barbarians.
3 - Empty Fighter levels. Every even level, Fighters get zilch. No special abilities, no further bonuses, nothing. Just basic increase in attack, save, HD, and skill points, maybe a regular feat or ability point if it's time. The main thing about Fighters is the bonus feat every odd level. This issue was actually addressed in Pathfinder (aka 3.75) and while I did not select a fighter for that, one of my friends did and so far he's enjoying it quite a lot. We're only level 4, though, so we'll see how it goes.
4 - Skill feats. An absolute waste of time for just about anyone who wants to kick some ass in a fight with little return for those who want to be the skill monkey of the party. A basic skill feat like Persuasive will only give a +2 in two different skills (Buff and Intimidate). I have never heard of anyone opting for these feats. I imagine that if we were to bump the bonus to +5 for both (or +7 or even +10 to a single skill) then they would really make the choice between kicking more ass in combat and taking bigger names out of it much more meaningful.
*cough* I apologize for the long post in advance. It's a bad habit of mine. Have not yet broken it.