PDA

View Full Version : The Really Ultimate For Reals Fighter Fix (APRICOT)



The Walrus
2013-03-09, 12:06 PM
I've been seeing a lot of discussion about the Fighter class lately on this board, so I thought I'd take a shot at fixing it. It seems to me that in order to create a truly effective Fighter, not one but several unique mechanics will have to be invented. Here are my ideas so far:

1. A lot of people think that the Fighter should be one of the simpler classes to learn and play. I agree, and I think that a lot of complexity could be removed by taking out D&D's notoriously complex wound location system and degrading condition charts. Instead, to represent the Fighter's toughness and ability to take hits but keep on going, the Fighter's current level of health will be represented by a single abstract number. Of course, if I call it 'health points' it'll probably sound too much like an MMORPG, so how about something like 'homeostasis points'? No matter how many 'homeostasis points' the fighter has lost, as long as the number remaining is above zero the Fighter will be able to fight unimpeded, allowing for truly impressive staying power on the battlefield.

2. One of the biggest complaints about fighters is that they are easily shut down by certain spells and monster abilities. My idea for solving this is that the fighter will have a chance to totally ignore some effects. It may not be very realistic that someone could be injected with neurotoxic venom and be completely fine afterwards, but I'm shooting for a sort of "Hollywood Realism" here. Along the same line, to simulate the ability of heroes in action movies to jump out of the way of explosions, the fighter will also have a percent chance to take a reduced amount of damage from area of effect attacks like fireballs. Finally, the Fighter will also be able to use their heroic willpower to sometimes negate the effects of charm or illusion spells. A single mechanic could be used for all of these, such as making d20 'resistance rolls' with bonuses varying for what sort of effect is being resisted.

3. Numbers 1 and 2 seem to me to adequately solve the problem of defense. But what about offense? One step that would go a long way towards fixing this would be if the fighter had proficiency in almost all weapons from level 1. They still wouldn't have proficiency in the really bizarre things like double headed axes, but they would be able to use all the basics: almost any sort of sword, mace, flail, hammer, bow and arrow, crossbow, etc. The obvious argument against giving fighters proficiency in almost all weapons is that with so many different tools, the fighter will be almost guaranteed to have a 'win button' for any given combat situation. But I think this will be balanced by the fact that the fighter will still have to choose which weapons to bring to a battle beforehand.

4. Fighters should be able to overwhelm groups of weaker enemies, so why not give them the ability to make multiple attacks at higher levels? To balance this, each successive attack will have a decreasing chance to hit, and the fighter will only be able to make multiple attacks if they don't move much that round.

5. There needs to be a way to customize Fighters. Wizards have their spells and Rogues have their skills, but what do Fighters have? In order to fix this, Fighters will be able to choose from a selection of Features every level. Features will be bonuses to skills, bonuses that apply in certain situations, or the ability to use new combat maneuvers. The only downside I see is that it might take a while to balance all the Features against each other. Whether or not a Feature giving three extra homeostasis points is balanced against a Feature allowing for a 'Force*Velocity Attack' can't be told at a glance.

Well, those are my thoughts. Remember,

All
Persons
Responding with
Intent to
Criticize are
Overlooked
Totally.

Realms of Chaos
2013-03-09, 12:41 PM
How could we have been so blind?

Good sir, I do believe you have just solved the problem of the fighter. Rejoice, spread the word, and help yourself to an Internet. We are in your debt.

Flickerdart
2013-03-09, 04:26 PM
I applaud the extent to which this fix accomplishes its goal while being so simple. However, this proposal might be way too powerful! I suggest we parcel out these benefits to the other classes in various degrees, and remove the fighter class entirely.

gkathellar
2013-03-09, 04:30 PM
You have my sword - and with this fix, I can give you my sword, my bow, and my axe, without needing party members to carry the latter two for me!

Truly, an impressive achievement.

enderlord99
2013-03-09, 05:20 PM
Umm... the fighter is already like this (though with different terminology), and I think you knew that. I can't tell for sure. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw) Either way, I'm just gonna just press this here rounded triangle button (the white one with the red edge and the "!"), and see if it does anything.

Jormengand
2013-03-09, 06:12 PM
Umm... the fighter is already like this (though with different terminology), and I think you knew that. I can't tell for sure. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw) Either way, I'm just gonna just press this here rounded triangle button (the white one with the red edge and the "!"), and see if it does anything.

You know, it's the same reason why we have DM classes being posted here. It's called a JOKE.

Just to Browse
2013-03-09, 11:14 PM
Umm... the fighter is already like this (though with different terminology), and I think you knew that. I can't tell for sure. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw) Either way, I'm just gonna just press this here rounded triangle button (the white one with the red edge and the "!"), and see if it does anything.

It's definitely a joke, because both Realms and flicker posted without contending any part of it. I was confused for a bit too, definitely Poe's Law at work here.

Yitzi
2013-03-10, 07:22 AM
1. A lot of people think that the Fighter should be one of the simpler classes to learn and play. I agree, and I think that a lot of complexity could be removed by taking out D&D's notoriously complex wound location system and degrading condition charts. Instead, to represent the Fighter's toughness and ability to take hits but keep on going, the Fighter's current level of health will be represented by a single abstract number. Of course, if I call it 'health points' it'll probably sound too much like an MMORPG, so how about something like 'homeostasis points'? No matter how many 'homeostasis points' the fighter has lost, as long as the number remaining is above zero the Fighter will be able to fight unimpeded, allowing for truly impressive staying power on the battlefield.

An interesting idea...of course, to avoid it weakening fighters (who would presumably do damage only to their enemies' HP), non-fighters would have to NOT have that "fight with full power no matter how many HP you've lost, or else boost the fighter in some other way.


2. One of the biggest complaints about fighters is that they are easily shut down by certain spells and monster abilities. My idea for solving this is that the fighter will have a chance to totally ignore some effects. It may not be very realistic that someone could be injected with neurotoxic venom and be completely fine afterwards, but I'm shooting for a sort of "Hollywood Realism" here. Along the same line, to simulate the ability of heroes in action movies to jump out of the way of explosions, the fighter will also have a percent chance to take a reduced amount of damage from area of effect attacks like fireballs. Finally, the Fighter will also be able to use their heroic willpower to sometimes negate the effects of charm or illusion spells. A single mechanic could be used for all of these, such as making d20 'resistance rolls' with bonuses varying for what sort of effect is being resisted.

Seems a good idea, PROVIDED that (1) monsters/casters don't get easy access to spells/abilities that DON'T allow such resistance, and (2) most if not all of these "resistance rolls" will usually (if not almost always) be made by a fighter against even an optimized enemy caster. (This does, of course, mean that something like "one-third to one-half the fighter's level plus a secondary ability score, with a DC of the spell level plus the caster's primary ability score" is not going to work for a formula.)


3. Numbers 1 and 2 seem to me to adequately solve the problem of defense. But what about offense? One step that would go a long way towards fixing this would be if the fighter had proficiency in almost all weapons from level 1. They still wouldn't have proficiency in the really bizarre things like double headed axes, but they would be able to use all the basics: almost any sort of sword, mace, flail, hammer, bow and arrow, crossbow, etc. The obvious argument against giving fighters proficiency in almost all weapons is that with so many different tools, the fighter will be almost guaranteed to have a 'win button' for any given combat situation. But I think this will be balanced by the fact that the fighter will still have to choose which weapons to bring to a battle beforehand.

Might work, if (1) the weapons are all made substantially different from each other, at least for fighters, and (2) no other class/monster has the ability to easily counter EVERY weapon that's out there.


4. Fighters should be able to overwhelm groups of weaker enemies, so why not give them the ability to make multiple attacks at higher levels? To balance this, each successive attack will have a decreasing chance to hit, and the fighter will only be able to make multiple attacks if they don't move much that round.

Seems a good idea, as long as other classes don't get similar (or even better) stuff.

It also won't be that great against single stronger enemies, so you'd need something to keep them fairly competitive against those.


5. There needs to be a way to customize Fighters. Wizards have their spells and Rogues have their skills, but what do Fighters have? In order to fix this, Fighters will be able to choose from a selection of Features every level. Features will be bonuses to skills, bonuses that apply in certain situations, or the ability to use new combat maneuvers. The only downside I see is that it might take a while to balance all the Features against each other. Whether or not a Feature giving three extra homeostasis points is balanced against a Feature allowing for a 'Force*Velocity Attack' can't be told at a glance.

Seems a good idea, as long as (1) either other classes don't get them at all, or fighters get FAR more or better, and (2) the features are comparable to other classes' features in terms of power.


So overall a fairly good approach, but it may need some work in the implementation to avoid problems.

The Tygre
2013-03-10, 04:32 PM
It's beautiful. Beautiful and genius. Beautinius. This presentation, these features, this writing! This is the epitome of homebrew! Shut down the forums! There's nowhere to go from here!

Call Monte Cook. Tell him "Check" and "Mate".


Umm... the fighter is already like this (though with different terminology), and I think you knew that. I can't tell for sure. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw) Either way, I'm just gonna just press this here rounded triangle button (the white one with the red edge and the "!"), and see if it does anything.

That's the joke. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSRildGCw64)

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-10, 05:13 PM
You know, it's the same reason why we have DM classes being posted here. It's called a JOKE.

I think the difference is that the DM classes are a joke, but they ARE still homebrew related. This thread isn't offering any homebrew: it's just a joke.

I'm amused, but I also feel this belongs in a different forum where it's not competing for space with actual homebrew material.

enderlord99
2013-03-10, 05:42 PM
I think the difference is that the DM classes are a joke, but they ARE still homebrew related. This thread isn't offering any homebrew: it's just a joke.

I'm amused, but I also feel this belongs in a different forum where it's not competing for space with actual homebrew material.

I agree. That's why I pressed the triangle-button.

The Grue
2013-03-10, 06:10 PM
Some people in this thread are way too serious.

Network
2013-03-10, 06:20 PM
What a wonderful fix! I'm going to use it in all of my games from now on.

You may consider adding some kind the license, to allow other people to make use of it for money? Hey, you can even make video games with it.

And for the fifth point... Some features will have to require other features to have. Or something else, for that matter.

Yitzi
2013-03-10, 08:37 PM
I think the difference is that the DM classes are a joke, but they ARE still homebrew related. This thread isn't offering any homebrew: it's just a joke.

My post does essentially take his post and turn it into a bunch of ideas for how to actually fix the fighter.

Answerer
2013-03-10, 10:52 PM
I think the difference is that the DM classes are a joke, but they ARE still homebrew related. This thread isn't offering any homebrew: it's just a joke.

I'm amused, but I also feel this belongs in a different forum where it's not competing for space with actual homebrew material.
While I sympathize with that, the joke wouldn't really work on another forum.

Deepbluediver
2013-03-11, 11:11 AM
You know, it's the same reason why we have DM classes being posted here. It's called a JOKE.

Which would probably be more apparent if jokes where more common or this where actually, y'know, funny.

I entered with the assumption that this was a serious thread, and found myself to just be confused by it.

Amechra
2013-03-11, 11:48 AM
I don't know, this is pretty funny.

I mean, it isn't anything serious like my glorious Icon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12415909&postcount=1) class, which is the most powerful melee class evar ever.

The Walrus
2013-03-11, 02:00 PM
Yeah, this is intended to be a joke. I was hoping that the (APRICOT) tag would make that more clear.



Originally Posted by Djinn_in_Tonic:
I think the difference is that the DM classes are a joke, but they ARE still homebrew related. This thread isn't offering any homebrew: it's just a joke.

I'm amused, but I also feel this belongs in a different forum where it's not competing for space with actual homebrew material.

Although I wavered on posting this for that reason, I decided based on the success of the "What do you want to play when you play a fighter" thread that it was okay to start threads that did not directly introduce homebrew content. The point I was sort of trying to make is that the default assumption in D&D is that everyone is going to be a warrior of sorts, with mechanics to support that, and so having a "Fighter" class is redundant. Perhaps for a true fix of the melee focused classes, inspiration might be drawn from Nethack. In Nethack, all classes have the ability to cast some spells (although not all classes start knowing spells), and all scrolls and wands can be used by any character. Without severely reducing the capabilities of magic, no entirely mundane class could compete, at least at the traditional tech level of D&D.

(By the way, how do you do quotes so that they have a link to the original post? I'm kinda new here.)

Just to Browse
2013-03-11, 02:08 PM
Each post is designated a number, and quoting the number with their name gives the time that the post was written and also puts it in italics. There's no easy way to predict what the number is.

EDIT: Wurds

Jormengand
2013-03-11, 02:17 PM
(By the way, how do you do quotes so that they have a link to the original post? I'm kinda new here.)

If you actually click the quote button at the bottom of each page. Or, if you somehow know the quote reference anyway you can type that in.

Draz74
2013-03-11, 02:17 PM
Yeah, this is intended to be a joke. I was hoping that the (APRICOT) tag would make that more clear.
Yeah. I opened the thread expecting a joke, just because of the [APRICOT] tag.


(By the way, how do you do quotes so that they have a link to the original post? I'm kinda new here.)

Generally, by clicking the "Quote" button (or multi-quote tool, which looks like a quotation mark) at the bottom of the post one wishes to respond to.

Deepbluediver
2013-03-11, 02:28 PM
Yeah, this is intended to be a joke. I was hoping that the (APRICOT) tag would make that more clear.

Ah, ok. I didn't know what the "APRICOT" meant, and since I read from the top down I spent 3 and half paragraphs growing increasingly frustrated before I scrolled far enough to see the lines at the bottom.