The Fighter Problem & How to Fix It

[Ziegander]

The Fighter Problem
(And How to Fix It)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md1oairA991rkz2wso1_500.jpg

Forward
Everyone knows that the Fighter sucks. It has no class features. Well, it has one, but that one feature is way, way worse than the class features that other warrior classes get, and let's not even compare it to spells. Why does the Fighter suck so much more than, say, the Barbarian, the Paladin, or the Ranger? Well, for one, it has no clear design goals beyond, "make this class straightforward and customizable." And yet, in it's attempts to be newb-friendly, the Fighter becomes one of the hardest classes to play well and most frustratingly difficult to "build." Dead levels is another big problem for the Fighter. The Barbarian is improving at every level (sometimes substantially, at least compared to the Fighter), but the Fighter has whole levels where his only benefit is +1 to BAB. The Fighter is so close to an NPC class that the Adept is more powerful than it is. Finally, the Ranger and the Paladin both have spells which automatically make them better than the Fighter. On top of that, they both have better saving throws than the Fighter making them tougher, and the Ranger has far better skills (and skill points per level).

So, have I painted a clear picture yet? We haven't even begun to touch on the facts of D&D 3.5's game design which make playing warrior classes of any stripe a dubious proposition at best, yet you should still understand by now the poor position the much-maligned Fighter class finds itself in. The Fighter class is fixed nearly every day, and such fixes have been written by homebrewers ever since homebrew classes for 3rd edition first arrived on the scene over a decade ago. But it seems that no one knows how to get it right. That's pretty mind boggling to me. I have personally written 15+ "Fighter fixes" and I still haven't gotten it right.

So, what I want to do is break the class down into constituent parts and evaluate them one by one, and then discuss the class in relation to the game rules at different level breakdowns. I hope I can illustrate some key problems, discuss some potential solutions, and identify areas of the game that also need adjusting if the Fighter, or indeed, any warrior, is to be enjoyable to play. Input from the rest of the forum will be, as always, invaluable.

[Ziegander]

Chapter One: The Chassis
http://noticias.terceiraterra.com/wp-content/uploads/SkeletonBonecrusher-245x300.jpg

The d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) provides us with information on the Fighter regarding Alignment rules, Hit Dice, Class Skills and Skill Points per Level, and Weapon and Armor Proficiency. This information, plus the Fighter's full Base Attack Bonus, as well as his saving throw bonuses, are what I consider to the be the Fighter's Chassis. This is the basic stuff that all classes are built upon. So let's look at each item in a bit more depth.

Alignment
We're told that Fighters can be of alignment and suffer no restrictions to their class features or gaining levels based on their alignment. That makes sense. Let's move on.

Hit Die
The Fighter has the second highest Hit Die in the game, being one step behind (and an average of 1 hit point behind per level) the Barbarian and sharing his spot on the totem pole with the Paladin. This would seem to be okay; however, there is an underlying problem here that is not the Fighter's fault.

Hit points are a horrible metric for character toughness in D&D. I have played many games in which the Barbarian seems to be nowhere near as tough as the Wizard or Rogue. Once a character that relies only on hit points for defense is hit two or three times, they are dead or just about dead, and having no spells or other mechanics to recover this loss, they remain that way until they find potions or get magical aid. So, a character that is also supposed to be a tough, front-liner like the Fighter who also has no personal healing mechanics, and who is less "tough" than the Barbarian is actually even more likely to be killed (or at least unconscious) once he takes two or three hits.

Class Skills
Here we can see the Fighter's first big problem. If the Barbarian is supposed to be the brute that solves mysteries by smashing them and this class has more skills and more skill points per level than your class, then you are doing something wrong. Here is where, correct me if I am wrong, the notion of the Big Stupid Fighter first arises. We have a class that is less skilled at out-of-combat stuff than the brute core class and who is incapable even of spending his skill points to effectively Listen or Spot his enemies. The Fighter's class skill list is so insultingly bad that the Commoner has a better skill list.

Just about everyone can agree that the Fighter needs a better skill list and more skill points per level. What many people do not agree on is, well, just how much better that skill list should be and just how many more skill points should he get? I posit that skills are where much of the bread-and-butter of mundane utility and out-of-combat gameplay mechanics are found, and being without spellcasting, mundane classes like the Fighter ought to have a wide variety of skills to utilize. The Barbarian already has four skill points per level with a skill list that could be better, but is reasonable, so why shouldn't the Fighter have an even better skill list with even more skill points per level. If the Ranger can do it, then so can the Fighter, that's what I say. Hell, the Ranger has spells, if anything, the Fighter deserves those extra skill points even more than the Ranger does. While we're at it, let's bump the Monk to 6 skill points per level, and the Paladin up to 4 skill points per level.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Okay, so this is the cream of the crop. A Fighter is proficient with every useful, non-exotic piece of equipment out there (and even all of the non-useful ones). He even gets Tower Shield proficiency, which is a separate feat expense for everyone else. Now, no one talks about this, but this part of the Chassis is kind of a huge deal. It's not treated like one, but it is these proficiencies just as much as the Bonus Feats at 1st and 2nd level, that make the Fighter such a dip class. Wizards and similar classes come over for a one-level dip to get all the proficiencies and then dive into Prestige Classes like Eldritch Knight or Abjurant Champion.

Proficiency with all martial weapons is kind of awesome, at least at low-level, and it fuels those dips. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's almost too good. You can kill stuff a lot more efficiently with a decent attack bonus and a sharp stick than you can with most spells at levels 1-2. Proficiency with all armors is less awesome because at low levels the light armor is the cheap stuff that you can afford, and at mid-to-high levels medium and heavy armor suck so much that you pretty much still use light armor (even if you're using that really expensive Feycraft Mithril Full Plate stuff). Proficiency with shields is kind of nice at low levels because it helps your AC, but you stop caring once you hit mid levels, because shields never really get any better without prohibitively costly expenditures, not only of character wealth, but of finite character resources.

Base Character Bonuses
The Fighter has full base attack bonus, which thankfully, at least allows him to hit stuff with his weapons (oh, except that it becomes less useful at higher levels, imagine that), and he has a "good" Fortitude save which is likely to be bolstered by a decent Constitution modifier. He has a weak Reflex save which means he has trouble against traps and with dodging area effects. He also has a weak Will save which puts him in trouble against Fear and other mind-affecting abilities, such as scores of spells and (Sp) and (Su) abilities possessed by the monsters he is expected to, well, fight.

Now, full base attack bonus is a given, unfortunately, as I mentioned above, once you start to run into concealment miss chances (which could be as early as 1st level if you fight a lot in the dark), especially those that are generated by spells and similar abilities, than you could have all the attack bonus in the world and it wouldn't matter.

Furthermore, a Fighter's saving throws, for the most part, suck. Yes, it is nice that you are above average at resisting poison, which can be quite nasty to fall prey to, but you will take lots of damage from dragon's breath and other area effects, and don't expect to be passing a Will save any time soon what with having no incentive to have more than a penalty as your Wisdom modifier. I agree with those that suggest that a Fighter needs to have all good saves, just like the Monk. A Fighter is going to have a solid Constitution, and probably a pretty good Dexterity. However, he is not going to have a good Wisdom score, and he also has no class features that provide him with a boost to saving throws unlike, say, a Paladin (who adds an important ability modifier to all saves). Given that the Fighter is not meant to be a brute, like the Barbarian is, it makes sense to me that his saving throws reflect more diligent training to avoid damage (a good Reflex save) and a more disciplined mind (a good Will save). Even with such a boon, the Fighter's middle-of-the-pack Dexterity (unless he's an archer) guarantees he still fails some crucial Reflex saves, and his garbage Wisdom guarantees that he still gets mind-controlled a lot—except now it won't happen every time.

[Ziegander]

Chapter Two: Class Features
http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae206/unnamedhero91/fighterdragon.png

Or rather, lack thereof. Bonus Feats are the Fighter's only class features and they have been found, time and time again, to be sorely lacking. Here's what the d20SRD has to say on the matter:



Bonus Feats
At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and every two fighter levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.


So, while there are other classes that get Bonus Feats, and while other combat-oriented characters are perfectly capable of taking these same feats, the Fighter gets many more of them than any other class—almost double the number that characters without Bonus Feats get and more than double the number of Bonus Feats of any other base class.

It is these Bonus Feats that are meant to give the Fighter unparalleled versatility as well as the means to stand up to the Barbarian in terms of damage per round. One might think that they were also meant to showcase the Fighter's skill with arms and offer a Fighter abilities that no other class could match, but this does not appear to have been a concern for the designers.

In a side-by-side comparison to the Barbarian, we can determine that by roughly 4th level and onward, a Core Fighter is able to compete favorably with a Core Barbarian in terms of strictly damage per round. By then, the Barbarian's got +10 to speed, Rage 2/day, Uncanny Dodge, and the piddling Trap Sense +1 (hey, at least it's something). On the other hand, the Fighter has Weapon Focus, Combat Reflexes, and Weapon Specialization. We won't take into account feats gained by character levels because they could both have the same ones (and are likely to).

So, both fight with a Masterwork Greatsword and both have the following ability scores: Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8. They both wear a Breastplate. This gives each combatant an attack bonus of +9 and an AC of 17 before class features. The Barbarian rages, boosting his Str to 22 and his Con to 20, but reducing his AC to 15. His attack bonus increases to +11 and he deals 2d6 + 9 with each successful attack. The Fighter just fights. Weapon Focus brings his attack bonus to +10 and Weapon Specialization brings his damage to 2d6 + 8. However, at this level the Barbarian can only effectively keep this up for two encounters per day. Assuming the four encounter workday, half of the time the Barbarian's attack bonus is only +9 and his damage is only 2d6+6, so things seem to break even.

By 12th level, a Fighter can have Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization (along with three other feats). The Barbarian on the other hand has Greater Rage 4/day. Giving each of them a +3 Greatsword, and Str scores of 25 this comes out to attack bonuses of +24 (Barbarian, assuming Rage in every encounter) vs +24 (Fighter), and damage of 2d6 + 16 (Barbarian) vs 2d6 + 14 (Fighter).

The Fighter is keeping up, and his other three feats can help him to close the gap, but the Barbarian has about 12 more hit points, better skills and more of them, Improved Uncanny Dodge (which helps to offset the AC penalty from Rage), Trap Sense +4, and of course Damage Reduction 2/— (which may not seem like anything, but it's the best kind of DR and it's way more than what the Fighter's got). So, the Barbarian's got the Fighter beat in both raw offense and raw defense, and it is only through Bonus Feats, which he has chewed through many of already just to compete, that the Fighter has any chance of catching up in one or the other of those. Out of combat, the Barbarian still has the better skill set.

The focus of most "Fighter fixes" is on eliminating the Fighter's dead levels and adding real, substantial class features to the class table aside from Bonus Feats. Many times this comes in the form of menus of options such as the Art of Battle menu of Szatany's Ultimate Fighter (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Fighter) or the Combat Training menu of my own Legacy Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201146#post11096802). I have come to realize that such ability menus are silly because they serve the same function as designing lots of Fighter-Only feats and then giving the Fighter a bonus feat every level. It doesn't really solve the problems with the Fighter, even if it does help a little.

Other times, people attempt to add things like Weapon Training +N and Armor Training +N to the dead levels (Pathfinder did, for example) which actually, strangely, put the Fighter's offensive and defensive numbers far above that which even a Raging Barbarian can match. These types of abilities are also not helpful in that the bonuses are unnecessary and do not offer the Fighter anything more than raw power.

Finally writers decided to give the Fighter fixed class features of its own, abilities that attempted to reflect a sophisticated and disciplined approach to combat befitting a trained warrior. Abilities which would be useful across the board in as many diverse combat encounters as possible. Abilities like Combat Focus and Foil Action of the Tome Fighter (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Fighter,_Tome_%283.5e_Class%29), Problem Solver of my "15th Fighter Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275538)," or Veteran of a Thousand Battles from Grod's latest Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276280). These are all cool features, but many reviewers have criticized abilities such as these as "forcing" the Fighter into a single perceived "role" or "concept," especially when the reviewer doesn't agree with that role, and that, in my own opinion, is a fair assessment.

At the heart of the Fighter class is the original design intention of the writers of 3rd Edition: customization and ease of play. The Fighter is the everyman hero that the player is then able to shape into whatever warrior-type his or her little heart desires. What then is to be done when Bonus Feats, Fighter Menus, Weapon/Armor Training, and even Fixed Class Features™ are found to be wanting by the majority of reviews?

[Ziegander]

Chapter 3: Zero to Hero, a Level by Level Analysis

http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/manictao/ulfen/308b87a234e6eb463712c4497be44663.jpg?v=149400

Levels 1-2
In the early levels, a Fighter will get by on his ability to survive the first successful attack targeting him in the day, his marginally better armor class, and his superior weapons which give him ranged attacks better than anything the Wizard has and melee attacks that can one-shot just about anything that's level-appropriate.

It is at these levels that you won't really notice a Fighter's incompetence. You get a class feature at both levels and even though you have piss-poor skill points, you should still be pretty good at movement stuff like Climb, Jump, and Swim. In a typical campaign, you won't need to do anything fancy to survive to 3rd level.

Do note, however, that you won't feel particularly powerful even at these first two levels. Sure, you can take a hit and not die, but you can only do that once a week or so. Realistic? Maybe. Fun? Well, your mileage may vary. These are the "novice" levels, where you don't really feel like a fully fledged character yet. There isn't much of a backstory you can write for yourself, especially as a Fighter, that will compare very accurately to the things you are able to do in-game. To put this to a comic-book analogy, you are not even as competent as Robin the Boy Wonder, you are Kick-Ass more closely. You know what you want to be, but you're really not good at it yet.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0MleOXTXPIM/TAbc45tj3xI/AAAAAAAAAKY/AJXXKqaUDQE/s400/kickass+interior.jpg

Levels 3-4
Compared to your rival, the Barbarian, you aren't missing out on much; however compared to a lot of other classes, and, more importantly, compared to the monsters you're regularly facing, it as at this point that you may start to realize something is amiss. Rogues likely outpace your melee damage while Spellcasters start to be able to match your melee damage with ranged attacks. Paladins and Rangers just picked up a couple spells per day which, at the very least, allows them to heal themselves a bit. The Fighter... well, at 3rd level he doesn't really improve at all. At 4th he picks up another bonus feat. Depending on the build, this feat either brings a new minor ability to the table or it does something virtually useless and is taken to serve as fuel for prerequisites of a better feat down the road.

At this point the Fighter could be started on the path of a Chain Tripper (Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Knock-Down, and Combat Reflexes), or a Power Charger (Jotunbrud, Power Attack, Dungeoncrasher ACF, Improved Bull Rush, and Knockback), but even as effective as such a path may feel the one-trick reputation of the Fighter will be very evident. Straying from one of these "trick" paths will undoubtedly result in much frustration and bitter realization that the Fighter just doesn't cut it.

At these levels you're expected to face down Ankhegs (nasty, acid-biting, burrowing things), Aranea (magical, poisonous spiders), Barghests (gnarly wolf-goblin demons that are better than you in virtually every way), Cockatrices (chickens that can kill you instantly), Gelatinous Cubes (I hope you have a ranged weapon...), a Warband of Kobolds, a Swarm of Darkmantles, a dozen Zombies, and many other interesting and dangerous encounters which will serve to remind you that you are falling behind in damage output and toughness. The more varied these encounters are the more you will begin to notice how little versatility you have.

Out of combat, Rangers and Rogues, even Barbarians are more capable at more activities than you are. Rangers can sneak with the best, Track creatures, and detect ambushes. Rogues fast-talk townspeople and Hobgoblins alike, find and disable traps, and open locked doors. Spell casters are another breed entirely. A single caster is able to replicate most of the above with spells, and between both a Cleric and a Wizard they can do it all and then some. The Fighter is lucky if he is still able to Climb, Jump, and Swim with any reasonable competitiveness. Most have to pick two of those and ignore the other.


http://files.continenteaston.webnode.com/system_preview_detail_200000007-3800838fa5/halforc2.jpg

Levels 5-6
These are the levels where the concept of mundanity really begins to go out the window. Let's look at some skill calculations (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2). The world's longest Jump record stands at just under 30ft. In order to replicate that, I'd say we want a character that can hit that on a roll of 15 (world records aren't achieved by Take 10 results). So we need a Jump skill modifier of +15 or more by 5th or 6th level. I'd say that's not so difficult. Assuming Str 14 (+2), Speed 30 (+0), Jump 8 ranks (+8), Tumble 5 ranks (+2), Skill Focus (Jump) (+3) we're at +15 already. Getting an additional +5 (or more) isn't hard at all. The Run feat, if we were so inclined, offers a further +4 bonus after a running start (something we get when we're going for the real-life long jump record). The Acrobatics feat will give us another +2. The Quick trait would increase our speed by 10ft, offering a further +4 bonus after a running start. Masterwork Shoes might bring us a further +2 bonus if the DM is feeling generous. Since we're trying to emulate the real world, using magic would be out of place, but even without it it's easily possible to get up to and higher than +21 to our check (Human character, after all) by 5th level. Earlier than that even. World record achieved.

For another illustration, let's look at the Knowledge skill, specifically we'll call it Knowledge (Physics). Now, let's talk about a real world genius, with Int 18, with 8 ranks and the Skill Focus feat. That's a +15 modifier right there. With no other bonuses, our genius can Take 10 to casually answer DC 25 questions, which, according to the d20SRD, are among the toughest questions within the field, and 30% of the time our genius will know the answer to the toughest physics questions known to man (DC 30). Albert Einstein did all of his thinking cloistered away from the rest of the world, without special equipment or scientific journals. He failed out of schooling and had very little contact with intellectual colleagues. But let's imagine a different scenario. By 3rd level, he's still got two more feats to play with. With the Education and Master of Knowledge feats he'll get a further +3 to Knowledge (Physics), with the help of a fellow physicist he'll get a further +2, and, depending on the quality of the item, he can have Masterwork Tools to grant a +2 bonus or a "Tome of Worldly Memory" for a +5 bonus 3/day (albeit magical, I would argue that having access to well-stocked libraries and scientific journals could offer him a similar bonus). At 5th level, that'll get him anywhere from a +22 to +25 modifier, enabling him to casually answer DC 30 questions, but also to tread into the DC 40 realm, positing theories and discovering truths about things so esoteric no one has ever considered them before. With these bonuses he could've been as low as 3rd level to accomplish all of the things he did in his lifetime.

Of course, all of the above requires strict dedication and absolute focus. But, extending the analogy, so does being a Fighter. So, at these levels the Fighter, with his strict focus, should be meeting and even starting to exceed what is possible for a real life person. Assuming Con 12 and average hit points, at 5th level, the Fighter has 36 hp, enough to survive a 10-story fall a little over 50% of the time, and though he's no world record setter, he can routinely make 20ft long jumps. In his area of focus, fighting, one that would be a bit nebulous to compare to the real world (but I will try anyway), he can be expected to, with some difficulty, emerge victorious against such true-to-life encounters as an African Lion (CR 3), a Grizzly Bear (CR 4), pair of Gorillas (CR 3), a pack of Wolves (CR 3-5), and even a small squad of lesser warriors (12 1st level Human Warriors, CR 5), and he can do this armed with a chain shirt, a longbow, and a sword. Of course, he isn't expected to do all of this in one day, but over the course of a week? Potentially. Over the course of a month of adventuring? Definitely. That's impressive.

Now, what's more impressive is what the spellcasters are getting up to. Spells like Animate Dead, Create Food and Water, Water Walk, Tongues, Fly, and Gaseous Form are starting to show up. Miracles made real. Paradigms of war forever altered. As low as 5th level, Clerics are able to emulate gods of real world religions. You may feel like you're capabilities are rising fast, but to put things into perspective, one of the members of the party is Jesus Christ. As a Fighter, you are more akin to a sort of Steve Irwin: Crocodile Puncher or, if you're really lucky, an early-career Hawkeye.

Since, we've established that 5th level, or lower, is where the limits of real-world characters are met and sometimes exceeded, this should become a cut-off point. After 5th level, mundane characters should start to become capable of deeds that no one in the real world could possibly match. Unfortunately for the Fighter (and many of his mundane pals), he never really manages it. Oh, sure, his "fighting skill" increases to the point that he can demonstrably survive more damage than any real person could possibly hope to, and he can successfully defeat creatures that would kill even the most skilled and stern veteran of our world, but he does so, not because he gains extraordinary abilities, but because the basic numbers that even an NPC commoner gets, continue to increase to values that automatically put him a cut above real life people.


http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120920062913/starwars-exodus/images/thumb/6/64/Hawkeye2.jpg/300px-Hawkeye2.jpg

Levels 7+
At these levels we're talking about superhumans. Between levels 7 and 10 or so, we're still talking about characters that, while they do things that no human in the real world could ever possibly do, they do things that seem possible. Like, for example, Batman. Bruce Wayne, regardless of whatever they tell you in the comics, has superpowers. No real life human being can be a skilled surgeon + Olympic athlete + world-class acrobat + master of all martial arts + master detective + master tactician + master of sneaking and all black ops. Oh, and he also, apparently, has the strongest will of any sentient creature in the universe. If that's not a superpower, I don't know what qualifies these days. So, yeah, at these levels, you should be able to expect your character to play like Batman. But, unless you're a Wizard (or an Archivist maybe), it isn't going to. If you are a Wizard, or another Tier 1 spellcaster, then you can expect to play the game like a deity. Which is just inappropriate for this early in the game, right?

At these levels, you will begin to notice the cost of upkeeping and upgrading magical items. Now, as a spellcaster, this isn't likely to hurt you much. You have one, maybe two items that you really need to worry about. But as a warrior, you have your primary stat booster that you need to upgrade, you have your weapon that you need to upgrade (and if you want to have options you'll want at least one secondary weapon which must be upgraded too), you have your armor that you should upgrade, you have AC boosters that you need to upgrade, save boosters that you need to upgrade, etc, etc, and so forth. Why don't casters need this stuff? Why, they have spells, of course. Spells with durations of at least 7+ minutes, and often 7+ hours. Before being Extended or Persisted, of course. They can cover their bases with spells that are generally lower level than the spells they need to win encounters with, and they have so many spells per day that they can afford to waste them on stuff like this.

As a warrior, if you weren't finding yourself physically outclassed by your enemies at lower levels, you will definitely see it happening now. Creatures are going to be bigger than you, stronger than you, faster than you, and tougher than you. Often all at once. Even when your enemies are not, they are going to have modes of movement that make them impossible for you to fight (what does a warrior do against a burrowing creature like the Bulette? gets devoured, that's what), or spells/SLAs that make them superior to you in ways you can't even hope to match.

But, even though all warriors suffer from the above problems, Fighters get hurt possibly the worst of all. At these levels, there are very very few feats that, as a Fighter, you are able to take that you couldn't take when you were level 1-5. What that means is, when you get your class feature at 14th level, when other classes are getting a class feature appropriate in power for 14th level (or at least supposedly), you are getting a class feature that was appropriate (again, supposedly) for 1st thru 5th level. Ouch. How can you be expected to defend yourself against the above threats, let alone even play the game at this level, with options that were, maybe, appropriate for a character half your level? None of your feats scale, so you don't get any help in that way.

By the time you reach 11th level, things have gotten entirely out of hand. Casters are throwing around so many powerful spells each day, spells that offer them abilities that you can't even come close to contending with, spells like Contingency, Flesh to Stone, Forbiddance, Planar Binding, Raise Dead, and Teleport. Things that thoroughly change the manner in which the game is played, and control, not only the enemies, but the variables under which conflict even takes place. And we're only halfway through playing, as far as the designers of D&D are concerned. When you play a Fighter, especially a core Fighter, you are playing a class that was only ever designed to 4th level, at maximum, while there are 16 other levels to the game that your fellow teammates, but also the enemies you will face, are experiencing to the fullest. At these levels you increasingly sit on the sidelines, unable to contribute to an ever-evolving state of gameplay and ever-increasing power level.

At levels 11+ you should be playing like a super superhuman, someone that literally lives in such a way that is impossible for a normal human being. Someone like... Mr. Fantastic, Spider-Man, or Wolverine. You are skilled at a level that is implausible, but you also have innate attributes that are clearly, massively beyond the possible threshold of normal human ability.

At levels 16+ you should be akin to a god. Hercules, Thor, etc, should be fitting character concepts for 16th+ warrior-type characters, but the game doesn't support that in the slightest. Casters, on the other hand, have been playing at this level for over half the game already.


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mduitnPgm81qj02myo1_500.jpg

[Ziegander]

Conclusion

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i351/TrollBrau/PGBVI.jpg

Let's restate the problems we've exposed:



1) The Fighter is built as simple and easy to play, but it showcases Ivory Tower Game Design* and punishes less-than-stellar player choices. It punishes them hard.

*I would provide a contextual hyperlink, but Monte Cook has removed the controversial essay from his website.

2) The Fighter is full of dead levels. More of them than any other Core class (yes, I include Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer because they always get more spells per day). When other classes are improving every level (or at least most levels), the Fighter has many levels where he gets nothing but +1 to attack rolls.

3) Things like a good HD (a very poor measure of toughness) and good BAB (a meager benefit compared to size categories, raw strength, and of course spellcasting) were placed, by the game designers, on equal footing with stuff like... size categories, raw strength, and spellcasting. This means that the Fighter is weaker than half of the game by design (and possibly not by accident).

4) The Fighter has the worst number of skill points per level with the most egregiously poor skill list in the game. This has given him the stereotype of the Big Stupid Fighter.

5) Weapon and armor proficiencies barely matter beyond 2nd level, and having the dubious benefit of proficiency with medium or heavy armors turns out to be simply a waste of time and money. All anyone needs or, optimally, wants is proficiency with light armor and maybe with shields.

6) The Fighter's saves are, on the whole, poor. This coupled with his only defense being hit points means that his survivability is drastically low.

7) Bonus Feats are garbage. I don't think I need to elaborate.

8) At levels 1-2, when the Fighter is at his strongest and most capable, his most impressive skills (and possibly his only ones) are that he can kill enemies in one hit and, sometimes, not get killed by his enemies in one hit. At any higher levels, the Fighter becomes sorely outclassed in terms of offense and defense and versatility and utility, not only by his party mates, but by most, if not all, level-appropriate enemies he faces.

9) The Fighter never stops being "ordinary." He barely even qualifies as "extraordinary." Meanwhile, his teammates, as early as 5th level, are mirroring real world deities.

10) The concept of wealth-by-level hurts a warrior more than it hurts the already vastly more powerful spellcasting characters.

11) Finally, as a Fighter gains levels, he eventually realizes that there is no end-game content for him. There's barely even any mid-game content and most of what's there is irrelevant or undesirable. There is no game content in the 7+ level range that will help him to compete with the massive advantages his enemies have over him.


Will you look at that. 11 main problems, one for every bonus feat the Fighter has... Anyway, there are two courses of action that I see. Either the entire game needs fixed to meet the standards of the Fighter class, OR the Fighter class needs to be scrapped and fully re-realized with all new mechanics and a keen eye on the mechanical implications built into d20 as a whole. Well, let's explore those courses, shall we?

Rewriting Reality
What parts of d20 can we work on to make the Fighter more viable than it currently is? Well, work could be done to help make a good Hit Dice and a good Base Attack value more valuable, certainly. Weapons and armor (and proficiency in them) could be made to have more impact on the game into the mid and high levels. Monster design and expectations could be heavily tweaked. "Tiers" of gameplay (no, not JaronK's Tiers) could be better baked into the system to reinforce the idea of growing beyond human limits into superhuman, legendary, and godlike status by the time you've reached the endgame. Finally, wealth by level could be scrapped entire or at the very least thoroughly re-examined and redefined to the point the repercussions would be felt throughout all items and item effects.

Can all of that be done? Sure. Let's take HD, for example. So, we want to make a bigger HD more important. First, let's add a self-heal mechanism to the game. Something maybe like 5th Edition's take on it, where after a short rest you may spend a Hit Dice to regain hit points. Characters with bigger HD regain more hit points. Okay, now let's take it a step further. All healing restores hit points to a character in dice sizes equal to the character's Hit Dice. So, a hypothetical Cure Light Wounds restores 1 HD + 1/caster level (max +5) hit points to a target creature. Used on the Fighter that's 1d10+X, but used on the Wizard it's only 1d4+X. Not mind-blowingly awesome, but an improvement nonetheless. There are lots of other ways to improve a larger HD. Now, how about making BAB matter more? Well, lots of people have gone about this in different ways. I have tied maneuvers/stances to it in a past project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252771). Frank & K's Tomes (http://turing.bard.edu/~mk561/frank_k_0.5.1.pdf) introduced a new mechanic called "The Edge." There are other things that can be done to improve the quality of Base Attack Bonus. My favored solution? Instead of attempting to add lots of tidbits to the game to make BAB as important as it seems to be, instead, stop taking it so seriously and rework the game so that having a good BAB isn't considered über powerful.

One of the harder parts of the d20 game to work on is the concept of wealth-by-level. Sure, it can be scrapped entirely, but then something must take it's place. I have worked on many a pipedream of game design in the past, and unfortunately, I have not come across a system, or worked to design one, that was able to deliver a mechanic that, in this area, did not sacrifice realism for game balance (or vice versa) to varying degrees but often in major ways. My favored solution is have the "economy" of the default game setting be based on coins and consumable goods (magic or not). The permanent magic items are either priceless artifacts or created by player characters and, thus, not likely to be sold. I would ditch all notion that any price be attached to a Gauntlet of Ogre Power such that a player could expect to walk into any town and buy or sell one for the same price anywhere on earth. Ditch that and you're on your way to a less restrictive, less-punishing character wealth system already and you haven't even written anything, instead you've omitted rules.

The Warblade Reloaded
The Warblade was presented in the Tome of Battle, which, though it has received a noticeable amount of flak, is still considered one of the most successful and well-received books published for D&D 3rd Edition. What made the book, and the Warblade in particular, was that it not only made the concept of the warrior (and perhaps more importantly, the mundane warrior) cool but it made it effective. These classes, these warriors, using the new rules outlined in the manual, could play the game, at all levels, and did not feel like useless weaklings when pit against mid to high level monsters. The Warblade is considered by many, though probably not most 3rd Edition players, to be the "official unofficial Fighter fix," for the edition, and in a lot of ways this is not far off. Much of the flavor of the class is close or identical, and many of the Warblade's class features cross-reference the Fighter. But, as much as the Warblade has going for it over the Fighter in terms of skill and raw power it still fails to replace the Fighter for many groups and for many varying reasons.

What if we could unite the fans under the Warblade with a few tweaks? What if, with a new but similar design, we could build a better Warblade? But we won't call it the Warblade. We'll just call it what it is. It's the Unofficial Official Fighter fix, and it embraces the path of the Warblade, but marches to the beat of its own drum. Eventually, the design goes in a different direction entirely. Can we create a class that uses the best concepts of Tome of Battle's design and yet retains what we all love about the Fighter, that impossible dream of satisfying customization coupled with ease of play? I think we can. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277367)

First we need to tweak the fluff of the class and its abilities and then we tackle the presentation. Ditch the eastern mythology and the blade magic stuff and return to the more grounded and gritty roots of the soldier of fortune. Replace maneuvers and stances with a set of mechanics that offers a similar range of raw power but with a presentation that doesn't make people think, "ew, you got spells in my Fighter." Finally, give the class a wider, more readily acceptable range in power levels. Making it capable of playing Tier 4 to Tier 2 would go a long way. Making it capable of replicating a wider variety of character archetypes (ranged jumps out, and screams, in particular) would take it another step forward.

So, how do we replace maneuvers and stances and yet offer a similar level of power? I have an elegant solution that not only provides a wider final range of power level, but also doesn't look anything like spells. All that is needed is something called the Arts of War, a few words that show up on the 1st level of the class features table. That's the most noticeable change to the Fighter class entry at first glance. This feature gives the Fighter a pool of Stamina Points (or SP) at the start of each day equal to 3 + his Con modifier which he may spend to reroll an attack roll or a saving throw made during combat. He may recover these points with a short rest (5 minutes or longer). Now, more interestingly, he also learns maneuvers and stances, which have Fighter feats as prerequisites. Maneuvers cost 1 SP each to use and are one-shot effects, but stances cost nothing and are passive benefits of which the Fighter may only benefit from one at a time. They do not have levels like spells do, but some are more powerful than others depending on what feats they use as prerequisites and how many feats are needed as prerequisites. Some of the most powerful maneuvers and stances require a specific Fighter level before they can be learned. Thoughts?

[137beth]

Well, you have certainly summarized the issues with the fighter.

I actually like the idea of being able to select class features. Now, people have said in the past that "feats can never be as good as class features." Of course, this is rather absurd, because aside from the name, you can make feats which are identical to class features (e.g. a series of feats, "wizard casting [level number]", which require you to have the given level in fighter, and grant all the spellcasting powers of the wizard for that level. There, the fighter now has (almost) all the toys the wizard has, assuming he has enough feats, which he doesn't.)

The problem enters when the fighter only gets a class feature every other level, and those class features are not as powerful as other classes'. The reason is because other classes gets feats, and they are not suppose to be as powerful as class features. But there is an easy solution: create fighter-bonus-feats which require at least X levels in fighter, and make it as powerful as a level X feature. Then give fighters a bonus feat EVERY level. Now if you branch out into prestige classes, you will be missing class features (which happen to be called feats). If you like, rename "fighter bonus feats" "alternate fighter class features," and add a rule that a fighter can take a lower level ACF as a "normal" feat.

Now, the hard part is the task of creating powerful new fighter feats alternate class features.

EDIT: I want it on the record that when I wrote this, only the first post of this thread contained more than the phrase "reserved."

[Ziegander]

I actually like the idea of being able to select class features.

Of course you do, so do I. So does probably everyone that's ever enjoyed playing a Fighter, even if only for a short time.


The problem enters when the fighter only gets a class feature every other level, and those class features are not as powerful as other classes'. The reason is because other classes gets feats, and they are not suppose to be as powerful as class features.

Right. A Fighter's feats are not as powerful as another class' class features, yet the Fighter gets fewer of these feats than other classes get class features. Yikes. Talk about the short end of the stick.


But there is an easy solution: create fighter-bonus-feats which require at least X levels in fighter, and make it as powerful as a level X feature. Then give fighters a bonus feat EVERY level.

There are many issues still with such a solution. To name a couple off the top of my head: 1) Such a Fighter would still only be good at combat stuff; and 2) The resultant class would still be difficult to play well and frustratingly punishing to poorly-made and/or non-synergistic choices.


If you like, rename "fighter bonus feats" "alternate fighter class features," and add a rule that a fighter can take a lower level ACF as a "normal" feat.

Now, the hard part is the task of creating powerful new fighter feats alternate class features.

I feel like this is much like the "ability menus" I mentioned above, which is just calling Fighter-Only feats by another name, and accomplishes nothing that simply writing new Fighter-Only feats doesn't already.

EDIT: Oh, also, Chapter Two is up. Currently writing Chapter Three.

[bobthe6th]

I honestly favor just giving them menus... as I see the bonus feats as just asking for someone to finnegal their way into picking them up. The problem becomes filling the menus....

I like this so far, interested to see how it ends...

[nonsi]

>> The Fighter has the second highest Hit Die in the game, being one step behind (and an average of 1 hit point behind per level) the Barbarian...!!

Someone should've hit the guy that suggested the Barbarian class for 3e on the head with a blunt instrument.
D&D 3.5 is over crouded with too many base classes (not to mention too many PrCs).
I see no more justification for the Barbariam being a separate class than I would for Archer, Zealot, Thug, Berzerker, Martial Artist or even Knight or Swashbuckler.
These all should be applicable by taking different build options with level progression.

[bobthe6th]

>> The Fighter has the second highest Hit Die in the game, being one step behind (and an average of 1 hit point behind per level) the Barbarian...!!

Someone should've hit the guy that suggested the Barbarian class for 3e on the head with a blunt instrument.
D&D 3.5 is over crouded with too many base classes (not to mention too many PrCs).
I see no more justification for the Barbariam being a separate class than I would for Archer, Zealot, Thug, Berzerker, Martial Artist or even Knight or Swashbuckler.
These all should be applicable by taking different build options with level progression.

Next your going to say that druid should have just been a cleric with some good domains... and you would be right. Honestly, I suspect you could colapse the base classes of 3.5 to like 6(int based caster, wis based caster, cha based caster, Skill monkey, Fighter, and hybrid caster/Fighter), or even 5 if you make the hybrids just fighter AFCs.

Though I suspect the classes will be complicated as hell to fit in all the needed versitility... and Feats would have to be really good.

[nonsi]

Next your going to say that druid should have just been a cleric with some good domains... and you would be right. Honestly, I suspect you could colapse the base classes of 3.5 to like 6(int based caster, wis based caster, cha based caster, Skill monkey, Fighter, and hybrid caster/Fighter), or even 5 if you make the hybrids just fighter AFCs.

Though I suspect the classes will be complicated as hell to fit in all the needed versitility... and Feats would have to be really good.

They need not be complicated at all.
Did you ever encounter my homebrew codex (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317545-3-N-%96-Codex-Gigas-Nonsi-s-complete-3-5-Revision-(Final-PEACH-not-needed)) ?
I couldn't (or even attempted to) make it with 5, but with 14 base classes, I managed to process a baseline for the creation of every non-modern character concept I've ever encountered.

[Waker]

I think that at least part of the issue with the Fighter is that because it was supposed to be a build-your-own-character idea unlike the others which at least imply some kind of backstory or imagery. The Fighter is a bland class. Even the name is the most boring word they could have chosen for it. Paladin's are defenders of the faith, Rangers are masters of the hunt and prevent the despoiling of nature, Barbarians are wildsmen who have no place in civilized society. And the Fighter? He fights... Now granted, a character who plays the aforementioned classes need not adhere to the stereotypes I listed, but it gives you some kind of idea to follow or reject. When I think of a Fighter with his slew of feats, it implies to me a level of training beyond that of a normal warrior, soldier or bodyguard are the strongest images in my head.
Fixing the Fighter would require several changes in my mind. The first of which would be a consensus amongst players as to what constitutes a Fighter. Adding to the skill list would be the next step, so that a Fighter can contribute to situations that don't require decapitations. Spot would be an excellent addition, but perhaps Knowledge (Local) and Knowledge (Nobility) would be decent as well. The third change would be the most onerous, rehauling the feat system and making them worthwhile. Like the classes in the PHB, many feats are worlds apart in their usefulness and power. To add insult to injury, many of the best feats for magic users require no prerequisites while the ones intended for mundanes are weak and are built on a feat chain system. Maximize or Extend Spell are excellent feats that remain useful into higher levels, whereas the same can't be said of Combat Expertise.
Adding some class features to the Fighter would certainly be nice. Even simple ones like removing movement speed penalties from armor are welcome. At it's core though, the feat system is the biggest flaw. While it's true that other classes can take the feats too, the Fighter would still have the advantage of taking far more of them. If it were worth it, I'm sure many Fighters would practice two or more weapon styles, unlike now where any melee combatant must use two-handed weapons.

In summation: Define the class itself, more skills and skill points, a couple class features and a big fix of the feats themselves.

[NotScaryBats]

How about:

Keep Fighter Bonus Feats for customization

Give Fighters Boosts to different weapon styles, like make it feasible for a Fighter to whip out his bow and shoot the flying enemy for actual damage, even if he is a focused 2 handed charger.

So it could be something like
1 - Quick Draw
3 - Bonus to Fancy Maneuvers
5 - Rope Trick Equiv * IE difficult to surprise even while sleeping, sleep in armor without penalty, etc etc
7 - Add something no matter what weapon you're using?
9 - overcome dr?
...?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I have come to realize that such ability menus are silly because they serve the same function as designing lots of Fighter-Only feats and then giving the Fighter a bonus feat every level. It doesn't really solve the problems with the Fighter, even if it does help a little.

And why not? A wizard is basically a familiar, some bonus feats, and a menu of wizard-only abilities, the difference being that the wizard menu actually gives powerful, versatile, worthwhile options. Sure, if all the new options are just fighter-only feats by another name it won't help at all, but giving the fighter a list of new abilities which don't have to conform to the low power level and pathetic standards of feats and can't be poached by warblades or other "count as a fighter for feats" classes instead of just throwing bonus feats at him seems like a perfectly workable solution.

I think one of the major reasons that martial classes rarely get Nice Things is that 'brewers don't like to give fighter types their own ability menus to draw from, instead relying on bonus feats or giving them just a handful of selectable abilities. The major difference between the a fighter fix's class abilities and the wizard's class abilities is that this table...

{table]Fighter Level|Special
1|Weapon Aptitude, Improviser, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush
2|Combat Trance, Adrenaline Rush, Combat Expertise, Weapon Focus
3|Weapon Training, Armor Training, Improved Shield Bash, Skill Focus
4|Grit, Never Give Up, Weapon Specialization, Improved Grapple
5|First in the Fray, Delayed Damage Pool, Improved Feint, Two-Weapon Fighting
6|Dungeoncrasher, Fearsome, Shock Trooper, Karmic Strike
7|Foil Action, Battle Clarity, Improved Trip, Shield Ward
8|Tactician, Lethal Gambit, Stand Still, Improved Disarm
9|Fighting Dirty, Pack Mule, Agile Shield Fighter, Improved Critical
10|Mettle, Steady Stance, Jack of All Trades, Knockback
11|...
12|etc.[/table]
...looks like a messy, random, overly-crowded list of bonus feats, borrowed class features, and stuff you've never heard of, whereas this table...

{table]Wizard Level|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th
1|1||||
2|2||||
3|2|1|||
4|3|2|||
5|3|2|1||
6|3|3|2||
7|4|3|2|1|
8|4|3|3|2|
9|4|4|3|2|1
10|4|4|3|3|2
11|...
12|etc.[/table]
...is nice, clean, and easily understood on a first glance, offloading all the heavy mental processing until you actually start picking spells, at which point you're already invested in playing a wizard and don't have to judge the class as a whole.

If you set up the fighter's abilities similarly, structuring them into several groups and levels and splitting off the ability lists from the rest of the class description, you can make a table like this:

{table]Fighter Level|Soldier Techniques|Hero Techniques|Legend Techniques|Epic Techniques
1|3|||
2|3|||
3|3|||
4|4|||
5|4|||
6|4|2||
7|5|2||
8|5|2||
9|5|3||
10|6|3||
11|...
12|etc.[/table]
...that won't have people complaining about an overstuffed Special column, and you can write abilities like this:

Army Slayer
Tier: Legend
Prerequisite: Two Hero-tier techniques from the Dreadnaught or Berserker path
Benefit: Make two attack rolls at your highest base attack bonus and two damage rolls with your main hand, and take the higher result for both. As a full-round action, you may move up to four times your speed and make a single attack against each creature that comes within your reach, using the above attack and damage rolls instead of rolling for each creature individually. Any creatures with fewer hit dice than half your base attack bonus whom you do not kill but who witness you slaughter their allies must make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 level + Str bonus) or become panicked for 5 minutes or until the end of combat, whichever happens first.

...instead of ones like this:

Ultimate Secret Weapon Knowledge
Prerequisites: Fighter level 18, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword), Greater Weapon Focus (longsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (longsword), Weapon Supremacy (longsword), Weapon Mastery (longsword), Improved Critical (longsword)
Benefit: You get yet another boring +2 to attack and damage rolls with longswords that stacks with the boring bonuses from the prerequisite feats.
Special: Warblades cannot use their Weapon Aptitude class feature to take this feat as a bonus feat, since they have standards.
Like Waker said, the concept of the fighter class is "take this class and make every Fighting-Man ever" just like the wizard's concept is "take this class and make every Magic-User ever." And just like the wizard, the fighter needs to have customizable lists of stuff to pick from so he can be built in any way you want--and he has to get enough of them to do that, to end up as a well-rounded character with lots of in-theme options, and not just get stuck with a handful of mediocre feats at level 20.

Making the fighter focus on a weapon style will not fix the fighter. Giving the fighter +AC past the first few levels will not fix the fighter. The fact that wizards are judged by spell power (such that "ripping holes in reality" and "being immune to tons of stuff" are valid high-level spell concepts) while fighters are judged by feat power (such that "hit a little harder" and "use armor better" are valid high-level feat concepts) is what's holding the fighter back, and until the fighter can be divorced from the feat system while still remaining the customizable everyman class he cannot be fixed satisfactorily.

[NotScaryBats]

I've just seen a whole buncha people take one look at that maneuver list and cry "ToB makes Fighters into Wizards!"

I love the idea, personally, but what is different from your Fighter up there and a Warblade, really?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I've just seen a whole buncha people take one look at that maneuver list and cry "ToB makes Fighters into Wizards!"

That's precisely what I'm talking about; it's that formatting that's the problem. People have somehow got it into their heads that having a column with numbers on it means "magic" and having a bunch of words in the Special column means "not magic" despite the fact that the warblade (with a bunch of numbers in columns) is a nonmagical class and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276334) (which looks almost exactly like a fighter) is a magical class.

The people who can't accept that number column =/= magic or think that warblades are "casting spells" are not (or at least shouldn't be) the target of fighter fixes; they have something that works for them, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own playstyle. I'd like to think that people who actually want a working fighter can look beyond table formatting to get a class that actually works, but what do I know?


I love the idea, personally, but what is different from your Fighter up there and a Warblade, really?

Superficially? Not much, their tables will probably look fairly similar. It's the actual selectable abilities that make the difference, and you're not going to find an ability like Army Slayer in ToB.

[Waker]

Like Waker said, the concept of the fighter class is "take this class and make every Fighting-Man ever" just like the wizard's concept is "take this class and make every Magic-User ever." And just like the wizard, the fighter needs to have customizable lists of stuff to pick from so he can be built in any way you want--and he has to get enough of them to do that, to end up as a well-rounded character with lots of in-theme options, and not just get stuck with a handful of mediocre feats at level 20.

Making the fighter focus on a weapon style will not fix the fighter. Giving the fighter +AC past the first few levels will not fix the fighter. The fact that wizards are judged by spell power (such that "ripping holes in reality" and "being immune to tons of stuff" are valid high-level spell concepts) while fighters are judged by feat power (such that "hit a little harder" and "use armor better" are valid high-level feat concepts) is what's holding the fighter back, and until the fighter can be divorced from the feat system while still remaining the customizable everyman class he cannot be fixed satisfactorily.

Coming up with neatly defined tables charting the progress of an archetype would help. You could create a base list of skills that all Fighters share, but then add extras dependent on which type of Fighter you are playing. Establishing a chassis to build upon would help, then deciding which archetypes would you want a Fighter to have. Then when you are asked what you are playing you could say "I'm playing a Guerilla" rather then "I'm playing a *yawn* Fighter." If a Wizard specializes in a field of magic, his class name changes to suit the school. Why shouldn't a Fighter change based on his approach?
When coming up with the specialties of the archetypes though, you'll probably need to make sure not to follow the style of ToB. Even if fluff is mutable, too many people hate the idea of mundanes with magic-type abilities. Making the various combat styles actually playable would be an admirable goal. And instead of just giving the Fighter bigger numbers, being able to contribute to a fight in a meaningful way would be nice. Finding ways to not be completely obviated by flying enemies is just one example.

And I'll state it again, feats are terrible. I enjoy the idea of the system, but they need to be reworked, which I am slowly in the process of doing.

[Ziegander]

And why not? A wizard is basically a familiar, some bonus feats, and a menu of wizard-only abilities, the difference being that the wizard menu actually gives powerful, versatile, worthwhile options.

The Wizard gets two free picks from that menu per class level and can add more picks to that by spending time and trivial amounts of money.


Sure, if all the new options are just fighter-only feats by another name it won't help at all, but giving the fighter a list of new abilities which don't have to conform to the low power level and pathetic standards of feats and can't be poached by warblades or other "count as a fighter for feats" classes instead of just throwing bonus feats at him seems like a perfectly workable solution.

Yes, you are potentially right. What I called silly was precisely the notion of designing menus of Fighter-Only feats and not calling them Fighter-Only feats in the first place. If we venture outside the realm of feats entirely, then we can go all sorts of places. But are we still working on "The Fighter" once we've gone all the way out there?

That is a major concern.


If you set up the fighter's abilities similarly, structuring them into several groups and levels and splitting off the ability lists from the rest of the class description, you can make a table like this:

{table]Fighter Level|Soldier Techniques|Hero Techniques|Legend Techniques|Epic Techniques
1|3|||
2|3|||
3|3|2||
4|4|2||
5|4|2|1|
6|4|3|1|
7|5|3|1|1
8|5|3|2|1
9|5|4|2|1
10|6|4|2|2
11|...
12|etc.[/table]

My olde-timey Warlord, from way back in the day followed a similar pattern, although it still used feats as the source of power and was designed to cater to the prevailing trends of what ailed Fighters and Fighter Fans at the time.


...that won't have people complaining about an overstuffed Special column, and you can write abilities like this:

Army Slayer
Tier: Legend
Prerequisite: Two Hero-tier techniques from the Dreadnaught or Berserker path
Benefit: Make two attack rolls at your highest base attack bonus and two damage rolls with your main hand, and take the higher result for both. As a full-round action, you may move up to four times your speed and make a single attack against each creature that comes within your reach, using the above attack and damage rolls instead of rolling for each creature individually. Any creatures with fewer hit dice than half your base attack bonus whom you do not kill but who witness you slaughter their allies must make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 level + Str bonus) or become panicked for 5 minutes or until the end of combat, whichever happens first.

So... if I could get my Warlord to have a baby with Xefas's Sun Hero (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266809), we just might get somewhere. Oh, and I could finally find a use for all of these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183385)! This does sound good, I'll give you that. The trick will be to retain the customization and generalist nature of the Fighter. Icing on the cake would be if it still felt thoroughly mundane at levels 1-5.


Like Waker said, the concept of the fighter class is "take this class and make every Fighting-Man ever" just like the wizard's concept is "take this class and make every Magic-User ever." And just like the wizard, the fighter needs to have customizable lists of stuff to pick from so he can be built in any way you want--and he has to get enough of them to do that, to end up as a well-rounded character with lots of in-theme options, and not just get stuck with a handful of mediocre feats at level 20.

Making the fighter focus on a weapon style will not fix the fighter. Giving the fighter +AC past the first few levels will not fix the fighter. The fact that wizards are judged by spell power (such that "ripping holes in reality" and "being immune to tons of stuff" are valid high-level spell concepts) while fighters are judged by feat power (such that "hit a little harder" and "use armor better" are valid high-level feat concepts) is what's holding the fighter back, and until the fighter can be divorced from the feat system while still remaining the customizable everyman class he cannot be fixed satisfactorily.

Seerow has said it on multiple occasions that he doesn't think it would be possible for him to fix the Fighter without a complete game system overhaul and rebalance. It is easy to agree with him. People are going to be resistant to any "Fighter Fix" that does the job by removing the Barbarian and Knight classes or requiring that the Monk, Ranger, and Paladin also be fixed by some future update by the author that may (and will likely) never come.

If it were so easy to design this perfect class that was equal parts level-appropriate power and freeform customization, loved by all, and accepted into all of our homes, then we would have designed it already. Instead, through trial and error, we are all still working on it. Nobody's gotten it right, and reviewers consistently find Fighter Fixes to be "too anime" or "too focused" or something else. It's not just about marrying power and customization. Presentation and user-accessibility are equally if not more important aspects of class design, and the Fighter in particular has proven to be a class in which putting all of these elements together in a single package seems to be excruciatingly difficult for whatever reasons.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The Wizard gets two free picks from that menu per class level and can add more picks to that by spending time and trivial amounts of money.

And several fighter fixes let them do something similar with fighter feats, while plenty of caster fixes drastically restrict spells known without reining in the power level much. It's the individual abilities that matter, not the structure surrounding them.


Yes, you are potentially right. What I called silly was precisely the notion of designing menus of Fighter-Only feats and not calling them Fighter-Only feats in the first place.

That I can agree with.


If we venture outside the realm of feats entirely, then we can go all sorts of places. But are we still working on "The Fighter" once we've gone all the way out there?

I'd say so. The fighter wasn't just "the feat guy" in AD&D, and he doesn't have to be the feat guy in 3e or a revision thereto. The rogue is still recognizably roguish if you change up sneak attack with ambush feats or changing the die size a bit, the wizard is still recognizably wizardly if you muck around with spell prep times and spell acquisition, and so forth, so changing the fighter to use his own subsystem doesn't have to change him too much thematically.


Seerow has said it on multiple occasions that he doesn't think it would be possible for him to fix the Fighter without a complete game system overhaul and rebalance. It is easy to agree with him. People are going to be resistant to any "Fighter Fix" that does the job by removing the Barbarian and Knight classes or requiring that the Monk, Ranger, and Paladin also be fixed by some future update by the author that may (and will likely) never come.

Oh, definitely. Making the fighter independent of the feat system is a necessary condition for fixing it, but not a sufficient one. But doing that system overhaul isn't hard, either; the problems are known, people have potential solutions, and there are a few bazillion fighter fixes out there (2/3 of which you wrote :smallwink:) from which to draw inspiration. The main impediment is effort and time (and organization, if you're trying to run a communal project), not actual difficulty, and that's another reason why people would rather just point players at the list of several hundred pre-written fighter feats than write everything up themselves.

[Dark.Revenant]

Part of the problem with the Fighter affects all martial classes (but the Fighter especially due to the total lack of Supernatural stuff): the system itself plays against them. Fixing the Fighter completely requires a deeper change than a class swap.

[Ashtagon]

One thing that 3e fighter fixes often ignore is that in 2e, fighters actually ended up with the best saves, in all areas. Fighters really need a mechanic that let's them say "screw you, saving throw check".

My personal fix for this aspect was to let them re-roll saving throws a number of times per day equal to their class level. This is a free action used at the time the saving throw is made, and if need be, the PC could burn through 20 re-rolls to make the save against that flesh to stone spell.

[Jarrick]

Ive been brewing the notion of making a series of specialist fighter classes. I reasoned that the biggest problem with the fighter is that it tries to do too much with one class, so I made specialized variants. They all get the fighter's feats (minus one which is picked for them at 1st level) and get unique class features and a few more skills besides that. This allows the fighter classes to excel at one thing and still be pretty decent at other things as well.

There's the Archer (Any ranged-based concept), the Gladiator (two-weapon/double weapon specialist that fights dirty), the Shocktroop (2-handed weapons and battlefield control/chopping and breaking things and knocking foes silly), as well as improved versions of the paladin (more smite and heals/class features), swashbuckler (more feats/class features), and knight (renamed as Guardian. Sword and board defensive specialist). I havent touched monk yet, but that's on the way, and ranger is fine where it is.

They all have their niches, but they are also highly customizable. Loading a gladiator down with ranged feats and handing him a bunch of javelins gets you a rapid-fire two-fisted spear-chucker build (my players almost died against that orc). Give an archer some melee feats, and boom, dwarven axe fighter who throws as deadly as he melees. They also have skills, hit dice, and armor proficiencies that vary from class to class, reflecting each one's specialty.

All of their class features are compared to some of the things casters are capable of doing at the same level, but without all the cheese. At the same time, Im in the process of designing T3 caster classes to replace the t1-2s in a similar vein as my summoner and witch classes that I've posted here in the past. When Im done, I think the barbarian, bard, ranger, and rogue will be the only untouched core classes.

[Morty]

I've said it before and I will say it again... I've come to the conclusion that one of the problems Fighter has in the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons is, ironically, the game's focus on combat. In many other games, fighting is just one of the skill sets. In a group of PCs, you might find a person who is a professional combatant, another who can handle herself in a combat situation in a pinch and yet another one who has no idea how to handle a weapon and/or lacks whatever combat abilities or power the game's genre might have. Not so in 3e D&D, where everyone is supposed to contribute to combat in a roughly equal measure, and combat takes up the majority of the game. So what do we do with the person whose only skill is fighting? Even other full BaB classes have something non-combat to bring to the table. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved without completely rewriting 3e.

In general, my view of the issue is that while all the problems with the Fighter class that you've listed are undisputably true, they're no less important than what you mentioned in the first post but haven't elaborated upon yet - the fundamental assumptions in the design of the 3rd edition that screw over all martial classes, but the Fighter in particular.

Most Fighter fixes, especially the better ones, give them a laundry-list of abilities that let them ignore or resist the various effects the game is liable to throw at them with increasing frequency above level 5. This is, of course, a result of the fact that regular saving throws and hit points simply aren't enough not to be completely shut off. It's how the game is built, because the designers greviously underestimated such abilities. As a result, Fighter fixes tend to turn them into larger-than-life unstoppable juggernauts from relatively low levels... because being a larger-than-life unstoppable juggernaut is what it takes to resist special and magic abilities.

I find it problematic not just from the thematic viewpoint but also the gamist viewpoint, so to speak. I don't think it's a good sign if the game turns into a rocket-tag where everyone throws abilities that can either be shrugged off or shut down the enemy completely if they're not shrugged off.

So, there you have it. I think the reasons for the Fighter's suckitude are rooted as much in the basic design decisions (or mistakes) of 3e as they are in the class's awful design. It has been of course mentioned in your posts and those of others, but I felt like chiming in.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I feel like the single largest obstacle to a widely-accepted fighter fix is, as was previously pointed out, the vast range of opinions on what a fighter should look like. Do general abilities kill the fighter? Is picking all of his features off lists too much? He doesn't have any feats, how can he still be a fighter? He can't deal with invisible or flying enemies! He's too anime! He can't compete with casters!

Ultimately, I think that we almost need a set of fighter fixes to appeal to different groups. There's the still-tier-4 "feats and numbers" fighter (not bad, but doesn't go far enough!), there's the "I have class features now, guys!" fighter (not customizable enough!), and there's the full-on "I kill armies with a standard action" fighter (too anime!)

Or maybe even that's too ambitious; maybe all we can do is to make or find a fix that works for our table.



On an unrelated note, while I like my recent efforts a lot, some of the discussion about what a fighter needs to be able to do is making me want to resurrect my "screw logic/physics/reality!" Legend (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13207547). Which always walked a shaky line between T3 and T2, and was never finished (so many special abilities to write!), but could certainly do a lot of the epic things being discussed))

[Yitzi]

I've said it before and I will say it again... I've come to the conclusion that one of the problems Fighter has in the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons is, ironically, the game's focus on combat. In many other games, fighting is just one of the skill sets. In a group of PCs, you might find a person who is a professional combatant, another who can handle herself in a combat situation in a pinch and yet another one who has no idea how to handle a weapon and/or lacks whatever combat abilities or power the game's genre might have. Not so in 3e D&D, where everyone is supposed to contribute to combat in a roughly equal measure, and combat takes up the majority of the game. So what do we do with the person whose only skill is fighting? Even other full BaB classes have something non-combat to bring to the table. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved without completely rewriting 3e.

I think this is a large part of the issue, but it's not that the game is purely about combat; if it were, then fighters' lack of noncombat features wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that D&D is itself schizophrenic about how much of a role combat should play, so you get everyone being designed to be as good at combat as the fighter (as if it were purely combat), but it's not purely combat so that means the fighter (who has nothing else) loses out.


As a result, Fighter fixes tend to turn them into larger-than-life unstoppable juggernauts from relatively low levels... because being a larger-than-life unstoppable juggernaut is what it takes to resist special and magic abilities.

I still think that "Every magic effect and most special abilities allow saves, and a fighter has good saves against nearly all of them*, and saves are improved across the board" would do the job.

*I'd allow exceptions for certain illusions and charm spells, as those aren't so good in combat anyway.


I find it problematic not just from the thematic viewpoint but also the gamist viewpoint, so to speak. I don't think it's a good sign if the game turns into a rocket-tag where everyone throws abilities that can either be shrugged off or shut down the enemy completely if they're not shrugged off.

So, there you have it. I think the reasons for the Fighter's suckitude are rooted as much in the basic design decisions (or mistakes) of 3e as they are in the class's awful design. It has been of course mentioned in your posts and those of others, but I felt like chiming in.

I think you're absolutely right.

[Morty]

I think this is a large part of the issue, but it's not that the game is purely about combat; if it were, then fighters' lack of noncombat features wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that D&D is itself schizophrenic about how much of a role combat should play, so you get everyone being designed to be as good at combat as the fighter (as if it were purely combat), but it's not purely combat so that means the fighter (who has nothing else) loses out.

That's a good point. A lot of the problems with D&D 3.x are caused by its schizophrenic design, really.


I still think that "Every magic effect and most special abilities allow saves, and a fighter has good saves against nearly all of them*, and saves are improved across the board" would do the job.

I'm not sure if it would work or not, but, again, it requires some rather fundamental rewrite of the game.


I think you're absolutely right.

Thank you.

[LordErebus12]

ever think of doing something like this?

1st - Mixed Training (Ex):
Choose three different skills not found on the fighter skills list. They are now treated as class skills, receiving a +2 bonus to each skill. Once chosen the choices are permanent.

5th - I Got A Plan! (Ex):
This ability allows a fighter to choose one combat or teamwork feat that he qualifies for, utilizing it for up to one round + 1/2 fighter level. This ability can be used a number of times per day equal to your Intelligence modifier, plus an additional use once per day at 5th level, twice at 10th, three times at 15th level, and finally four times at 20th level.

10th - I'm Working On It (Ex):
This ability allows a fighter to choose one combat or teamwork feat that he qualifies for, utilizing it for up to one hour + 1/2 fighter level. This ability can be changed with 1 minute of practice.

15th - I Got It Covered (Ex):
This ability allows a fighter to choose any one feat (combat or otherwise) that he qualifies for, utilizing it until altered. This ability can be changed with 1 hour of practice.

it allows a fighter to change its feats a bit, allowing him to "pull a rabbit out of his hat", when its favorable to do so.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

I just made another attempt at a generalist high-tier martial class called "the champion".

The list of abilities is not complete (on account of how it would be over 100 abilities long and I can't write that many since my last homebrew this morning) but low-level and capstone abilities are there to show where I intend the class to go and how it would work.

OTOH, there is that image of Joan of Ark giving the correct feel for the class.

[Ziegander]

One thing that 3e fighter fixes often ignore is that in 2e, fighters actually ended up with the best saves, in all areas. Fighters really need a mechanic that let's them say "screw you, saving throw check".

My personal fix for this aspect was to let them re-roll saving throws a number of times per day equal to their class level. This is a free action used at the time the saving throw is made, and if need be, the PC could burn through 20 re-rolls to make the save against that flesh to stone spell.

The thing to remember here is, for each change made to the Fighter class, one must recognize and account for the effects it will have on the rest of the game. If the Fighter is able to make all saves all the time, then why isn't the Barbarian, or the Knight, or the Paladin?


Ive been brewing the notion of making a series of specialist fighter classes. I reasoned that the biggest problem with the fighter is that it tries to do too much with one class, so I made specialized variants. They all get the fighter's feats (minus one which is picked for them at 1st level) and get unique class features and a few more skills besides that. This allows the fighter classes to excel at one thing and still be pretty decent at other things as well.

Not a bad idea at all. The question then becomes, "when do you stop folding classes into the Fighter class?" You mention later in the post that you'd keep the Barbarian basically as is. Why? Why not fold it into the Fighter class? The way I see it, the four classes that are most suited to being folded into the Fighter are Barbarian, Knight, Ranger (Archery), and Swashbuckler. The Paladin I would leave as a Cleric/Fighter PrC and the Monk I would make into a more much mystical, intellectual, medium BAB, utility/support guy.

An interesting side effect to this sort of approach is that, every time I consider it, I wonder what to do with the Rogue. Is he the skills guy or the sneaky combat guy? Both at once? If he's as good at combat, if not better at a specific niche of it, as the Fighter, then why is he not a subset of Fighter? Is that what the Swashbuckler really is? Should the Swashbuckler then get Sneak Attack? If the Rogue no longer gets Sneak Attack, then what does he get? If skills were more useful and powerful, then maybe he could get stuff like Poison Use and be done with it, but as things stand, I never know what to do with the Rogue.


In general, my view of the issue is that while all the problems with the Fighter class that you've listed are undisputably true, they're no less important than what you mentioned in the first post but haven't elaborated upon yet - the fundamental assumptions in the design of the 3rd edition that screw over all martial classes, but the Fighter in particular.

And I will get to them, don't worry. I've begun to touch on them in Chapter 3.


I find it problematic not just from the thematic viewpoint but also the gamist viewpoint, so to speak. I don't think it's a good sign if the game turns into a rocket-tag where everyone throws abilities that can either be shrugged off or shut down the enemy completely if they're not shrugged off.

I agree with you there, and fixing something like this would require a more thorough game redesign; however, fixing the Fighter doesn't strictly require this sort of rebalancing. It would certainly help and likely be preferable, but it isn't absolutely necessary. Better to fix something in a way that still allows you to play the game and come back and fix other things when you can, than to fix something that immediately requires you to fix everything else before you can play again.


Ultimately, I think that we almost need a set of fighter fixes to appeal to different groups. There's the still-tier-4 "feats and numbers" fighter (not bad, but doesn't go far enough!), there's the "I have class features now, guys!" fighter (not customizable enough!), and there's the full-on "I kill armies with a standard action" fighter (too anime!)

Or maybe even that's too ambitious; maybe all we can do is to make or find a fix that works for our table.

I tend to disagree. The Warblade has been the most widely accepted and popular "Fighter fix" ever made, and the biggest complaints about it are:


1) It uses "spells." Work on the presentation of the abilities, and you can address this complaint, at least to some degree.

2) The fluff. Easy to fix. Don't use "blade magic" fluff overly informed by Eastern pop culture and mythology. Done.

3) The base competence is too high. Warblades are Tier 3 (advanced Tier 4 in actuality, but for the sake of argument let's say Tier 3), and they are almost impossible to play down to anything less competent. A Cleric or a Wizard, on the other hand, is Tier 1, but is very easy to play down to other levels. In fact, it's so easy to do this with those classes that many players do so without even knowing it. So, if we make a class similar to a Warblade but tweak it's upper and lower levels of competency, then we should reasonably address this concern as well.

LOTS of people really love the Warblade class. The success of the Tome of Battle helped propel the success of the entire 4th Edition of D&D (even if in only some small way). By learning from the Warblade's example, we can surely create something with even more mass appeal, right (well, as much as possible without the benefit of marketing and publishing muscle)?


ever think of doing something like this?
[...]it allows a fighter to change its feats a bit, allowing him to "pull a rabbit out of his hat", when its favorable to do so.

Yep, my most recent idea, the Fighter's Repertoire actually mimics the Wizard's spell book, giving the Fighter an unprecedented number of feat options. Lots of people over the years have enabled the Fighter to change its feats, ranging from a little bit to a LOT (many of my Fighter fixes allow the Fighter to retrain his feats in as little as an hour to as limited as once per four levels he may retrain one feat).

In closing this massive post, I just want to remind everyone I'm still working on Chapter 3. My discussion of levels 5-6 is up now, and the chapter will conclude with a discussion of levels 7+ in which I will go into more detail about how the game system itself is unkind to warrior-types and to the Fighter in particular.

[Ashtagon]

The thing to remember here is, for each change made to the Fighter class, one must recognize and account for the effects it will have on the rest of the game. If the Fighter is able to make all saves all the time, then why isn't the Barbarian, or the Knight, or the Paladin?


Barbarian, knight, and paladin have their own cool class powers already. Admittedly those are underpowered, but the point is they have something that is identifiably theirs.

As part of an overall fix, those classes should be up-tiered, and the fighter should be brought up to 1e/2e standards (so grognards can play a fighter as they expect it to play), and given some new cool features of their own, possibly focused around weapon training (but not the crappy feats we have now).

If the other warrior classes then want to sulk about their saves relative to the fighter, they can always multiclass.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The question then becomes, "when do you stop folding classes into the Fighter class?"

Personally, I'd do it for all pure martial (as opposed to martial/X or roguish) classes, which means the fighter eats the knight, barbarian, samurai, etc. while the magical parts of the paladin and ranger become divine/martial PrCs.


An interesting side effect to this sort of approach is that, every time I consider it, I wonder what to do with the Rogue. Is he the skills guy or the sneaky combat guy? Both at once?

Back in AD&D, at least, he was the skills guy, usually only able to get off a backstab once per combat and otherwise relegated to utility. The more modern phenomenon of rogues who basically get sneak attack on every attack they make blurs the line between the rogue and a more sneaky fighter, but it doesn't have to be that way.

My own approach when extremely condensing classes would be to have a Fighter class for the obviously-martial classes, a Rogue class for the obviously-skills classes (rogue, factotum, the more skill-ish parts of bards, etc.), and a "Skirmisher" (or whatever) class for the more sneaky martial classes and more striker-y skills classes like the scout, the SA-heavy rogue, the more Dex-focused barbarian variants, a better swashbuckler, the less magical parts of the monk, the dervish PrC, and such.

That gives you more variety than just having a "caster" class and a "noncaster" class, and lets you build the fighter without having to accommodate both the heavy, tanky knight types and the light, hit-and-run scout types in the same class, but still gives each of the three classes a lot of support and thematic breadth. This would have to go along with the much-improved skills you mentioned to give the rogue Nice Things, of course, but a skill revision is needed anyway to make more than a handful of skills useful past low levels.

[Morty]

And I will get to them, don't worry. I've begun to touch on them in Chapter 3.


Indeed. Your analysis of the 5-6 level range already showcases one big problem, namely the magic users raising the bar really high. Fighters are thoroughly unrealistic by that point, but even that doesn't let them keep up with spellcasters. Like I've said, I think that casters need to be brought down as much or more than Fighters need to be brought up, but that's not the point of this thread.
Mind you, I think it's part of a bigger problem, namely that the designers of D&D 3rd edition thoroughly underestimated the power level of their own game.


I agree with you there, and fixing something like this would require a more thorough game redesign; however, fixing the Fighter doesn't strictly require this sort of rebalancing. It would certainly help and likely be preferable, but it isn't absolutely necessary. Better to fix something in a way that still allows you to play the game and come back and fix other things when you can, than to fix something that immediately requires you to fix everything else before you can play again.

Yes, I can certainly see the logic behind making it practical - as you yourself noted, major overhauls tend to grind to a halt halfway through. I still remember Fax Celestis' d20r project... it was promising, but then Fax had to abandon it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I tend to disagree. The Warblade has been the most widely accepted and popular "Fighter fix" ever made, and the biggest complaints about it are:


1) It uses "spells." Work on the presentation of the abilities, and you can address this complaint, at least to some degree.

2) The fluff. Easy to fix. Don't use "blade magic" fluff overly informed by Eastern pop culture and mythology. Done.

3) The base competence is too high. Warblades are Tier 3 (advanced Tier 4 in actuality, but for the sake of argument let's say Tier 3), and they are almost impossible to play down to anything less competent. A Cleric or a Wizard, on the other hand, is Tier 1, but is very easy to play down to other levels. In fact, it's so easy to do this with those classes that many players do so without even knowing it. So, if we make a class similar to a Warblade but tweak it's upper and lower levels of competency, then we should reasonably address this concern as well.

LOTS of people really love the Warblade class. The success of the Tome of Battle helped propel the success of the entire 4th Edition of D&D (even if in only some small way). By learning from the Warblade's example, we can surely create something with even more mass appeal, right (well, as much as possible without the benefit of marketing and publishing muscle)?
The Warblade is a great fighter fix, in my opinion, but it falls into the third category of my categorization-by-objection: people see him as "too magicky" and "too anime."

I disagree that the third complaint is a problem, though. On the contrary, I think the ToB classes are a great example of balance in that regard-- they're quite good even if you're picking abilities totally at random, and they don't get substantially stronger when you do cherry-pick the best maneuvers. They sit in a much, much narrower optimization band than many other classes, which makes them both newbie-friendly, since you can have an effective character with little effort, and DM-friendly, since their power is going to be so predictable.

The high floor becomes a problem when that floor is higher than the rest of the group's practical optimization levels. But since we're talking about homebrewing things here, ideally all classes should have their optimization ranges compressed and shifted to be in around the same place

[Waker]

Personally, I'd do it for all pure martial (as opposed to martial/X or roguish) classes, which means the fighter eats the knight, barbarian, samurai, etc. while the magical parts of the paladin and ranger become divine/martial PrCs.
I don't know if I like the idea of Paladin and Ranger being PrCs. I kinda like the out of the box playing that they currently have. Regardless I do agree with you on the idea of the Fighter class eating a number of the other mundanes. You could build a blank Fighter chassis but when you are actually creating a character choose an archetype which defines the rest of the skills and class abilities that you get. Here is an example.

Fighter
D12 HD, Full BAB, Good Fort, 4 Skill Points: Climb....Feats at X and X levels...
Barbarian
Add Good Reflex, Add Knowledge (Nature)...to class skills...Rage at X level
Samurai
Add Good Will, Add Diplomacy Knowledge (Nobility)...to class skills...Kiai Shout at X level...

And so on. That would give the Fighter the customization that he is supposed to embody while giving him class skills on top of his feats.

On the topic of magic, I am of the opinion that a Fighter, regardless of how well-played cannot really adventure with a well-played T1. Making the Fighter T3 should be the goal in my opinion, while toning down the T1 and maybe the T2 a bit. I am actually in the process of doing that right now with a few classes.

Added note concerning the mixed classes. A basic chassis could be devoted to the Martial Magic classes like the Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade and Duskblade as well. Using the above example you could say "A Mystic Warrior has D10 HD..."

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't know if I like the idea of Paladin and Ranger being PrCs.
[...]
Added note concerning the mixed classes. A basic chassis could be devoted to the Martial Magic classes like the Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade and Duskblade as well. Using the above example you could say "A Mystic Warrior has D10 HD..."

Depends on how you want to do it, really; I said to make the paladin and ranger PrCs because Ziegander mentioned making paladin a PrC, but that's not the only approach. As I mentioned in another thread regarding class condensation, my current effort involves compressing PrCs into either feat trees or three-level PrCs and condensing base classes down to one of ten: one class for each of the classic four archetypes (Warrior, Rogue, Mage, and Priest) and a class for each hybrid (Champion for divine/martial, Gish for arcane/martial, Meditant for divine/skills, Trickster for arcane/skills, Theurge for arcane/divine, and Skirmisher for martial/skills).

In that context, the ranger could become a feat tree for priest/warriors that grants favored enemy and an animal companion, a PrC that does the same, a champion subclass with fighting style and spells and everything, a warrior subclass if you turn all their archery spells into nonmagical class features, or something else, depending on how much you want the archetype to be supported and how well you think it stands on its own.


On the topic of magic, I am of the opinion that a Fighter, regardless of how well-played cannot really adventure with a well-played T1. Making the Fighter T3 should be the goal in my opinion, while toning down the T1 and maybe the T2 a bit.

I don't know about that. Existing martial-ish T3 classes like the ToB classes, totemist, and psychic warrior are differentiated from the fighter by their magic. Getting the fighter over the hump into T3 would require making him fairly mythic (or, dare I say it, "too anime" :smallwink:), to the point that he also can move fast, buff his weapons, etc. like they can. The difference between T3 and T1 is just going from "does X well and anything else in a pinch" to "does X really well and everything else really well"--the full-list casters have the same spells as a sorcerer or wizard, it's their spell acquisition methods (fixed list vs. limited spells known vs. unlimited spells known) and breadth of choice (limited schools vs. subset of all schools vs. all schools) that determine their overall versatility.

Putting all that together, I'd say that making the fighter T3 requires that he be made not-mundane, and if he's more than just a mundane guy, he can be pushed up to T2 (and possibly T1) territory simply by increasing the power of his options and the amount he can access. Basically, anything thematically mundane can't cross the T4-T3 gap, and it's possible that something that can get to T3 can also get to T1 without diluting the theme.

[Waker]

Depends on how you want to do it, really; I said to make the paladin and ranger PrCs because Ziegander mentioned making paladin a PrC, but that's not the only approach. As I mentioned in another thread regarding class condensation, my current effort involves compressing PrCs into either feat trees or three-level PrCs and condensing base classes down to one of ten: one class for each of the classic four archetypes (Warrior, Rogue, Mage, and Priest) and a class for each hybrid (Champion for divine/martial, Gish for arcane/martial, Meditant for divine/skills, Trickster for arcane/skills, Theurge for arcane/divine, and Skirmisher for martial/skills).
So you propose a system where the classes would be arranged as such
Warrior: Includes Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Samurai...
Rogue: Thief, Ninja, Scout...
Mage: Wizard, Sorcerer, Wu Jen...
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Archivist...
Champion: Paladin,
Meditant:
Trickster: Bard, Spellthief
Theurge:
Skirmisher:

The idea is agreeable enough to me. I don't know that I would include Theurge as a class option though, that one seems better relegated to the PrC domain to me. Certain other gaps would need to be filled too, specifically the non-vancian casting options like Warlock, Binder, Incarnates and so on.


I don't know about that. Existing martial-ish T3 classes like the ToB classes, totemist, and psychic warrior are differentiated from the fighter by their magic. Getting the fighter over the hump into T3 would require making him fairly mythic (or, dare I say it, "too anime" :smallwink:), to the point that he also can move fast, buff his weapons, etc. like they can...
Putting all that together, I'd say that making the fighter T3 requires that he be made not-mundane, and if he's more than just a mundane guy, he can be pushed up to T2 (and possibly T1) territory simply by increasing the power of his options and the amount he can access. Basically, anything thematically mundane can't cross the T4-T3 gap, and it's possible that something that can get to T3 can also get to T1 without diluting the theme.

Well, here is probably where our goals would diverge a bit. I prefer the idea of all the classes being roughly in the T3 range. That would mean beefing up the T4/5 classes a bit, while reining in the sheer power of the T1/2 classes. You could have your specialists like Fighters or generalists like Wizards, but that overall they could play together nicely.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't know that I would include Theurge as a class option though, that one seems better relegated to the PrC domain to me. Certain other gaps would need to be filled too, specifically the non-vancian casting options like Warlock, Binder, Incarnates and so on.

Thematically, the Theurge covers those who combine the two styles of magic (drawing on the power of a higher being [divine] via pacts and knowledge [arcane], venerating [divine] an impersonal force [arcane], etc.), so it would cover classes like the shugenja and archivist who are divine casters with a bunch of arcane spells on their list, the warlock and binder who make deals with powerful beings, and similar.

Monk, ninja, and the incarnate classes fit under Meditant with the whole "one with the universe" zen flavor, shadowcasters are just another flavor of Mage, truenamers are Tricksters with the "bluffing the universe" flavor and the skill-based magic, and so forth. Obviously I'm adapting and tweaking classes, not just shoving them into ten different boxes as-is, but it's working out pretty well so far.


Well, here is probably where our goals would diverge a bit. I prefer the idea of all the classes being roughly in the T3 range. That would mean beefing up the T4/5 classes a bit, while reining in the sheer power of the T1/2 classes. You could have your specialists like Fighters or generalists like Wizards, but that overall they could play together nicely.

I'm not saying that classes should be pushed up to the T1/T2 level, I'm just saying I think the statements "the fighter can be made T3" and "the fighter can't adventure with T1 classes" aren't really compatible, because any class that can be made T3 while retaining the "fighter" theme can be made T2/T1 with enough extra oomph even without explicit magic, and any "fighter" class that conceptually can't adventure with T1 classes can't hit the T3 mark in the first place. It was more of a semantic nitpick than anything else.

[Waker]

Thematically, the Theurge covers those who combine the two styles of magic (drawing on the power of a higher being [divine] via pacts and knowledge [arcane], venerating [divine] an impersonal force [arcane], etc.), so it would cover classes like the shugenja and archivist who are divine casters with a bunch of arcane spells on their list, the warlock and binder who make deals with powerful beings, and similar.

Monk, ninja, and the incarnate classes fit under Meditant with the whole "one with the universe" zen flavor, shadowcasters are just another flavor of Mage, truenamers are Tricksters with the "bluffing the universe" flavor and the skill-based magic, and so forth. Obviously I'm adapting and tweaking classes, not just shoving them into ten different boxes as-is, but it's working out pretty well so far.

Yeah, I figured you would be tweaking the classes a bit when putting them into these categories. Fitting very different systems under one heading would be somewhat problematic. I would instead suggest added blank chassis classes like
Incarnum- Incarnates, Totemists
Invoker- Warlock, Dragon Adept
Erudite- Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, War Mage


I'm not saying that classes should be pushed up to the T1/T2 level, I'm just saying I think the statements "the fighter can be made T3" and "the fighter can't adventure with T1 classes" aren't really compatible, because any class that can be made T3 while retaining the "fighter" theme can be made T2/T1 with enough extra oomph even without explicit magic, and any "fighter" class that conceptually can't adventure with T1 classes can't hit the T3 mark in the first place. It was more of a semantic nitpick than anything else.

I should have phrased that better. When I said that Fighters can't travel with T1, I meant the T4 Fighter. Bumping it up to T3 is the absolute first step in my opinion. Afterwards it becomes a bit easier to stomach since the Fighter has a role(s) that isn't completely obviated by the existence of a T1. Even so, I don't like the idea of a Fighter going beyond T3, but that largely has to do with the level of power being brought into play, since I don't care for the majority of T1/2 classes.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Yeah, I figured you would be tweaking the classes a bit when putting them into these categories. Fitting very different systems under one heading would be somewhat problematic. I would instead suggest added blank chassis classes like
Incarnum- Incarnates, Totemists
Incanters- Warlock, Dragon Adept
Erudite- Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, War Mage

What is an incarnate but a monk with lots of feats spent on Shape Soulmeld, what is a warlock but a caster with all his spells tied up in reserve feats, and what is a truenamer but a rogue with some magical skill tricks? Fitting alternate casting systems together with "normal" classes isn't really that difficult; it's already possible to do incarnum, invocations, maneuvers, and binding via the feat system (Shape Soulmeld, reserve feats, Martial Study/Martial Stance, and Bind Vestige), so they're not so different that you couldn't turn them into a subclass.

But we're going off on a bit of a tangent in a fighter-fix thread; if you want to discuss this more we can take it to PMs if you'd like.


I should have phrased that better. When I said that Fighters can't travel with T1, I meant the T4 Fighter. Bumping it up to T3 is the absolute first step in my opinion. Afterwards it becomes a bit easier to stomach since the Fighter has a role(s) that isn't completely obviated by the existence of a T1. Even so, I don't like the idea of a Fighter going beyond T3, but that largely has to do with the level of power being brought into play, since I don't care for the majority of T1/2 classes.

Makes sense. It was the "can't adventure with T1 without magic" part that I was objecting to, since you can get to T3 without magic and getting to T3 lets you get to T1, but if that was talking about the current fighter as opposed to the fighter concept that we're trying to fix then we're in agreement.

[Waker]

What is an incarnate but a monk with lots of feats spent on Shape Soulmeld, what is a warlock but a caster with all his spells tied up in reserve feats, and what is a truenamer but a rogue with some magical skill tricks? Fitting alternate casting systems together with "normal" classes isn't really that difficult; it's already possible to do incarnum, invocations, maneuvers, and binding via the feat system (Shape Soulmeld, reserve feats, Martial Study/Martial Stance, and Bind Vestige), so they're not so different that you couldn't turn them into a subclass.
But we're going off on a bit of a tangent in a fighter-fix thread; if you want to discuss this more we can take it to PMs if you'd like.

I think that the idea is somewhat relevant if for no other reason than understanding what the Fighter would be compared to in power and flexibility, but the specifics aren't needed.

So are the two of us are somewhat in agreement for a Fighter chassis being augmented by then choosing an archetype? What are some of the archetypes that you would suggest we put in and what are some of the abilities associated with them? I'll make a few.
Fighter
D12 HD, Full BAB, Good Fort, proficient in Light Armor, simple and martial weapons, 4 Skill Points: Climb....Feats at X and X levels...
Barbarian- Good Reflex, proficient in Medium Armor Add Handle Animal, Listen, Knowledge (Nature) and Survival to class skills. Rage, Fast Movement, DR, Uncanny Dodge.
Bodyguard- Good Reflex, Medium Armor and Light and Heavy Shields, Add Listen, Spot and Sense Motive to class skills. Get bonuses to aid another, protect adjacent party members, Uncanny Dodge.

Starting to get lazy, but here are the archetypes I can think of off the top of my head. Archer, Barbarian, Bodyguard, Gladiator, Knight (include Samurai stuff here?), Marshal, Swashbuckler. Any others that you can think of?

[Ziegander]

I disagree that the third complaint is a problem, though. On the contrary, I think the ToB classes are a great example of balance in that regard-- they're quite good even if you're picking abilities totally at random, and they don't get substantially stronger when you do cherry-pick the best maneuvers. They sit in a much, much narrower optimization band than many other classes, which makes them both newbie-friendly, since you can have an effective character with little effort, and DM-friendly, since their power is going to be so predictable.

Note that I never said it was a problem, per se, just that it was and still is one of the major complaints. You go on to say so yourself that when the floor is higher than the group's optimization comfort zone, it becomes a problem. This is a common enough occurrence with the Tome of Battle that a not-so-small subset gets vocal about it rather often.

No, I say better to design a class with a lower floor and a wider range of optimization. That way, a group can play it to whatever "Tier" they wish and you are able to make a wider audience happy with the power level. Perhaps better still to label options clearly at different power levels? Perhaps not.


Depends on how you want to do it, really; I said to make the paladin and ranger PrCs because Ziegander mentioned making paladin a PrC, but that's not the only approach. As I mentioned in another thread regarding class condensation, my current effort involves compressing PrCs into either feat trees or three-level PrCs and condensing base classes down to one of ten: one class for each of the classic four archetypes (Warrior, Rogue, Mage, and Priest) and a class for each hybrid (Champion for divine/martial, Gish for arcane/martial, Meditant for divine/skills, Trickster for arcane/skills, Theurge for arcane/divine, and Skirmisher for martial/skills).

Actually, I rather like this approach. Generic enough to serve a wide variety of archetypes, yet specific enough to support those concepts that should be playable out-of-the-box. I'll have to think about this in the future.


Putting all that together, I'd say that making the fighter T3 requires that he be made not-mundane, and if he's more than just a mundane guy, he can be pushed up to T2 (and possibly T1) territory simply by increasing the power of his options and the amount he can access. Basically, anything thematically mundane can't cross the T4-T3 gap, and it's possible that something that can get to T3 can also get to T1 without diluting the theme.

I'm not sure we agree on this point. I think Xefas has done a fantastic job of illustrating how the thematically mundane can be pushed higher than Tier 3. If not Tier 1, then at least Tier 2. I think if he and I can cross the wires of my old Strategy idea and his work with Exalted mechanics, then we could possibly have something strong.

I like the idea of making "Feats" no longer the thing that everyone gets one of every three levels. Call those Perks perhaps, but make "Feats" the Fighter Subsystem™. Ah, but that's for a much more grandiose system-wide overhaul... Flights of fancy... :smallredface:

[Yitzi]

No, I say better to design a class with a lower floor and a wider range of optimization. That way, a group can play it to whatever "Tier" they wish and you are able to make a wider audience happy with the power level. Perhaps better still to label options clearly at different power levels? Perhaps not.

The problem then is that if there is an imbalance in optimization skill, you run into the same sort of problem we have now. Not to mention that past a certain range becomes unfun. Some range based on optimization is probably a good idea, but I would say the floor should be no lower than low tier 4, and the ceiling should be no higher than high tier 3.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm not sure we agree on this point. I think Xefas has done a fantastic job of illustrating how the thematically mundane can be pushed higher than Tier 3. If not Tier 1, then at least Tier 2. I think if he and I can cross the wires of my old Strategy idea and his work with Exalted mechanics, then we could possibly have something strong.

I was using "mundane" in the sense of contrasting with a mythic/legendary/fantastic/etc. fighter, not in the sense of nonmagical. I was saying what you are, that you have to make an Exalted-like fighter to push it above T3 and a plain ol' weapons guy won't make the cut.

[Ziegander]

I was using "mundane" in the sense of contrasting with a mythic/legendary/fantastic/etc. fighter, not in the sense of nonmagical. I was saying what you are, that you have to make an Exalted-like fighter to push it above T3 and a plain ol' weapons guy won't make the cut.

Gotcha. I agree with that. To the PM box!

[Carl]

Not a D&D player, though i've been studying the SRD recently and came to this subforum because i felt like letting off some creative urges by taking a stab at something.

Whilst randomly browsing between writing bouts, (not easy creating a new class), i found this thread and felt compelled to comment on some observations therin.

1. Observations on armour. I honestly don't understand why Heavy and Medium armour are considered inferior, (specifically to light, i can see issues between medium and heavy clearly enough), based on SRD reading, but I'm sure there's an obvious explanation. Since however it seems to be a cross class issue and limited to medium and heavy armours I'd say this is a case of medium and heavy armours needing some re-design work rather than a specific fighter problem to be fixed by a fighter fix.

2. I'm afraid the comment on BAB not really mattering went over my head. Can't see the problem at a glance. Inexperience obviously, would anyone care to give a brief explanation of why?

3. The comment on saves caught my attention because it re-affirmed something that was very obvious to me when reading the SRD. Death attacks aside, (which can be warded against at higher levels anyway), fortitude seems to be a very undervalued save with the majority of saves, (especially vs spells), being either reflex or will. Especially when it comes to avoiding damage from a number of sources, or negative penalty inducing effects. I also agree it makes little sense for a class that is supposed to be so versatile to only have the one strong save.

4. The comparison to the barbarian is interesting but highlights something from my PoV. It's fairly obvious to me that Fighters where given heavy armour as a kind of compensation for this whilst a Barbarians rage was supposed to be self compensating due to it's inherent downsides and limited uses. But as noted there's a problem with with this since rage is so strong, gets better later on, and the uses limitation also ultimately becomes less relevant. The noted Armour issues and the fact that even to my eye Heavy Armour doesn't look like a real benefit if the barbarian has a vaguely decent dex modifier don't help.

5. The commentary on skills is well made. In fact if any class is crying out to have discretionary, (i.e pick for yourself), class skills it's the fighter, and given a fighters natural desire to focus on certain stats a higher base SP progression would be good.

6.The feats comments also hit another good point, though perhaps not full on. yes all those extra feats are indeed very nice, however they are kind of limited as well. In a fight you use one or possibly two different kinds of weapons, one type of armour and possibly one type of shield. The only exception might be if you start with ranged or mounted combat and then switch part way through the fight. The rest of the time your constrained by your equipment as to which feats are beneficial to your fighting abilities. Only Improved Initiative and Improved Critical are non-specific. And most are melee centric, (not that this is necessarily a bad thing). Still it makes it very hard for a fighter to be "versatile". Indeed in a game system where non-magic fighting, (ultimately), boils down to, "hit the enemy as hard and often as possible whilst not getting hit as often/as hard", it's very hard to be versatile.

7. All this talk about condensing classes is nice, but be careful with that line of thinking. The biggest mistake you can make, (and fighter suffers from this very much), is losing sight of the system. Whenever you put something into a system it has to have a clear reason to be there, a defined purpose and goal, both in of itself and in it's interactions with other elements of the system. That last one is what can get ideas like this. You end up putting in so many elements, (each of which has it's own internal good reason to be there), that interact so poorly that what you get is often a confused mess and nearly always a balance nightmare with many of the intended and fun combinations lost to munchkin set-ups. Lots of individual classes help you limit this by giving you fewer variables to work with.

Of course you can make it work, it's just a lot more difficult on the designer IMO.

Anyway that concludes my thoughts for now. Looking forward to the rest of your analysis.

[magwaaf]

umm, it's called pathfinder. their fighter is great. my friend has proven it can deal damage like a champ and be fantastic

[PairO'Dice Lost]

umm, it's called pathfinder. their fighter is great. my friend has proven it can deal damage like a champ and be fantastic

The PF fighter is not significantly different power-wise, adds numbers instead of options, and doesn't fix any of the actual problems with the fighter.


1. Observations on armour. I honestly don't understand why Heavy and Medium armour are considered inferior, (specifically to light, i can see issues between medium and heavy clearly enough), based on SRD reading, but I'm sure there's an obvious explanation. Since however it seems to be a cross class issue and limited to medium and heavy armours I'd say this is a case of medium and heavy armours needing some re-design work rather than a specific fighter problem to be fixed by a fighter fix.

It's the armor check penalty, speed reduction, and max Dex. The armor check penalty means that fighters wearing medium or heavy armor take penalties with the few skills they have; the speed reduction means their already-bad mobility is worsened; the max Dex means that they gain less benefit from increasing Dex (which is bad, because it's usually easier to boost Dex than to improve armor).


2. I'm afraid the comment on BAB not really mattering went over my head. Can't see the problem at a glance. Inexperience obviously, would anyone care to give a brief explanation of why?

BAB doesn't give you anything besides extra attacks, inherently, it just lets you hit more often...but casters have plenty of ways to boost their attack bonus, items provide cheap boosts, Str outweighs BAB at low levels, and so forth. However, WotC vastly overvalued BAB in creating 3e, so classes with full BAB are often penalized in other ways to "compensate."


7. All this talk about condensing classes is nice, but be careful with that line of thinking.
[...]
Lots of individual classes help you limit this by giving you fewer variables to work with.

On the contrary: grouping things together actually limits the total possible combinations you need to test. In 3e, you can't multiclass an evoker and a necromancer, for instance, because they're both actually the same class; in 2e, you can't multiclass any classes in the four class groups with each other because they're considered to be the same superclass.

If we assume you're only going to playtest multiclass combinations of X 10/Y 10, then having 40 individual classes means you have to playtest 1,560 class combinations, while having 4 groups of 10 classes each means you only have to playtest 1200 combinations. If we're just looking at a PHB of 12 classes, grouping classes into 4 groups of 3 cuts the combinations you have to test from 132 to 108. Dropping it by 24 classes may not look like much, but when you're trying to test the interaction of those combinations with, say, 4 PrCs, then you've reduced the number of combinations to be tested by 96, which is significant.

One of the aspects of 3e that allowed "munchkin combinations," as you call them, was open multiclassing (i.e. each level can be a different class), and the dev team couldn't possibly test the resulting ~672 quintillion possible combinations of multiclassed PHB classes. Grouping classes into 4 sets would reduce that to ~1 quintillion. Allowing people to multiclass with only one other class would have reduced that again to only 1,048,576 combinations. Limitations, grouping, and classifications are good for balance, not bad for it.

[farland]

Keep in mind my experience is limited to a few computer games and what I read here/elsewhere about D&D. I would say the first minor problem is slightly spread out the Fighters many lv1 gifts slightly like maybe lv3 is what gives tower shield and tweak it slightly there and give a lot more skills and skill points early on so an earlier level fighter can be versatile.

The big problem for very high level characters is the fighter at about 13 and onward should loosely speaking, never die to any single attack/spell of any kind. A high level fighter is supposed to be so disciplined/trained/experienced as a grizzled war-veteran from real life. So why not leave the middle a bit muddy of 7-12 and then boom him later on? The will save should start to skyrocket in the teens to end up about 2.5 times what it is currently in the high teens and a modest reflex boost.

Also again the theme of grizzled vet, a fighter should actually have its floor raised for attack rolls at some point late. A high level fighter has on paper swung their weapon so many thousands of times at so many hundreds of targets that after a while they should all but never miss on most targets, save that rare 1 roll. For the levels that currently give no special bonus, add an extra HP point. Although once they start to get higher their skill point growth should drop back down to lower levels due to being so battle focused and less open minded. Perhaps also raise their saving roll floor slightly. So their attacks and saving rolls after a while more like this: A roll of 1 is still a 1 but a 2,3,4 are all counted as a 5 for a high level fighter but a 6 is still just a 6.

The overall theme of a high level fighter should be someone that almost never misses ever and has seen so many battles personally (and in a normal state of mind) that nothing really shocks him anymore. Maybe even remove fear at a mid-high level that previously did nothing. There is a reason guard (misc elite) unit IRL would so often succeed where others failed or act as a perfect rear guard or win/survive in extremely dire situations.

[Carl]

Thanks for the reply.

1. The point is i don't really see how that makes light any better than medium except for the armour check penalty, (and only when you have sufficient Dex to hit a sufficient modifier to bringing the overall AC into line), or is the AC check penalty a much bigger deal than overall AC granted, (i can see how it could be)?

2. I assume what your trying to say is that there are so many ays to get bonuses to BAB that a slight, (+5), class level bonus gets lost in the overall scheme of things?

3. Not really. Weather you have to multiclass as a Rouge/Barbarian/Paladin combinations, (illegal in 3.5 i know). or run a single class that can pick and choose those specific elements from a common pool. Assuming the same pool and the same limitations in terms of selecting specific elements in groups the number of combinations is the same. But every time you add a new feature you have to consider how it will interact with every other feature already present. You soon end up needing a huge range of official "house rules" limiting certain combinations in some fashion to prevent specific abusive combinations becoming the norm. A single broken feature also distorts the system more because it affects a far greater % iof the characters rolled.

Don't get me wrong, it can be done and it can be done well. But for the average human having to consider things KISS makes the analysis much easier which makes the whole thing a lot easier to balance for all but the most talented designers. it's the safer option. If you screw it up the degree of inherent cheese is, (on average across multiple failed systems), going to be lower.

On a personal level i love such highly customisable systems, but experience tells me that the more complex any one element becomes, the more skilled a designer you need to avoid basic screw ups of epic proportions, (pun not intended). 3.5's flaw IMO is in not punishing multi-classing hard enough.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Keep in mind my experience is limited to a few computer games and what I read here/elsewhere about D&D. I would say the first minor problem is slightly spread out the Fighters many lv1 gifts slightly like maybe lv3 is what gives tower shield and tweak it slightly there

And you would want to do this...why? Proficiencies aren't really that impressive; you could give the fighter proficiency with every single exotic weapon and armor in existence and it wouldn't help him at all, there's no reason to delay any of it.


Although once they start to get higher their skill point growth should drop back down to lower levels due to being so battle focused and less open minded.

This also makes little sense, flavor-wise or mechanically. This is why the fighter can't have Nice Things.


1. The point is i don't really see how that makes light any better than medium except for the armour check penalty, (and only when you have sufficient Dex to hit a sufficient modifier to bringing the overall AC into line), or is the AC check penalty a much bigger deal than overall AC granted, (i can see how it could be)?

Let me put it this way: Notice how every core armor has their armor bonus plus max Dex bonus sum up to 8 or 9? That means that the best AC bonus you can get (without magical armor or special abilities) is +8 or +9. If you choose padded armor, you get +9 armor. If you choose full plate, you get +9 armor, -6 skills, and 2/3 speed at 300 times the cost of padded armor, so you're paying much more to take extra penalties. Heavier armor is only beneficial at low levels because you can't afford many Dex boosters then...but they're too expensive to be easily used by low-level characters.


2. I assume what your trying to say is that there are so many ays to get bonuses to BAB that a slight, (+5), class level bonus gets lost in the overall scheme of things?

Sort of. Basically, WotC made it seem like BAB is this big thing and getting full BAB is something awesome...but at 17th level, when a wizard is able to rip reality a new one, the fighter is still getting just +1 to attacks. It's not that the bonus is small (it is) or that everyone else can duplicate it (they can), it's that the overestimation of BAB caused them to lose out on having any actual class features.


3. Not really. Weather you have to multiclass as a Rouge/Barbarian/Paladin combinations, (illegal in 3.5 i know). or run a single class that can pick and choose those specific elements from a common pool. Assuming the same pool and the same limitations in terms of selecting specific elements in groups the number of combinations is the same.
[...]
A single broken feature also distorts the system more because it affects a far greater % iof the characters rolled.

But that's the thing: grouping classes gives different limitations, because you can no longer select two things from the same group. You reduce the chances of creating a broken feature because there are fewer unintended interactions. That's not a function of class grouping, that's basic permutations and combinations math.


3.5's flaw IMO is in not punishing multi-classing hard enough.

Multiclassing should not be punished. Punishing anyone for making a rules-legal choice instead of just disallowing it is a terrible thing to do. If you want to allow open multicassing, do that, and test all the resulting combinations. If you can't be bothered, you can prohibit multiclassing or allow it only in limited forms. But don't allow something and then penalize characters for taking that options. That's why 3e's multiclassing XP penalties is probably the single most ignored rule in all of 3e: because it's terrible both a game balance, game design, and logic perspective.

[Yitzi]

BAB doesn't give you anything besides extra attacks, inherently, it just lets you hit more often...but casters have plenty of ways to boost their attack bonus, items provide cheap boosts, Str outweighs BAB at low levels, and so forth. However, WotC vastly overvalued BAB in creating 3e, so classes with full BAB are often penalized in other ways to "compensate."

I think this is another of the big culprits for fighters being bad, and if fixed would do a great deal to help fighters. Consider if BAB, instead of just boosting attack and giving weak iterative attacks when full attacking, could give any of the following (changeable per round, or some points of BAB could be spent on one, and some spent on another):
-Boost attack, on a 1-for-1 basis.
-Boost damage, at the same rate as Power Attack.
-Boost AC, including touch AC.
-Give extra attacks (not weaker than the original attack, and compatible with standard-action attacks) at a rate of 1 attack for every 2 points of BAB used.
-Provide a CL penalty to anyone who tries casting defensively when you threaten them (or they could refuse to take the CL penalty and simply provoke an AoO from you anyway, and they have to do so if the lowered CL would be below the minimum CL for that spell level).


Would that set of options be enough to fix the fighter by itself? Definitely not. But it'd help quite a bit, and could further lay the groundwork for new, interesting, and powerful fighter abilities.

[T.G. Oskar]

Generally, I loathe the idea of hearing people saying "Crusader is modded Paladin" or "unarmed Swordsage is the new Monk", but it's very hard not to think of the Warblade and just how it pretty much eclipses the Fighter.

Zieg, while it's decent to compare the Fighter with the Barbarian, it's really not the best thing to compare. The Barbarian could easily be refluffed as an archetype of the Fighter, and needs something else to distinguish (the PF Rage powers are a good move, but the execution IMO is poor). It's an unfair comparison, but a Fighter should be compared to a Warblade, because of how the latter handles combat AND also handles out of combat options. Stuff like Iron Heart Surge, various White Raven maneuvers and stances, Sudden Leap, amongst others, allow the Warblade to work well outside of combat.

Compared to that, I find most of the attempts to fix problems focuses a lot on the combat aspect, making them probably the best in combat. However, they still can't compare outside of combat, and that's what I find to be the key aspect on how to fix a Fighter. I'm quite proud of my second attempt to retool the Monk, because I feel that, despite its complexity, it handles things outside of combat quite well. There's a lot of things I'm proud of with that retool (particularly the clever ways to handle things like water walking, hitting flying creatures, bypassing stuff like invisible creatures, and others), but I find Way of the Beasts was a formidable achievement in how it handles the Monk's list of skills.

Now, this may feel like shameless self-promotion, but the reason I mention it guards some relation: the key was to make it distinctive from the Swordsage, and I find it worked. It uses special monk weapons cleverly, it provides for a decent variety of options, it has more out-of-combat options than the Swordsage, and while you can make an unarmed Swordsage and call it a Monk, the latter can still compete with it quite favorably. It would be formidable if it was less complex, but to me, it's perfect.

Trying to pull this off with the Fighter, on the other hand? Very difficult. Trying to make the Monk distinctive from the Swordsage or making the Paladin distinctive from the Crusader is far, far easier. Now, note I said "difficult"; it's not an impossible task, but it's one that requires thinking outside the box.

At the moment I'm writing this, I finished a small exercise dealing with the Fighter. It's pretty bare-bones, adapting a concept from a friend's Fighter revision (for a system of his own) that works with custom styles, and thus there's a concept of fighting styles that can be changed based on your level. It has a bit of "higher numbers" bit, but tackling a check that few people would attempt to pull off: Strength. Yes, it's a class-based bonus to Strength checks, but they're VERY specific: only to break doors, open chests with a slam and so forth. The Fighter won't have the finesse to disarm a trap, but it might just take a greatsword and smash it in a single blow, and resist enough to allow them to bypass. It gets special abilities like a Rogue, and those deal with racial features, such as racial aid, powerful/slight build, and a few others. And yes, there's still bonus feats.

And yet, while comparing it to the Warblade...it still feels like it can't compare. The Warblade still has a good throwing attack (Lightning Throw), a "Jump-based"-ft. step (Sudden Leap), blindsense (Hearing the Air) and various other traits that trying to add them to the Fighter as bonus feats would feel needless (you could gain that from spending your bonus feats with the existing Fighter anyways...) and unfair to the other classes (because the core Barbarian and Paladin and Rogue needs something similar). And it feels frustrating, because it's a good start, a nice-looking chassis, but it still feels like...incomplete.

Another friend of mine is attempting a Fighter rewrite, one that's more meaty and works in a different way, but it'll probably fall on the same traps as many other Fighter fixes.

Now, there's one trump card in terms of that Fighter fix: before even thinking on working with a Fighter fix (again, this is an exercise, it really can't stand on its own), I thought of working with the feats themselves. Most of the retools I've done to existing classes work under the notion of "effective Fighter levels", which are meant to exist on their own terms: they can work with the existing Fighter class, or with a Fighter fix that works with bonus feats, and they also apply to other full BAB (and some partial BAB classes with a martial bent) at a more limited degree. If coupled with that fix, the Fighter WILL stand its own ground; however, that becomes then its own problem. It can't stand on its own without an auxiliary fix to further improve it.

Why I mention this? Because it's, just as Zieg and Grod mention, one of the main (if not THE main) source of problems of the Fighter, is how it depends on a complete game rewrite in order for it to compare to a Wizard. If the feats were flexible enough, if WotC simply made them scale (and not just numeric scaling; effect scaling, such as having Blind-Fight grant blindsense, or Greater Weapon Focus allowing a single touch attack with the weapon you specialize), the Fighter's situation would be entirely different (heck, that of many martial classes!). Sadly, because 3.5 really didn't allow feats to scale until much later (or very early on and probably by accident, such as Power Attack), Fighters and other martial characters got into this problem in the first place.

In short: it's possible, but it's gonna be very hard, and to succeed, something's gonna give. Either the ruleset, or the notion of the Barbarian, Swashbuckler or Knight classes, or the idea of a mundane warrior. Here's something, however, that every single person that attempts a Fighter fix must give: NO CLASS WILL BE THE DEFINITE FIGHTER FIX. Once that gives, you'll think of what works on your table, and thus relax. The only other thing would be to stop playing 3.5 and start playing your own version of the d20 System rules, and that's still related to the first.

[Jane_Smith]

I had an idea for fighter's once myself. And while many will cry about "oh this makes fighters wizards", I don't really care.

Wizard's gain knowledge of spells threw study, research, strokes of genius, gathering knowledge from other sources, going to classes, visiting academies, libraries, etc. They take this knowledge and create magical effects from scientific forms of experimentation and execution.

So... why not make martial characters learn maneuvers in a similar fashion? Except instead of a spellbook and academies and libraries, they go to dojo's, spar and train with masters, go to martial nations or enlist in armies? Thats one thing I hated about tome of battle was the concept of "You know X" maneuvers. Why can't you potentially learn ALL the maneuvers, just like a wizard can learn all spells? Suddenly, intelligence based fighter's become extremely well rounded and jack of all trades, knowing maneuvers for just about any situation. I also enjoy the war blades and factotum's ideas for using int as a combat based stat, to garentee critical hits, as a bonus to initiative and to reflex saves. The barbarian may leroy jenkins the dragon and come out alive from sheer raw physical power and inhuman endurance, but the fighter is meant to be a tactician, weapon master, and knowledgeable combatant.

Also, I think the idea of finding stuff like ancient combat techniques in scrolls, journals, books, or large paintings/carvings would be a cool idea for a "treasure" for a fighter and give even the world more flavor and depth, just like the wizard who feels like a kid in a candy store in a recently slain lich's study instead of tossing the fighter "a shiny new +1 higher sword".

[Morty]

The problems with armor pointed out by PairO'Dice Lost are quite important to this thread, I think, because due to them you can't really fix the Fighter, not fully. WotC completely dropped the ball with armor, the use of which happens to be one of the class's mainstays no matter how you look at it.

[Jane_Smith]

You could always just make armor give damage reduction; but to counter the issue with "oh, i got DR 8 from my fullplate, no mook can EVER damage me again without a crit!" and tanking 1000 mobs direct attacks for ten minutes? The damage adsorbed by DR it gives goes to the armors durability. So its like a 2nd set of hit points, when the armors durability hits 0, its considered "broken", and gives no benefits, but all the normal drawbacks, until you repair it. Make repairing it take like an hour or two x catagory, so it can take days to repair fullplate, but only an hour or two with leather. If you got proficiency with that armor you can repair it without a craft check, or if you got 1 rank or more in craft (armorsmithing). Spells like shatter could even be made to directly harm armor's durability. A fun fact about AC as DR? Even if the weapon deals no damage on an attack, if it has an enchantment like Shock, the on hit damage still applies, which is far more realistic then saying "oh I have heavy armor, your attack just outright misses me or harmlessly deflects off its surface while i stand here!", as shocking/flame/etc only has to glance your armor to heat it up or shock you threw it. That is what elemental resistance enchants are for! And fur, rubber, etc lining.

The only problem with this is, suddenly the fighter/etc becomes easy as hell to hit. Easy fix, too - make base reflex bonus apply as dodge to armor class, and give the fighter good reflex saves as planned along with the barbarian and paladin. The rogue will only lose 1-3 points of AC from leather anyway, so a +2/good reflex save wont buff it to much. The monk only gains from this, having no normal armor to speak of anyway, and the monk has needed a buff just as much as the fighter. The ranger is further encouraged to go light armor, and the only caster who benefits from reflex base to AC is the druid in animal forms, which honestly, is such a small buff to there already horrendous bs they can pull off, it REALLY does not make a difference in my opinion.

With these 2 changes, you got armor functioning realistically (and balanced with its own durability points players have to look out for in prolonged battles), and your base reflexes giving you passive dodge chance to ac, which seems reasonable, if you can dodge a fireball with it and get better at dodging fireballs with it at higher levels (as expressed in good/bad reflex save progression, not just the addition from your dexterity bonus), it only makes sense youd gain skill at dodging attacks and arrows or traps as you level up and gain more experience too. Why should ONLY armor and shields and spells buff ac? I got this idea, somewhat, from d20 modern and the Defender (3.0) prestige class, that gains AC as a progression.


Lastly, this is an odd idea I had, but it could be fun and make shields more of an active, fun aspect in combat - when receiving an attack while under the defensive action, full defense, using combat expertise, have two weapon defense, two handed defense, or you have a shield? You can make an opposed "Block" (Or parry if a weapon) roll vs. there attack roll. The value is equal to 1d20 + your bab + str + dex bonus. Shields, battle cloaks, broadswords, etc made specifically for defense get there shield bonus to this check. If you succeed, you block the attack, and the shield receives damage as the armor would have in my suggestion. Shields have there own durability pool, but unlike armor, soak ALL physical damage directly to themselves until they break. Suddenly keeping spare shields in a glove of storing or handy haversack is worth it, or getting homebrew "Repairing" enchantments on the shield to mend it over a few hours/minutes/rounds like faster/fast/regeneration based healing. Blocking spells if you have the deflection enchantment/etc (or magebane on a broadsword for flavor) could be used at will even with this in mind rather then 1/day, but youd be making block attacks vs. an enemy caster check, so on. Good idea mabbe?

[zlefin]

An interesting problem to be sure; but how should I best contribute?
What's most needed for ANY fix isn't design, there's plenty of good designers here, but MARKETING. The only way to deal with proliferation fo standards is to get peopel to focus on and use one standard. Pathfinder is a way of doing that, i'm sure there's others as well. But unless you bring a lot of people into it as a package deal it's not likely to catch on too big in the community. A full-scale 3.5 rework to fix the issue (including the ones pathfinder didn't address) would be quite a lot of work, and i'm certainly not doing one without alot of assurances of people actually using it.

It's not hard to make feats scaling, either quantitatively or qualitatively; functionally that just makes it quadratic-ish. (wizards are often exponential, of course alot of the system assumes everyone is exponential at its core).
But making feats scale doesn't fix things all that neatly; it just ends up with a lot of feats and/or equivalent on the fighter.

[nonsi]

...So its like a 2nd set of hit points, when the armors durability hits 0, its considered "broken"...!

The game demands a lot of bookkeeping as it is.
Given attack rolls are an abstraction just like HP, one might assume that in a fight that went heavily against you, your armor was in a bad shape or that your opponent managed to hit it in a place that makes it less effective.

There's really no point in adding gear maintenance into the game rules just to cover combat with hordes of mooks.

[Jane_Smith]

Yet everyone is saying the base armor system is bad, or the class needs to be completely redone, or the system needs to be redone. Like that is not a lot of book keeping? Or making new feats or new class features, etc, etc, etc? -_- Tired of hearing "book keeping" as an excuse for why something is not a good idea when the ENTIRE game is based on keeping track of stats. Don't give me that crap - have you read even half of this thread? EVERYTHING that is been suggested is some level of extra book keeping, some moreso then this, some less.

Technically there is already gear maintenance, weapon hit points/hardness and sundering rules. Even shields have hit points/hardness. Armor? Not sure, but I have seen an example somewhere. Mending, Greater Mending, Repair Light to Critical Damage, etc. All I am saying is bring out those stats clearly, the exact hardness (aka, DR) and hp (durability) each one has and use them for a change rather then ignoring there existence to save yourselves a note card of work. Show light on these EXISTING elements of the game and polish them, give them an active role in the game rather then some half thought up bs wotc couldn't be bothered putting more thought into.

[nonsi]

Yet everyone is saying the base armor system is bad, or the class needs to be completely redone, or the system needs to be redone. Like that is not a lot of book keeping? Or making new feats or new class features, etc, etc, etc? -_- Tired of hearing "book keeping" as an excuse for why something is not a good idea when the ENTIRE game is based on keeping track of stats. Don't give me that crap

"Chill Honeybunny" :smallbiggrin:




- have you read even half of this thread? EVERYTHING that is been suggested is some level of extra book keeping, some moreso then this, some less.

Actually, PODL's suggested classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14914651&postcount=35) - when introduced (yes, I know they'll take time to fully mature) - will pose the mother of all game simplifications.
Think of it.
1. Everything's covered by 10 base classes.
2. Those 10 base classes will cover just about any RPG character archetype you could dream of (except maybe a handful few, such as Paul Muad-Dib & Leto Atreides II). Everything else will be covered by multiclassing.
3. No more PrCs.




Technically there is already gear maintenance, weapon hit points/hardness and sundering rules. Even shields have hit points/hardness. Armor? Not sure, but I have seen an example somewhere. Mending, Greater Mending, Repair Light to Critical Damage, etc. All I am saying is bring out those stats clearly, the exact hardness (aka, DR) and hp (durability) each one has and use them for a change rather then ignoring there existence to save yourselves a note card of work. Show light on these EXISTING elements of the game and polish them, give them an active role in the game rather then some half thought up bs wotc couldn't be bothered putting more thought into.

OK, I see where you're going.
However... on every attack you'd have to decide if a donned armor got hit or not, and that's a set of rules by itself... unless targeting armor is an attack by itself that functions somewhat like tripping, where with the right feat you get to make an additional attack role for damage on a successful maneuver (which Imp. Sunder doesn't grant all by itself; an additional feat is required and I'm not sure if there's an official feat for attacking on a successful sunder, so you might need to homebrew one).

[Seerow]

Ziegander mentioned upthread my belief that a system overhaul would be necessary to truly fix mundanes. Armor and Saving Throws is one of the big points in that, where I feel they need a fundamental overhaul that is relatively hard to adapt to the rest of the game. If you look through my homebrew stuff in my sig you'll notice a lot of stuff focusing on weapons, armor, hp systems, and that sort of thing is really where I feel like the system needs to go to make the fundamentals work.


Things I've considered in this vein:
-HP/Wounds, with overflow damage to wounds being much lower, so rather than being super-lethality option, they actually work the opposite way, making characters in general more durable. Some effects (jumping off a cliff, swimming through lava, etc) go straight to wounds, but affect only HP unless..

-Damage Threshold. Based on the level and general durability of the character. The Threshold has to be crossed to deal wound damage, or for most non-damaging effects. For example something like Finger of Death might give say Xd12 damage (based on caster level), save for half, that needs to bypass the damage threshold, or the spell takes no effect, but the spell deals no damage at all if it doesn't bypass the DT.

-AC scaling automatically. 3.X requiring you to invest large chunks of your character resources into AC is ridiculous, especially given how readily available AC alternatives are.

-Armor granting refreshing HP. The discussion of this above is actually what got me to post. Basically, having this option makes it so it's okay for Armor to not be the best AC in the game, and Armor still be useful. It's all right for super mcninja in his light or no armor to have the best AC, because he actually is better at dodging. But when he gets hit, he will get hit a lot harder than the guy in armor.

That said I do not agree necessarily with the idea of armor durability. While I considered it, I ultimately think it should be an optional rule, with the game simply balanced around the idea that tanky characters have significantly more hp over time.

-Saving throws scaling better overall, and having less massive differentiation. I actually think the Armor mechanic is quite clever for this, in that it allows characters with different stats to have similar end values in a way that feels good. The trouble is this is something that would typically fall under the realm of magical items, and you don't want a single really essential magical item.

Another possibility is making it easier to have good stats fueling saves. I personally lean towards having two saves (Physical and Mental) which take the best attribute of each category, then simply designing classes so they generally need one physical and one mental attribute. (A Wizard might be Int/Dex, a Sorcerer might be Cha/Con, Fighter Str/Int, and so on).



But yeah, basically all of these changes significantly screw with the underlying math of the system. HP/Wounds, Armor giving temp HP, and DT all require damage to fall within a certain band or characters start dying instantly or becoming immune to real damage fairly ease. That band can be fairly wide, and will change by level, but 3.5 has never been good for sticking with any band. Changing AC and Save scaling both add on their own requirements, but given you basically have to rewrite everything for the others, it's cake to implement at that point.


But the upswing of it is in the end result you get a few good things:
-HP/Wounds separation makes it clear which things are actual injuries and which are more the 'other' things. It opens up room for things like mundane healing/second wind type things to be more easily accepted.
-You have consistency with what you'd expect in that a heavily armored character is somewhat easier to hit, but harder to damage. And tougher characters are generally actually tougher.
-There is a better secondary defense against spells/status, so save or lose isn't the name of the day.
-It opens up good character interaction where you can have something like the Rogue dropping enemy DT so the Wizard can get his fight ending spell to stick.


The downside of course is that it's a lot of new variables being added. I mean, I like it, but given it all at once, I don't know that the average player would like it. It basically adds 2 or 3 new variables into defenses, which from the game perspective is good because defenses are generally lacking and too binary, but from a play perspective could be bad because it's a fair bit of book keeping to work with.

It's possible that you could just have the Damage Threshold replace the saving throw entirely, becoming your passive defense against status effects, so you're trading out 3 old variables (your 3 saves) for 3 new ones (DT, Armor HP, Wound Points). But then you're basically losing out on all presence of mental stats from defenses, which I'm not sure is right (unless you have two different DTs, which seems weird)

[Morty]

I really don't like the hit points as they're presented in 3rd edition D&D. They're boring, inconsistent and absurd at high levels. I think Seerow and Jane_Smith have good ideas, but it needs to be taken further.
Controversial as it will sound, I think that hit points should not be the only measure of a character's durability, nor should they always increase with level. They ought to be one of the possible ways of defending oneself at best. A beefy warrior will have plenty of HP, meaning he can simpy shrug off blows before they start to wear him down - unless he recieves a wound so severe hitpoints will not help and it'll go staight to wounds (or however we call it). Such a character will also wear heavy armor to help mitigate the attacks, whether by providing damage reduction or soaking it up with temporary HP. But a nimble rogue or a canny duelist will focus on evading or deflecting attacks so that they don't reach their hitpoints at all. A mage will have very little hit points but will surround himself in protective spells. And so on and so forth. Of course, hybrid approaches would be possible, like a warrior who is quick and focuses on dodging and parrying, but isn't as acrobatic as a rogue or monk - instead he wears medium armor like chainmail or scalemail.

[Carl]

Let me put it this way: Notice how every core armor has their armor bonus plus max Dex bonus sum up to 8 or 9? That means that the best AC bonus you can get (without magical armor or special abilities) is +8 or +9. If you choose padded armor, you get +9 armor. If you choose full plate, you get +9 armor, -6 skills, and 2/3 speed at 300 times the cost of padded armor, so you're paying much more to take extra penalties. Heavier armor is only beneficial at low levels because you can't afford many Dex boosters then...but they're too expensive to be easily used by low-level characters.



Sort of. Basically, WotC made it seem like BAB is this big thing and getting full BAB is something awesome...but at 17th level, when a wizard is able to rip reality a new one, the fighter is still getting just +1 to attacks. It's not that the bonus is small (it is) or that everyone else can duplicate it (they can), it's that the overestimation of BAB caused them to lose out on having any actual class features.



But that's the thing: grouping classes gives different limitations, because you can no longer select two things from the same group. You reduce the chances of creating a broken feature because there are fewer unintended interactions. That's not a function of class grouping, that's basic permutations and combinations math.



Multiclassing should not be punished. Punishing anyone for making a rules-legal choice instead of just disallowing it is a terrible thing to do. If you want to allow open multicassing, do that, and test all the resulting combinations. If you can't be bothered, you can prohibit multiclassing or allow it only in limited forms. But don't allow something and then penalize characters for taking that options. That's why 3e's multiclassing XP penalties is probably the single most ignored rule in all of 3e: because it's terrible both a game balance, game design, and logic perspective.

1. I didn't realise people could reliably get +8 modifier pre-epic levels TBH. SRD doesn't have levelling rules and obviously splat books. Guess that's the source of a lot, (with SRD anything over about +5 looks tough since SRD limits you to whatever levelling gives, plus a +5 enchantment bonus from a magic item). Obviously classes whom focus on Dex above all other are going to come close pre-epic, but most Heavy Armour classes wouldn't be what I would call Dex classes. Fair enough.

2. Roughly what i figured after your first post, just wanted to be clear that it was that and not a case of lower values being sufficient with the excess being a waste.

3. I honestly don't understand your first paragraph. though i think your second paragraph clarified it though. What i think your talking about isn't putting all the skills of all the, (as an example), martial classes on one class with you picking a specific number of those skills, (subject to some limitations), at each level up. It';s taking all those skills. creating a specific progression for each possible combination from lv1 to lv20, then telling people to pick one progression at character creation and locking them into that progression forever.

Here's the catch. That's just the same as barring multi-classing and then creating a separate base class for every multi-class combination. Your method just involves more new rules, and hence greater potential for confusion, (and that's assuming you can cover every possible class combination, which you probably can';t, so your sacrificing customisation as well).


Anyway thanks for the answer though, given me a lots of idea's. Not sure if I'll get anything up soon, totally floored by this cold atm.

@Jane_Smith: Much more complicated than it needs to be. KISS remember.

[Seerow]

1. I didn't realise people could reliably get +8 modifier pre-epic levels TBH. SRD doesn't have levelling rules and obviously splat books. Guess that's the source of a lot, (with SRD anything over about +5 looks tough since SRD limits you to whatever levelling gives, plus a +5 enchantment bonus from a magic item). Obviously classes whom focus on Dex above all other are going to come close pre-epic, but most Heavy Armour classes wouldn't be what I would call Dex classes. Fair enough.


SRD only you get a free +5 to all stats around level 12 or so, and +6 to all stats is a dirt cheap magic item.

Average stat at level 15-20 is around a 22 or so. Not quite a +8, but +8-12 is not unreasonable for primary stats.

[Friv]

1. I didn't realise people could reliably get +8 modifier pre-epic levels TBH. SRD doesn't have levelling rules and obviously splat books. Guess that's the source of a lot, (with SRD anything over about +5 looks tough since SRD limits you to whatever levelling gives, plus a +5 enchantment bonus from a magic item). Obviously classes whom focus on Dex above all other are going to come close pre-epic, but most Heavy Armour classes wouldn't be what I would call Dex classes. Fair enough.

It is unlikely to happen with padded armor unless you're epic, but it's not at all hard to get Dex 20 (say, starting at Dex 14-16 and putting on some Gloves of Dexterity, which also boost your initiative, touch AC, Reflex save and quite a lot of skills, and are therefore great for most physical classes).

At that point, your +1 Mithril Chain Shirt gives you a total +10 to your AC with no check penalty, for 2250 gp.

Your +1 Full Plate gives you a total +10 to your AC with a -6 check penalty, 20 foot speed, and reduced running, for 2650 gp. And requires two more proficiencies.

Which would you prefer to take?

[Seerow]

At that point, your +1 Mithril Chain Shirt gives you a total +10 to your AC with no check penalty, for 2250 gp.

Your +1 Full Plate gives you a total +10 to your AC with a -6 check penalty, 20 foot speed, and reduced running, for 2650 gp. And requires two more proficiencies.

Bump that up to +5 and +4 respectively, and you have +13 to your AC for 26,250 vs +13 to your AC for 17,650gp


Not that that matters once Magic Vestment comes into play.

[Friv]

Bump that up to +5 and +4 respectively, and you have +13 to your AC for 26,250 vs +13 to your AC for 17,650gp


Not that that matters once Magic Vestment comes into play.

...?

Not sure that I follow your math.

A +5 Mithril Chain shirt provides a maximum +15 to AC (+5 Magic, +4 Armor, +6 Dex) at a cost of 26,250, not a maximum +13.

You seem to be dropping the mithral +2 to maximum Dex bonus advantage. But thank you for doing so, because I had thought it was only +1.

To be totally fair, at high levels we can make them both mithral, once that becomes viable cost-wise.

At that point, a +5 mithral chain shirt provides a maximum +15 to AC, at a cost of 26,250.

A +4 mithral full plate provides a maximum +15 AC, at a cost of 26,650, and still provides a -3 check penalty, slows to 20ft, and requires a feat. The difference is not quite as horrific once you have a lot of cash, but it's still worse.

[Seerow]

Actually there was some bad math on my part, ignore it. It was a combination of misreading/extrapolating your post, and just being wrong on my part.

[Carl]

Cheers for the replies. Decided to throw something together off the back of that :), so watch out for my fighter fix. aka, everyone favourite thing :smallamused:.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Spoilering the class condensation discussion:

3. I honestly don't understand your first paragraph. though i think your second paragraph clarified it though. What i think your talking about isn't putting all the skills of all the, (as an example), martial classes on one class with you picking a specific number of those skills, (subject to some limitations), at each level up. It';s taking all those skills. creating a specific progression for each possible combination from lv1 to lv20, then telling people to pick one progression at character creation and locking them into that progression forever.

Another swing and a miss; apparently I'm not explaining this well. The gist of what I'm suggesting is to split the martial classes into "good" classes and "bad" classes, take any good class features out of the bad classes and turn them into fighter-only feats, and let players gestalt an improved fighter (feats every level, better chassis, etc.) with one of the good classes while being able to pick up stuff from the bad classes, while stipulating that a fighter//knight (or whatever) can't multiclass with a fighter//barbarian because he's already getting plenty of extra martial class features and a build like ranger 2/knight 2/barbarian 2/etc. is an artifact of current martial suckiness and should be gotten rid of. Now, I'm actually doing this as a system overhaul, not just using that stuff as-is, but you get the idea.

This reduces playtesting effort because, first, if you're just testing multiclass combinations, you've gone from X classes to many fewer than X classes, reducing the effort by an order of magnitude at least, and second, if you're testing specific builds (TWFers with Dex and Int to damage, for instance) you no longer have to test that with every possible combination of Swashbuckler levels because the swashbuckler is no more, only Insightful Strike.


You could always just make armor give damage reduction; but to counter the issue with "oh, i got DR 8 from my fullplate, no mook can EVER damage me again without a crit!" and tanking 1000 mobs direct attacks for ten minutes?

Let me stop you right there: Why is it a bad thing if the fighter can tank mooks for a long time? From a mechanical perspective, any enemy that can be described as a mook and used in groups of several hundred is probably only hitting on a 20 anyway, and if DR drops their effective numbers from 1000 attacks per round to 2.5 attacks per round, that seems reasonable, particularly if the armor is magical.

From a flavor perspective, look at the French knights at the Battle of Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#The_main_French_assault)--they walked 300 yards through the mud under a constant barrage of arrows and managed to push back the English line while still under close-range arrow fire; it was the fatigue of walking through the mud and longbowmen using stakes to get under their armor that killed them, not the arrows. I think it's a good thing if someone in full plate with DR 8 can just waltz through an arrow storm coming their way from a bunch of low-level commoners or warriors.

This is yet another instance of fighters Not Getting Nice Things. We think nothing of a wizard being able to kill a thousand mooks with AoEs and summons and such, or render them harmless with wind walls and stoneskin, but when it comes to martial types and armor, oh, suddenly DR 8 is far too powerful and we start talking about armor maintenance and "realistic" amounts of protection that aren't actually realistic at all--not to mention the idea that full plate was this heavy constricting contraption that gives you all sorts of speed and movement penalties when it's possible to do cartwheels in a well-constructed suit of plate.

Heavy armor (and to a lesser extent medium armor) being too pathetic to use outside of a very narrow level range--and being not very impressive even in that range--is precisely the problem that needs to be fixed. Full plate should probably have stats something like +8 AC, max Dex +5, DR 10, no speed penalty, -2 ACP, and maybe light fortification, at least for proficient users; it was the pinnacle of armor technology, people should want to get plate over mithral light armor any day. Characters who want to use lighter armor can be given other benefits in them, but heavy armor types definitely need Nice Things.


Things I've considered in this vein:
-HP/Wounds, with overflow damage to wounds being much lower, so rather than being super-lethality option, they actually work the opposite way, making characters in general more durable. Some effects (jumping off a cliff, swimming through lava, etc) go straight to wounds, but affect only HP unless..

I've never understood this desire to separate out wounds from HP and then make cliff-jumping and lava exposure practically instant death conditions. HP works out fine if you assume it's physical damage plus damage mitigation--as long as you also keep in mind that characters become superhuman as they level. Surviving incredible falls and other sources of major damage is possible in the real world, why not let high-level characters do that?

Now, imposing penalties if you're at certain HP percentages or if you take more than X damage in one clump is different, and that I can get behind. That both discourages cliff diving while still making it survivable and also gives martial types debuffs and SoDs if they deal enough damage. I think everyone forgets the massive damage rules when rewriting HP; even if you survive a huge fall or diving into lava, you have to make that Fort save and you'll roll a 1 eventually, but everyone houserules it out because at high levels martial types do more damage than that on each attack. Well, why not let them? Keep that rule around, and it solves several objections to HP-as-physical-damage and it also gives martial types SoDs like casters have (albeit less reliable ones).

[Carl]

PM time PairO'Dice Lost, because yeah this is going wildly off tangent.

EDIT:


This is yet another instance of fighters Not Getting Nice Things. We think nothing of a wizard being able to kill a thousand mooks with AoEs and summons and such, or render them harmless with wind walls and stoneskin, but when it comes to martial types and armor, oh, suddenly DR 8 is far too powerful and we start talking about armor maintenance and "realistic" amounts of protection that aren't actually realistic at all--not to mention the idea that full plate was this heavy constricting contraption that gives you all sorts of speed and movement penalties when it's possible to do cartwheels in a well-constructed suit of plate.

The thing is most people agree that Wizards shouldn't be doing those things either, so giving fighter that ability is equally dumb. I think everyone agree's fighters and armour need a buff. but at the same time wizards need smacking with the nerf hammer so hard it's not even funny.

[Seerow]

I've never understood this desire to separate out wounds from HP and then make cliff-jumping and lava exposure practically instant death conditions. HP works out fine if you assume it's physical damage plus damage mitigation--as long as you also keep in mind that characters become superhuman as they level. Surviving incredible falls and other sources of major damage is possible in the real world, why not let high-level characters do that?

I didn't say that they'd be basically instant death, just that they wouldn't affect hit points.

I'd imagine Damage Threshold still matters here. The higher the damage threshold, the fewer wounds you take from it.

I guess you could still theoretically have it apply to HP, but doing so would be superfluous in my opinion, because in such a system HP itself would be a very easy to renew resource outside of combat situations, wounds would be the more persistent needs magic or time to heal type deal.


edit:

This is yet another instance of fighters Not Getting Nice Things. We think nothing of a wizard being able to kill a thousand mooks with AoEs and summons and such, or render them harmless with wind walls and stoneskin, but when it comes to martial types and armor, oh, suddenly DR 8 is far too powerful and we start talking about armor maintenance and "realistic" amounts of protection that aren't actually realistic at all--not to mention the idea that full plate was this heavy constricting contraption that gives you all sorts of speed and movement penalties when it's possible to do cartwheels in a well-constructed suit of plate.

For comparison to this model, for my own I was planning on having temp HP = to armor bonus times attacks from BAB that refreshes every turn. So a max level Fighter with Full Plate has like 40-60 temp HP (depending on if you are using magic bonuses or not) that anyone attacking him has to burn through to deal any real damage. Meanwhile the rogue has more AC but only like 20-30 temp hp. The Wizard is downright squishy, sitting with maybe 10-15 temp hp and the lowest AC without spells.

At lower levels those numbers are more like 7-8, 3-4, and 0 respectively.

[Yitzi]

I had an idea for fighter's once myself. And while many will cry about "oh this makes fighters wizards", I don't really care.

Wizard's gain knowledge of spells threw study, research, strokes of genius, gathering knowledge from other sources, going to classes, visiting academies, libraries, etc. They take this knowledge and create magical effects from scientific forms of experimentation and execution.

So... why not make martial characters learn maneuvers in a similar fashion? Except instead of a spellbook and academies and libraries, they go to dojo's, spar and train with masters, go to martial nations or enlist in armies? Thats one thing I hated about tome of battle was the concept of "You know X" maneuvers. Why can't you potentially learn ALL the maneuvers, just like a wizard can learn all spells? Suddenly, intelligence based fighter's become extremely well rounded and jack of all trades, knowing maneuvers for just about any situation. I also enjoy the war blades and factotum's ideas for using int as a combat based stat, to garentee critical hits, as a bonus to initiative and to reflex saves. The barbarian may leroy jenkins the dragon and come out alive from sheer raw physical power and inhuman endurance, but the fighter is meant to be a tactician, weapon master, and knowledgeable combatant.

That is definitely workable; there are issues with making the maneuver "casting" mechanic too similar to spellcasters, but for learning them what you describe should work well. (As well as it does for the wizard, anyway; I'd argue that the wizard's ability to learn spells from a huge selection at trivial cost is a substantial part of it's problem, and would therefore be wary of applying it to the fighter, but if you're keeping it for the wizard there's no reason not to apply it to whatever it is that the fighter gets.)

[Morty]

This is yet another instance of fighters Not Getting Nice Things. We think nothing of a wizard being able to kill a thousand mooks with AoEs and summons and such, or render them harmless with wind walls and stoneskin, but when it comes to martial types and armor, oh, suddenly DR 8 is far too powerful and we start talking about armor maintenance and "realistic" amounts of protection that aren't actually realistic at all--not to mention the idea that full plate was this heavy constricting contraption that gives you all sorts of speed and movement penalties when it's possible to do cartwheels in a well-constructed suit of plate.




The thing is most people agree that Wizards shouldn't be doing those things either, so giving fighter that ability is equally dumb. I think everyone agree's fighters and armour need a buff. but at the same time wizards need smacking with the nerf hammer so hard it's not even funny.

What he said. Wizards shouldn't be able to render themselves completely immune to attacks below a certain threshhold either.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I didn't say that they'd be basically instant death, just that they wouldn't affect hit points.

I'd imagine Damage Threshold still matters here. The higher the damage threshold, the fewer wounds you take from it.

I guess you could still theoretically have it apply to HP, but doing so would be superfluous in my opinion, because in such a system HP itself would be a very easy to renew resource outside of combat situations, wounds would be the more persistent needs magic or time to heal type deal.

I suppose I jumped to conclusions there; most HP/wounds systems I've seen are basically "...and so critical hits and anything the DM thinks should be deadly deals full normal to wounds, which you have like 20 of at most" because they're an attempt to make 20th level characters fear one mook with a crossbow. If you're just separating out types of damage for healing purposes, I retract my objection.


What he said. Wizards shouldn't be able to render themselves completely immune to attacks below a certain threshhold either.

We're not talking ethereal flying wizards astral projecting from their demiplanes, here, we're talking about mid-level wizards and fighters both being able to resist level 1 archers fairly effectively. DR 8 or 10 is not the end of the world.

And yes, I do think you should basically be able to ignore individual enemies too low-ECL to give you XP for defeating them unless they have a closer-to-ECL foe making them more threatening (e.g. a DFI bard) or come in ridiculous numbers (i.e. enough that you're getting crit at least once per round), since (A) you're exponentially more powerful than they are and (B) doing it otherwise means things like Leadership followers, hired minions, weaker summons, etc. are more dangerous than they really should be. I mean, the DMG already says that average moderately-optimized PCs facing ECL+8 challenges shouldn't be able to win and there's something really weird going on if they do, so why shouldn't level X PCs just be able to say "lol no" to level X-8 or so NPCs?

[Amechra]

The fighter should just get a feature where their attacks against creatures that wouldn't grant them experience (CR Level-8) automatically leave them at -1 and destabilized if they wouldn't normally just kill them.

And then another that makes anything that would let them use that class feature provoke AoOs just for existing.

[Morty]

We're not talking ethereal flying wizards astral projecting from their demiplanes, here, we're talking about mid-level wizards and fighters both being able to resist level 1 archers fairly effectively. DR 8 or 10 is not the end of the world.

And yes, I do think you should basically be able to ignore individual enemies too low-ECL to give you XP for defeating them unless they have a closer-to-ECL foe making them more threatening (e.g. a DFI bard) or come in ridiculous numbers (i.e. enough that you're getting crit at least once per round), since (A) you're exponentially more powerful than they are and (B) doing it otherwise means things like Leadership followers, hired minions, weaker summons, etc. are more dangerous than they really should be. I mean, the DMG already says that average moderately-optimized PCs facing ECL+8 challenges shouldn't be able to win and there's something really weird going on if they do, so why shouldn't level X PCs just be able to say "lol no" to level X-8 or so NPCs?

I did actually mean that PCs should be threatened by overwhelming numbers of low-level enemies. I don't mind them just swatting aside individual characters or creatures of much lower ECL, but large groups should remain relevant, especially if they use effective tactics. Fighting armies should be a challenge for high-level PCs, not a cakewalk for mid-level ones.
I feel like we're getting off-topic but then, those are fundamental design issues that affect class balance.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That is definitely workable; there are issues with making the maneuver "casting" mechanic too similar to spellcasters, but for learning them what you describe should work well. (As well as it does for the wizard, anyway; I'd argue that the wizard's ability to learn spells from a huge selection at trivial cost is a substantial part of it's problem, and would therefore be wary of applying it to the fighter, but if you're keeping it for the wizard there's no reason not to apply it to whatever it is that the fighter gets.)
Sounds familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275538).

I'm not too worried about a million little mooks either. Those encounters are already almost impossible to run without proper minion and/or mass combat rules.

[Draz74]

Tired of hearing "book keeping" as an excuse for why something is not a good idea when the ENTIRE game is based on keeping track of stats. Don't give me that crap - have you read even half of this thread? EVERYTHING that is been suggested is some level of extra book keeping, some moreso then this, some less.
Not true. You have to consider whether fixes, even though they add some bookkeeping in some areas, take away MORE bookkeeping in other areas. This is the mark of a truly elegant fix.


Armor and Saving Throws is one of the big points in that, where I feel they need a fundamental overhaul that is relatively hard to adapt to the rest of the game.

Things I've considered in this vein:
-HP/Wounds, with overflow damage to wounds being much lower, so rather than being super-lethality option, they actually work the opposite way, making characters in general more durable. Some effects (jumping off a cliff, swimming through lava, etc) go straight to wounds, but affect only HP unless..

-Damage Threshold. Based on the level and general durability of the character. The Threshold has to be crossed to deal wound damage, or for most non-damaging effects. For example something like Finger of Death might give say Xd12 damage (based on caster level), save for half, that needs to bypass the damage threshold, or the spell takes no effect, but the spell deals no damage at all if it doesn't bypass the DT.

-AC scaling automatically. 3.X requiring you to invest large chunks of your character resources into AC is ridiculous, especially given how readily available AC alternatives are.
Yep. What I've personally settled on is:

- Separating HP into Vitality Points and a condition track (Wounded, Dying, Dead) for actual serious bodily harm. Vitality still represents some abstract combination of morale, stamina, and minor bruises/scrapes. But there are important differences; for example, non-magical mid-combat healing can't do anything about fixing someone's Wounded status. (At least not until Epic, at which point nothing is completely "non-magical" anyway.)

- Making variations in saves a lot less dramatic.

- Replacing AC with a new saving throw, Defense. It scales with level just like other saves, and the easiest way to improve it is by wielding a shield. Or using special abilities like Dodge. Notably, it is not affected by wearing armor.

- Making a damage threshold that is based largely on what armor you wear. Whether your Defense Save succeeds or fails, the consequences will be more painful if the attack beats your Armor Value.


But yeah, basically all of these changes significantly screw with the underlying math of the system. HP/Wounds, Armor giving temp HP, and DT all require damage to fall within a certain band or characters start dying instantly or becoming immune to real damage fairly ease. That band can be fairly wide, and will change by level, but 3.5 has never been good for sticking with any band.
Yep. Damage quantities in 3.5e are terribly all-over-the-place; at Level 3, an attack of 1d8+5 is still pretty respectable, but the system also has to be able to handle a critical hit Scorching Ray for 6d6 damage. At Level 18, things like Shock Trooper or Strike of Perfect Clarity or Spirited Charge can cause attacks with numbers like 1d10+5d6+116 damage, and yet attacks that deal 1d8+17 damage are still supposed to be relevant (as long as you make a lot of them ... Time Stands Still, anyone?).

This huge spread in damage expectations is the downfall of most of the Vitality/Wounds variant rules I've seen over the years. Tightening up the damage expectations is, kind of, what made me realize that my own houserules were really becoming a new system rather than just a variation on D&D.


1. I didn't realise people could reliably get +8 modifier pre-epic levels TBH.
+8 is actually pretty ridiculous for anything other than a character's primary stat (and DEX isn't a Fighter's primary stat). However, in order to make light armor a better choice than heavy armor, you don't need to go all the way up to a +8. You just need to go up to a +6, max, and even if you only reach +4 you might be better off with light armor than you are with speed penalties and armor check penalties from heavy armor.

+4 DEX is trivial for a high-level character to get. They just have to start with 12 DEX (not very high) and buy a DEX +6 item (which costs 36k ... small change at high levels, and doable by Level 12 or so).


Let me stop you right there: Why is it a bad thing if the fighter can tank mooks for a long time?

Personally, I definitely don't have a problem with this at higher levels, but a Level 3 Fighter who can tank an army of 500 mooks strains my suspension of belief pretty badly. And since the context of this discussion was acquiring DR 8/- by wearing full plate, it was pretty doable at Level 3 or so.

Most Armor-as-DR variants that I've seen make armor too good against mooks, but actually weaken it against tough monsters. Any armor "fix" that intends to make the Fighter/Knight/Paladin better because of their use of heavy armor needs to avoid this consequence like the plague.

[Ziegander]

Okay, guys, the analysis of levels 7+ is now up. The conclusion is the last thing for me to write, and will take the longest, obviously. I will continue to read the discussion of this particular problem, and continue to take in other posters' thoughts on how to fix it.

[Ziegander]

Separating HP into Vitality Points and a condition track (Wounded, Dying, Dead) for actual serious bodily harm. Vitality still represents some abstract combination of morale, stamina, and minor bruises/scrapes. But there are important differences; for example, non-magical mid-combat healing can't do anything about fixing someone's Wounded status. (At least not until Epic, at which point nothing is completely "non-magical" anyway.)

I've worked on similar mechanics in the past. HP being some value based on character level with "wounds" being a number of sets of "life bars," filled with HP, based on a character's Con modifier. The only real problem I've ever had with that system was that it didn't model "sickly" characters (with negative Con mods) well. A Fort save mechanic would work best, probably, with "wounds" being based on character level as well.

As PairO'Dice Lost mentioned, a massive damage rule would work well too.


Making variations in saves a lot less dramatic.

How about making all saves +1 per two levels, with an additional bonus ranging from +0 to +5? I've been toying with doing this for all variable d20 rolls and associated bonuses. A "Good" progression would go from +0 to +15, while a "Bad" one would go from +0 to +10. Then, at base, the floor and ceiling are only a 25% success/fail rate apart from each other, and as long as you keep the bonuses/penalties small and limited, then it should work well enough.


Replacing AC with a new saving throw, Defense. It scales with level just like other saves, and the easiest way to improve it is by wielding a shield. Or using special abilities like Dodge. Notably, it is not affected by wearing armor.

What makes this different from a Reflex save? Just make Reflex saves the mechanic for avoiding all hit point damage, rather than area effect damage, and you've essentially got this. Slightly off-topic, what makes an Initiative check thematically different from a group-opposed Reflex save?


Making a damage threshold that is based largely on what armor you wear. Whether your Defense Save succeeds or fails, the consequences will be more painful if the attack beats your Armor Value.

Hmm... I like the concept of this, but I don't see how it would work out in execution...

[Draz74]

I've worked on similar mechanics in the past. HP being some value based on character level with "wounds" being a number of sets of "life bars," filled with HP, based on a character's Con modifier. The only real problem I've ever had with that system was that it didn't model "sickly" characters (with negative Con mods) well. A Fort save mechanic would work best, probably, with "wounds" being based on character level as well.
Another thing to be careful of, if you're introducing keeping track of multiple Wounds, is the bookkeeping associated with the penalties inflicted by those Wounds.

If that's not a concern, then the Toughness Save system from Mutants & Masterminds strikes me as a viable "fix" to the Hit Points-like branch of the game.


As PairO'Dice Lost mentioned, a massive damage rule would work well too.
In general, isn't a "massive damage rule" really just alternative jargon for a damage threshold?


How about making all saves +1 per two levels, with an additional bonus ranging from +0 to +5? I've been toying with doing this for all variable d20 rolls and associated bonuses. A "Good" progression would go from +0 to +15, while a "Bad" one would go from +0 to +10.
Yeah, my system just sticks with a static +2 as the difference between a good and bad save, but that's largely because of the myriad of other changes it deals with. If I were to write a 3e fix that is more recognizable as a 3e fix, I would do something like you describe -- actually, I would just adopt the Legend save progressions, where a good save scales from +2 to +15 (2 + Level * 2/3, rounded down), while a bad save scales from +0 to +10. (Level / 2 rounded down, obviously.)


What makes this different from a Reflex save? Just make Reflex saves the mechanic for avoiding all hit point damage, rather than area effect damage, and you've essentially got this. Slightly off-topic, what makes an Initiative check thematically different from a group-opposed Reflex save?
Actually, you're pretty close to what I concluded as well. :smallsmile: Defense saves are indeed used for things like fireballs or dragon breath. Reflex saves remain in the game so that they can be used for things where a shield really wouldn't be helpful (avoiding a pit trap, avoiding a spell similar to Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, possibly avoiding meeting a medusa's gaze). And then yeah, I also just got rid of Initiative being a separate statistic and based it on Reflex saves.


Hmm... I like the concept of this, but I don't see how it would work out in execution...

I'd be happy to go into more detail, but I feel like I've already contributed enough to derailing this thread, since it wasn't really supposed to be about writing whole new systems originally. :smallbiggrin: Let me know what you'd like.

EDIT:

that latter part being why i alwasy wanted to slap monte cook in the face soo hard so very very hard.. with a catfish.

If you do, please have someone video-record it!

[ngilop]

I LOVE THIS POST!!!

What zieg said about what fighters should be akin to (heracles and such) is what ive been saying for what like 6 months now.. only when i say it, the forum seems to jump on the ' ngilop is wrong and fighters should be the big strong and dumb type and only be allowed what us in the real world are capable of and fighters anr ogues are supposed to suck because only noobs are supposed to play them while 'skilled' players play their tier 1 classes

that latter part being why i alwasy wanted to slap monte cook in the face soo hard so very very hard.. with a catfish.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Personally, I definitely don't have a problem with this at higher levels, but a Level 3 Fighter who can tank an army of 500 mooks strains my suspension of belief pretty badly. And since the context of this discussion was acquiring DR 8/- by wearing full plate, it was pretty doable at Level 3 or so.

Being able to effortlessly tank tons of mooks doesn't really happen at low levels thanks to low HP and few or no means of getting miss chances, contingencies, hit negation, etc. 500 mooks = 1.25 crits per round, which with a longbow means about 2 damage gets through DR per round assuming 10 Str commoners. I just did a simulation on my dice roller and got 2 crits in one round for 10 and 16 damage, so Mr. Fighter just took 10 damage and he can expect to survive just 2 or 3 more rounds of that at most

I'd say soaking 2-3 rounds of focus fire from Str 10 level 1 commoners is reasonable for a trained level 3 fighter with the best nonmagical armor around. If the knights at Agincourt could soak a minimum of 600 rounds (300 yards through difficult terrain with no speed reduction from armor) of unfocused fire at about 1 shot per round (7500 archers to 8800 knights), in D&D terms that means they survived an average of 1 crit and 29 normal hits, which would certainly require a good amount of DR. I realize that an appeal to realism isn't the best approach when designing rules, but it's called tanking for a reason.

[Draz74]

snip

Hmmmm ... fair enough. That does work out to be more reasonable than I expected. (Although it's probably still not exactly realistic; "focus-fire" wasn't a universal tactic for medieval archers, although I suppose it happened sometimes when there were high-value targets like cavalry; still, I don't think a trained real-life warrior would survive that many longbow hits in plate armor very often. But this may be getting beyond the level of realism that is actually necessary for me to enjoy a game.)

It still kind of bugs me that a STR-10 peasant with a dagger could never hurt a guy in plate armor, even if the guy in plate armor isn't doing anything except keeping up a minimal defense. Even a crit won't do any damage. Even if the armored guy is first knocked over and grappled (the standard tactic for trying to beat a guy with much better armor than you, if you had to melee with him).

And it also still kind of bugs me that, even though a high-level Barbarian can already survive a ridiculous number of arrows from common mooks, giving him an additional DR 8/- will compound that ridiculous number by a large factor.

But all of this is mostly just nitpicking.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I LOVE THIS POST!!!

What zieg said about what fighters should be akin to (heracles and such) is what ive been saying for what like 6 months now.. only when i say it, the forum seems to jump on the ' ngilop is wrong and fighters should be the big strong and dumb type and only be allowed what us in the real world are capable of and fighters anr ogues are supposed to suck because only noobs are supposed to play them while 'skilled' players play their tier 1 classes

that latter part being why i alwasy wanted to slap monte cook in the face soo hard so very very hard.. with a catfish.
Pretty sure a lot of people have been saying this...

[unbeliever536]

Perhaps the DR could be negated for grappling attacks? That opens the door for precesion-based negation of armor related DR (and things like the gap in Smaug's armor), which could be the rogue's forte. The fighter deals enough damage to bash through the enemy's armor, while the rogue stabs him under the armpit.

[Just to Browse]

If DR can be negated by specific combat actions with restrictions on them (like BAB must cannot be less than target's BAB-1) instead of certain weapon types, combat gets a whole new level of tactical depth. The fighter in full plate will want the wizard to field the spear-wielders, while the wizard in shroud of darkness will want the fighter to disrupt clouds of archers or battlefield evokers.

[Amechra]

You know, I actually thought of something comparatively minor that might make a nice low-level feature for the Fighter.

Tactical Excellence (Ex): A Fighter of Xth level gains the benefits of flanking any creature that either the Fighter has gained a bonus on their attack rolls against due to tactical positioning, or who is currently suffering a penalty to their armor class due to the same.
---

The "tactical positioning" that I'm referencing can be found here (http://dndsrd.net/combatModifiers.html), as the tables labeled "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions."

This boils down to "the Fighter gets at least +2 to attack rolls against people that he would have an advantage against." It allows for greater amounts of Power Attack and the like.

[Ziegander]

Another thing to be careful of, if you're introducing keeping track of multiple Wounds, is the bookkeeping associated with the penalties inflicted by those Wounds.

Well, I would try to keep such penalties, if there needed to be any whatsoever, to a minimum. Any "wound track" or associated mechanic would have a clear place, perhaps with check boxes, on the character sheet.


If that's not a concern, then the Toughness Save system from Mutants & Masterminds strikes me as a viable "fix" to the Hit Points-like branch of the game.

I'll have to go have a look at that.


In general, isn't a "massive damage rule" really just alternative jargon for a damage threshold?

I guess you're right. DTs can be useful as well.


Actually, you're pretty close to what I concluded as well. :smallsmile: Defense saves are indeed used for things like fireballs or dragon breath. Reflex saves remain in the game so that they can be used for things where a shield really wouldn't be helpful (avoiding a pit trap, avoiding a spell similar to Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, possibly avoiding meeting a medusa's gaze). And then yeah, I also just got rid of Initiative being a separate statistic and based it on Reflex saves.

Hmm... but they both deal with overall reflexes, thematically... and you wouldn't have them modified by a separate ability score would you? I am seeing a divide though between damage and "hazards." Oh, hey, that's how it could be done. You can still have Reflex be the "damage save," but for those miscellaneous effects, give them the Hazard keyword. Whenever a Hazard targets your character, you make a Reflex save to avoid it but you cannot add a shield bonus to your roll.


I'd be happy to go into more detail, but I feel like I've already contributed enough to derailing this thread, since it wasn't really supposed to be about writing whole new systems originally. :smallbiggrin: Let me know what you'd like.

Please, do continue. One of the conclusions I will be including is Seerow's, that to truly fix the Fighter one must rewrite the game from scratch. I will eventually discuss modifications to ALL of the non-magic systems in the game, complete with thorough additions to make non-magical disciplines and "sciences" much more robust.


I LOVE THIS POST!!!

What zieg said about what fighters should be akin to (heracles and such) is what ive been saying for what like 6 months now.. only when i say it, the forum seems to jump on the ' ngilop is wrong and fighters should be the big strong and dumb type and only be allowed what us in the real world are capable of and fighters anr ogues are supposed to suck because only noobs are supposed to play them while 'skilled' players play their tier 1 classes

that latter part being why i alwasy wanted to slap monte cook in the face soo hard so very very hard.. with a catfish.

Don't worry, my man. Ngilop was right. :smallbiggrin:


Perhaps the DR could be negated for grappling attacks? That opens the door for precesion-based negation of armor related DR (and things like the gap in Smaug's armor), which could be the rogue's forte. The fighter deals enough damage to bash through the enemy's armor, while the rogue stabs him under the armpit.

This is a solid idea, but it would need to be something that your run-of-the-mill commoner could use. After all, the dagger vs plate issue should have a solution if the character in question gets lucky as well as tactical. This is thinking in the right direction, though. Applying thoughts like this to non-magic vs magic can lead to tactical, mundane solutions to magical obstacles. For example, imagine if Anti-Toxin provided a +5 bonus to saves vs Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, and similar effects. Now imagine that there were lots of simple mundane items like that, that could provide a character with a real advantage against a small group of magical circumstances and effects.

[Carl]

eing able to effortlessly tank tons of mooks doesn't really happen at low levels thanks to low HP and few or no means of getting miss chances, contingencies, hit negation, etc. 500 mooks = 1.25 crits per round, which with a longbow means about 2 damage gets through DR per round assuming 10 Str commoners. I just did a simulation on my dice roller and got 2 crits in one round for 10 and 16 damage, so Mr. Fighter just took 10 damage and he can expect to survive just 2 or 3 more rounds of that at most

I'd say soaking 2-3 rounds of focus fire from Str 10 level 1 commoners is reasonable for a trained level 3 fighter with the best nonmagical armor around. If the knights at Agincourt could soak a minimum of 600 rounds (300 yards through difficult terrain with no speed reduction from armor) of unfocused fire at about 1 shot per round (7500 archers to 8800 knights), in D&D terms that means they survived an average of 1 crit and 29 normal hits, which would certainly require a good amount of DR. I realize that an appeal to realism isn't the best approach when designing rules, but it's called tanking for a reason.

I'm still writing a rely to your last PM, but thought i'd point this out.

1. There's some debate about how effective the arrow firewould have been at the angle of conact.

2. Can't speak for Agincourt but archers in medivel battles often employed area fire, so a lot of those would have been plain misses in D&D terms, probably a natural 20 to hit or something like).

3. Whilst Str10 commoners might be reasonable for many Archers. English Longbowmen put in a LOT more training than that. Str 14-16 with a dedicated Archer Class would be far more appropriate.

Overall i think you make some good points but there's a lot of luck in there all the same. So be careful with making assumptions off the back of it ;).

[Draz74]

Well, I would try to keep such penalties, if there needed to be any whatsoever, to a minimum. Any "wound track" or associated mechanic would have a clear place, perhaps with check boxes, on the character sheet.
Yep, that's good, although still not quite aligned with my tastes.


Hmm... but they both deal with overall reflexes, thematically... and you wouldn't have them modified by a separate ability score would you?
Heh ... about that ... my system also ended up turning ability scores into skills. :smalltongue: (Strength is generally replaced by the Brawn skill, Wisdom by the Perception skill, etc.) And by default, none of them apply to your Reflex save or your defense save.

Special abilities can affect the situation in a number of ways. The Dodge feat lets you use your Reflex save in place of your Defense save (at an action cost), for example; or some monk-style abilities can give you a synergy bonus to these saves based on your Perception. But as far as default modifiers go .... I tried probably at least twenty different ability score arrangements, and found that I was dissatisfied with all of them because I was dissatisfied with the way ability scores work in general.

But if I were to try to include the Defense save in a more recognizable 3e spin-off ... hmm. I might actually have each class include a Level 1 ability that let you apply an appropriate ability score to your Defense save. (And these class features wouldn't stack with each other under any circumstances, regardless of whether they used the same ability score or not.) That would allow for characters who anticipate attacks cleverly, characters who dodge using their quick reactions and agility, characters who avoid danger by instinct, characters who simply "tough it out" when they get attacked ...


Oh, hey, that's how it could be done. You can still have Reflex be the "damage save," but for those miscellaneous effects, give them the Hazard keyword. Whenever a Hazard targets your character, you make a Reflex save to avoid it but you cannot add a shield bonus to your roll.
Personally, I find two saves to be more elegant than a single save that is sometimes aided by a shield, sometimes not. But yes, this could work.

But should characters who are skilled at defending themselves automatically be the same characters who act quickly in the initiative order? Or the same characters who are good at dodging "touch attacks"? Things to ponder.


Please, do continue.
Well, I'll try to provide a quick summary without making you learn the whole system. Feel free to ask for more details, though. Here are the basics:

{table=head]Attack Result | Normal effect | Effect if Damage > Armor Value

Miss | No effect | Target takes a small amount of "attrition damage"

Hit | Normal damage | Normal damage, plus Hazard

Crit | Normal damage, plus Hazard | Target Dropped (plus normal damage and Hazard)[/table]

Undead, constructs, etc., are immune to "attrition damage."

Hazards are a swath of more cinematic consequences that can result from an attack. The most basic Hazard is "the target loses their next move action," but other options include dropping them one spot along the Condition Track (Wounded, Dying, Dropped, Dead), or knocking them prone, depending on various situations that may apply.

Crits are pretty rare in this system, except when someone has run out of Vitality Points. At that point, they take a "Hit" if their Defense save succeeds, and a "Crit" if it fails. (When they still have plenty of VP, a "Crit" can only occur if they're Surprised, or through particularly nasty effects like a Finger of Death or Death Attack or whatever.)

"Dropped" basically means unconscious, but by the fluff they're not necessarily unconscious, so they can e.g. gasp out "last words" to their friends before they die. :smallsmile:

Resistance to a particular attack in this system is as simple as using a higher, easier-to-boost statistic, "Resistance Value," in place of Armor Value when determining an attack's results.

[Yitzi]

Perhaps the DR could be negated for grappling attacks? That opens the door for precesion-based negation of armor related DR (and things like the gap in Smaug's armor), which could be the rogue's forte. The fighter deals enough damage to bash through the enemy's armor, while the rogue stabs him under the armpit.

Or maybe when using a ranged weapon (or light weapon with Weapon Finesse) you can take a penalty to your attack roll to reduce the armor-based DR by the same amount. Of course, high-level characters will still be able to handle a high number of mooks (who won't have the attack to hit with that sort of penalty)...but that's probably a good thing.

[unbeliever536]

That could work. Then you could see rogues adding something like half their rogue level to that number (assuming fighters get a major damage buff) instead of the more-damage-dice that sneak attack is now. They could then give up some of that buff to do things like apply a specific condition or penalty to their target, or deal more damage.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmmmm ... fair enough. That does work out to be more reasonable than I expected. (Although it's probably still not exactly realistic; "focus-fire" wasn't a universal tactic for medieval archers, although I suppose it happened sometimes when there were high-value targets like cavalry; still, I don't think a trained real-life warrior would survive that many longbow hits in plate armor very often. But this may be getting beyond the level of realism that is actually necessary for me to enjoy a game.)

Remember that the knights still shrugged off arrows when they reached the English lines and the archers were shooting arrows at them at point-blank range; full plate is better than we usually give it credit for, to the point that it ignored early bullets as well.


It still kind of bugs me that a STR-10 peasant with a dagger could never hurt a guy in plate armor, even if the guy in plate armor isn't doing anything except keeping up a minimal defense. Even a crit won't do any damage. Even if the armored guy is first knocked over and grappled (the standard tactic for trying to beat a guy with much better armor than you, if you had to melee with him).

Yeah, that's a side effect of only giving the rogue precision damage and having restrictive CdG rules. Maybe add a combat maneuver called Gap in the Armor or something that lets you do extra damage with a piercing melee weapon against impaired (prone, stunned, blinded, etc.) enemies, or just make that a default rule, either way.


2. Can't speak for Agincourt but archers in medivel battles often employed area fire, so a lot of those would have been plain misses in D&D terms, probably a natural 20 to hit or something like).

3. Whilst Str10 commoners might be reasonable for many Archers. English Longbowmen put in a LOT more training than that. Str 14-16 with a dedicated Archer Class would be far more appropriate.

I'm well aware of that. I was giving the full plate wearer the benefit of the doubt and presenting him with the best-case scenario: only 1 arrow had a chance of hitting each round (and they only hit on a 20, so 1/20 chance to hit and 1/400 chance to crit), and he was facing Str-10 commoner 1s instead of the more appropriate Str-16 warrior 2s. If the knight died in 3-4 rounds in the best case scenario, the plate armor therefore wouldn't be too powerful in a more average/"realistic" scenario.


Overall i think you make some good points but there's a lot of luck in there all the same. So be careful with making assumptions off the back of it ;).

Not luck, just statistics. :smallcool:

[Ziegander]

I'm sorry I haven't had the time or energy to finish my essay. I'll be back to this tomorrow, I hope. The conclusions I believe we've drawn are twofold:


1) The Fighter cannot be fixed without a significant fixing of d20 as a whole and D&D 3.5 in particular.

or

2) The Fighter can be fixed for the D&D 3.5 game, by following the footsteps of the Warblade but changing the fluff, the optimization floor, and ramping up the power and utility of the resultant class' "powers" whatever they be called.

I acknowledge that there is another conclusion, which I accept as valid, that goes, "each group can and does fix the Fighter to the extent that it believes it is necessary," but for those groups that have already done so and are happy with the results, well, this thread isn't really for them, is it?

What I will try to do in my Conclusion is to explore the above two options in depth, offering suggestions for how to go about both. I already have a bit of legwork done on the second option and will try to produce such a class in the next week or two. The first option is obviously a bit more involved, but I have some ideas for a good start and I know many of you have some more particular ideas on where to go from there. Thanks for reading, everyone!

[Xhosant]

We could just go omnicidal and treat fighter feats as wizard spells. Let him choose 2 or 3 feats per "serving", be it every level or less, and have him only be able to "activate" a number every day equal to his would-be number of feats (after every short rest, for example, the warrior can re-choose his "feats-of-the-day" from his chosen feats list, or swap in/out a given number per x minutes of rest). That would grant him the versatility of a wizard, on feats.

Problems are,
a) some feats can't just come and go (leadership/languages for example, but we could give him both swappable and unswappable "feat slots" and ban some from the swappable list)
b)i have not the slightest ideas on how to fluff/justify it (apart from "he knows so many techniques he can't keep track of them all at once", which IS a stretch, although i guess it's just the wizard's view on spells at heart)
c) this will be a pain to design and balance (and GM), messing up other homebrews linked to feats. We'll also need MUCH more feats.

But i guess, if it hasn't been considered yet, worse things have been tried for the fighter. It'll stop penalizing a bad build, some consistency will be possible through the non-swappable feats. Is it too insane to consider?

[Jane_Smith]

Um it has been considered, its called shifting tactics from warblade, a 1st level ability. They can basically switch feats out every morning.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Um it has been considered, its called shifting tactics from warblade, a 1st level ability. They can basically switch feats out every morning.

This is not a thing the Warblade gets. They get Weapon Aptitude, which lets than shift weapon-specific feats like Weapon Focus to apply to different weapons. That's not really the same thing as free feat switching, as there are way to many restrictions on the Warblade's ability.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But i guess, if it hasn't been considered yet, worse things have been tried for the fighter. It'll stop penalizing a bad build, some consistency will be possible through the non-swappable feats. Is it too insane to consider?
Ziegander's last fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275538) (and my follow-up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276280)) did basically that, although the new feat selection is round-by-round instead of day-by-day. Which is probably more immerse, if harder to keep track of.

[Ziegander]

Conclusion in progress!

If you were to rewrite the very core of d20 what would you change to make the game more friendly to warriors like the Fighter?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Conclusion in progress!

If you were to rewrite the very core of d20 what would you change to make the game more friendly to warriors like the Fighter?
Make combat maneuvers useful without any investment besides a high BAB; remove the binary nature of conditions; include more ways for warriors to inflict debuffs.

[Poppatomus]

Conclusion in progress!

If you were to rewrite the very core of d20 what would you change to make the game more friendly to warriors like the Fighter?

My two cents, FWIW:

Make BAB advantages more important overall to combat, outside of just the attack role. Specifically, make it easier PC Classes with a higher BAB to disrupt casters targeting them

Shift the world to reflect that it is "easier" in that characters have advantages or disadvantages based on how much time they have to put into their training both over a lifetime and daily. Or change things so that the classes are roughly equivalent in their lifetime commitment. (so the fighter PC class is as much a master of combat as the wizard is a master of magic)

make feats both more situational, and more flexible, so that having more of them provides not just the individual bonus from each extra feat, but a greater ability to meet new challenges or aid the group.

Separately, fantastic job on this. My opinion doesn't mean much, but for what its worth yours is one of the better and more comprehensive approaches I've seen to this question, if not the best.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Long-time admirer of this thread, first time poster...in this thread...hm.

Anyway, my thoughts:


Add BAB to all character's Saves against Magical Effects
Reverse how Armor and magic interact. Heavy Armor should add Spell-Resistance, or remove Touch Attacks entirely.
Rewrite all the feats. All of them. It should take exactly one, count 'em, One feat to remove all penalties to (pick one) Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Handed Fighting, Sword and Board, Unarmed Combat, etc, etc. It shouldn't take 3/4ths of all your feats to become mildly competent with a Bow, or with dual-daggers.
Allow Martial Classes to Full Attack as Standard Actions, preferably at different levels with Fighters getting it waaay earlier than others.
Easier Mundane Healing. Either remake it a class-skill for everyone and make it as good as or nearly so to magical healing, or give every melee class something reminiscent to Healing Hands, but reflavored for each class.

[Poppatomus]

After reading the sophisticated bear's post, one way to bring about easier mundane healing in a way that would help the fighter class would be to allow them to make tactical decisions trading attack for HP.

For instance, something like: A fighter, by virtue of their superior training, automatically heals 1 hp/level of non-lethal damage per round. At the beginning of a round, a fighter can declare they will take no attacks of opportunity in that round[or some similar penalty]. If they do so, then at the end of the round they convert 1d6+1/level lethal damage they have suffered into non-lethal damage.

This would fit with the "fluff" of HP, as I understand it which isn't point for injury, but reflects general loss of prowess, mixing toughness, physical capacity, and luck, as the fight goes on. Here, the extra focus allows the fighter to adapt to her wounds in the midst of combat, improving their effectiveness.

[Yakk]

One thought I had was to have a Martial Level for each class.

1/2 BaB classes: never get a Martial Level.
3/4 BaB spellcaster classes (except bards): never get a Martial Level.
1/1 BaB spellcaster classes: get 1/4 Martial level (starting at level 3)
Non-spellcaster classes and Bards: get 1/4 Martial level (starting at level 3)
Monks, Fighters: Get 1/2 Martial level (starting at level 1)

Martial Level grants a few things. First, it grants iterative attacks (which are now bonus attacks you can do as free actions on your turn). Second, it grants a damage bonus to one attack made with a standard action on your turn (your "main attack").



ML Iterative [W] damage
1 -5 +0[W]
2 -3 +0[W]
3 0 +1[W]
4 0/-5 +1[W]
5 0/-3 +2[W]
6 0/0 +3[W]
7 0/0/-5 +4[W]
8 0/0/-3 +5[W]
9 0/0/0 +7[W]
10 0/0/0/-5 x10[W]


Second, your Martial Level determines the max level of Exploits or Arts of War you can learn (whatever you want to call it), as well as something akin to caster-level checks sometimes.

The DC for an exploit is 10+ML of exploit+Attribute bonus.

Fighters learn and collect Exploits (like a Wizard). Fighters build Stances out of Exploits. Switching which Stance is active for a Fighter is a Standard action (replacing your "main attack"). The number and level of Exploits in a Stance grows with Fighter level.

We could limit how many Stances a Fighter can have (to keep things sane), but allow the Fighter to swap out a single Exploit as a Standard action to allow for unlimited flexibility (or switch whole-hog to a second Stance).

Other classes aren't able to just pick up Exploits, instead they have a limited number they can know at one time (like a Sorcerer). They are, in effect, "locked" to one Stance that contains all of the Exploits they know, and they probably know fewer Exploits than a Fighter can have active in one Stance.

Only Monks and Fighters (and people who MC the classes) have access to level 6 through 10 Exploits. Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians are stuck with level 1-5 Exploits, as their other abilities (spellcasting and rage) make up for it.

Possibly other classes could be made "full martial" classes.

We can scale Exploits by the tier of the game.

L 1-4 fighters have access to L1-2 exploits -- highly skilled warrior.
L 5-8 fighters have access to L3-4 exploits -- Beowulf.
L 9-12 fighters have access to L5-6 exploits -- Hercules.
L 13-16 fighters have access to L7-8 exploits -- Comic book super heroes.
L 17-20 fighters have access to L9-10 exploits -- Solar Exalted.

[Carl]

1. Make Armour actually with it, so that wearing it is actually an advantage, (in particular it really ought to work against touch attacks that are spells because it disrupts the magic or whatever). I've touched on some of this in my own fighter fix.

2. Make higher BAB's worth it, there's already a thread about weapons out there where where discussing making base damage scale with BAB in some way. This would also make a weapons base damage worth a lot more and gets around the weaknesses warriors have compared to mages in raw damage throughput.

3. Make Hitpoints worth it. Whilst when 2 martial classes duke it out they might seem major, bring in mage level damage for everyone and the current method of HP generation is totally inadequate. Not to mention even the barbarian with his D12 hit die has his Hit Die contribution heavily overshadowed by his con modifier.

4. Make magic users eek out their magic more rather than blowing it all in one go, (this would need changes both to number of spells, as well as recovery of spells conditions). If a magic user blows all his spells to solo an encounter he shouldn't just be able to say "that's my workday done lets rest so i can recover". He should have to suffer the downsides of blowing off like that by slogging through the rest of the day's encounters spell-less. Or take some other penalty, (along preferably with the rest of the team), if he wants to sit down and recover right now. No more free lunches.




It should take exactly one, count 'em, One feat to remove all penalties to (pick one) Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Handed Fighting, Sword and Board, Unarmed Combat, etc, etc. It shouldn't take 3/4ths of all your feats to become mildly competent with a Bow, or with dual-daggers.

/epic level facepalm.


Sorry but are you just plain dumb or blind?

Seriously it's bloody obvious why it exists as it does. Proficiencies are about limiting access, not showing your good with a weapon. And TWF chain, (and the remaining penalties even then), is about not letting you more than double all damage factors except Strength modifiers when compared to wielding a 2-hander for just one feat investment. It makes the thing an actual tradeoff, pay for it or you don't get it. that's basic good balancing. I agree the current base damage irrelevance of weapons makes it kind of weak as a chain right now. But you fix that and it's going to be a stonking line.

[Yitzi]

We could just go omnicidal and treat fighter feats as wizard spells. Let him choose 2 or 3 feats per "serving", be it every level or less, and have him only be able to "activate" a number every day equal to his would-be number of feats (after every short rest, for example, the warrior can re-choose his "feats-of-the-day" from his chosen feats list, or swap in/out a given number per x minutes of rest). That would grant him the versatility of a wizard, on feats.

Problems are,
a) some feats can't just come and go (leadership/languages for example, but we could give him both swappable and unswappable "feat slots" and ban some from the swappable list)
b)i have not the slightest ideas on how to fluff/justify it (apart from "he knows so many techniques he can't keep track of them all at once", which IS a stretch, although i guess it's just the wizard's view on spells at heart)
c) this will be a pain to design and balance (and GM), messing up other homebrews linked to feats. We'll also need MUCH more feats.

But i guess, if it hasn't been considered yet, worse things have been tried for the fighter. It'll stop penalizing a bad build, some consistency will be possible through the non-swappable feats. Is it too insane to consider?

I would modify it somewhat, and use the idea of "fighting styles"; each style consists of a number of feats, and he can only use one style at a time (no more than a move action to swap them, though, possibly a swift action.) As he advances in levels, he gets both more styles and more and better feats per style.

That way, you get high versatility (within combat), without going overboard on power, and with move-action swapping or at-will abilities instead of per-day choice for expendable abilities, he'll feel nothing like a wizard.

[Poppatomus]

b)i have not the slightest ideas on how to fluff/justify it (apart from "he knows so many techniques he can't keep track of them all at once", which IS a stretch, although i guess it's just the wizard's view on spells at heart)


Assuming that the feat selection list is limited in some way to feats that are reasonable (say only fighter bonus feats, or only feats that provide a bonus to combat rolls or abilities), one way to justify it is to change slightly what it means to use a feat. Rather than a feat being something you know, it's something you know, and practice, well enough to use.

Some feats you might know down cold, because you use them so much, but others, if you don't practice every day, you can't use them well enough to be combat effective. So it's not that you forget your exotic weapon proficiency, it's just that if you don't practice with your weapon that morning, you're rusty later, and you don't get the bonus from the feat.

As long as fighters still get some permanent feats mixed in, I don't think that makes things too unreasonable, fluff wise.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

/epic level facepalm.


Sorry but are you just plain dumb or blind?

:smallconfused:


Seriously it's bloody obvious why it exists as it does. Proficiencies are about limiting access, not showing your good with a weapon. And TWF chain, (and the remaining penalties even then), is about not letting you more than double all damage factors except Strength modifiers when compared to wielding a 2-hander for just one feat investment. It makes the thing an actual tradeoff, pay for it or you don't get it. that's basic good balancing. I agree the current base damage irrelevance of weapons makes it kind of weak as a chain right now. But you fix that and it's going to be a stonking line.

Um. I'm pretty sure Proficiencies are actually showing you're good with a particular weapon. Hence why you are "Proficient" with them. I find feat taxes limit characters that people want to play. Why play a dual-weapon fighter if dual-weapons are horribly inefficient (which seems to be the predominant feeling on that particular style)? Why play an archer when the core system limits archers more than melee? All I suggested was trimming the chains down so that such styles and archetypes are more feasible/efficient.

Chill out.

[Ziegander]

Chill out.

Word. :smalltongue:

[LordErebus12]

is proficiency with all armor and weapons not a good solution?

[Waker]

I don't recall this being mentioned in the thread thus far, but you could add another quality to weapons titled something like "Attribute Modifier." Rather than having many weapons simply default to Strength for hit/damage, but can be modified with Weapon Finesse, simply state that "Longsword hit/damage based off Strength, Rapier hit/damage based off of Dexterity, Longbow hit/damage based off Dexterity."
This idea wouldn't be useful to strictly Fighters, rather any mundane would benefit. It would however make certain weapons more appealing (extra damage for bows!) while also not requiring a feat to be expended in order for this to be useful.

[Poppatomus]

Another idea for a class change/general change that might or might not be useful.

Right now, most classes are built around one stat, with other stats providing some flavor/access to interesting abilities. To the extent that depending on multiple stats exists, like for paladins say, it's usually a limitation, because your stats have to be that much better to be really effective.

But, maybe, fighters should break that trend. It fits with the fluff. The point of the fighter is that it is the "basic" class. The entry level thing that someone with an adventurers heart and a "knack" for monster fighting can pick up without the need to arcane aptitude, divine blessing, or freakish musical skills. Maybe the mechanic that should reflect that should be that he should gain some "benefit" from all his stats, or at least a few more stats, almost regardless of what they are.

I haven't thought this all the way through yet, but here is how something like this could go:

The Omni-fighter
The idea here would be that fighters at 2nd/5th/8th/11th/ 14th/17th level pick a stat and get some permanent passive benefit based on that stat. For instance:

1.) STR - Add the amount of your positive strength modifier to all roles to confirm a crit, if your modifier is negative or 0, add the absolute value of the modifier to your AC +1 against any creature you targeted in the last round
2.) CHA - if modifier positive or 0, gain 1/2 fighter levels as a bonus to all cha based combat checks. If modifier is negative, any intelligent opponent with line of sight take a penalty on any save against fear equal to the absolute value of the modifier (min 1, max 1/2 your fighter levels)
etc...

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I don't recall this being mentioned in the thread thus far, but you could add another quality to weapons titled something like "Attribute Modifier." Rather than having many weapons simply default to Strength for hit/damage, but can be modified with Weapon Finesse, simply state that "Longsword hit/damage based off Strength, Rapier hit/damage based off of Dexterity, Longbow hit/damage based off Dexterity."
This idea wouldn't be useful to strictly Fighters, rather any mundane would benefit. It would however make certain weapons more appealing (extra damage for bows!) while also not requiring a feat to be expended in order for this to be useful.

I always wondered about adding Wisdom to Bows or crossbows, my reasoning being that Wisdom fuels Spot and Search checks, so why can't someone with high Wis Spot or Search for a chink in someone's armor? Or use their perception to judge how far a target is from them and adjust the angle of their shot?

[Waker]

I always wondered about adding Wisdom to Bows or crossbows, my reasoning being that Wisdom fuels Spot and Search checks, so why can't someone with high Wis Spot or Search for a chink in someone's armor? Or use their perception to judge how far a target is from them and adjust the angle of their shot?

Makes some sense, but I would be more inclined to think that someone's accuracy with a weapon like that would be due more to training and hand-eye coordination. And of course, there is the Zen Archery feat which would definitely allow that. (Though I recognize that the goal of my earlier suggestion and your comment was to avoid a feat tax to facilitate a character style.)

[Carl]

I meant the Dumb or blind bit with a hefty degree of sarcasam, maybe i should have used a smiley. Sorry. You really would have to be dumb and blind to deserve that and you don't come across as that. It was more a bang head against wall moment.


Um. I'm pretty sure Proficiencies are actually showing you're good with a particular weapon. Hence why you are "Proficient" with them. I find feat taxes limit characters that people want to play. Why play a dual-weapon fighter if dual-weapons are horribly inefficient (which seems to be the predominant feeling on that particular style)? Why play an archer when the core system limits archers more than melee? All I suggested was trimming the chains down so that such styles and archetypes are more feasible/efficient.

No, if that was the case anyone could use anything without a penalty.

Proficiency is just that. You know how to use it. it does not mean you are a master with that weapon, (though i'd love to see advanced proficiencies to help represent that better).

Your point about the current inefficiency is fine. But if you actually fix the other problems causing this, (like base weapon damage barely mattering), being able to make all those extra off hand attacks at no penalty and with no feat investment beyond TWF would be hideously overpowered. No one would use anything else. In fact everyone would be walking around with Shield + Improved Bash TWF if you fixed shields as well because it would be superior to pure S&B or Pure 2-hander in every possible way. What your suggesting is only fine if TWF remains inefficient compared to the alternatives.

[Waker]

No, if that was the case anyone could use anything without a penalty.

Proficiency is just that. You know how to use it. it does not mean you are a master with that weapon, (though i'd love to see advanced proficiencies to help represent that better).

Your point about the current inefficiency is fine. But if you actually fix the other problems causing this, (like base weapon damage barely mattering), being able to make all those extra off hand attacks at no penalty and with no feat investment beyond TWF would be hideously overpowered. No one would use anything else. In fact everyone would be walking around with Shield + Improved Bash TWF if you fixed shields as well because it would be superior to pure S&B or Pure 2-hander in every possible way. What your suggesting is only fine if TWF remains inefficient compared to the alternatives.

Not necessarily. By itself, Two-Handed Weapons are better than the other weapon styles but not by a huge margin. The deciding factor in the superiority of it comes from the rule in Power Attack stating that the exchange rate is 1-2, which then compounds from other feats like Shock Trooper.
With the other weapon styles, later feats could instead grant some different combat approach. Maybe when attacking with Two-Weapon Fighting, cumulative attacks could hinder the enemy in some fashion. S&B fighting could allow you to "block" X attacks in a round, allowing for a character to actually have defensive options instead of trying to turn every combat into rocket-tag. These exact examples could be adjusted, I was just trying to posit an alternative, since dealing straight damage isn't the Fighter's weakness.

[Carl]

The deciding factor in the superiority of it comes from the rule in Power Attack stating that the exchange rate is 1-2, which then compounds from other feats like Shock Trooper.

I've only got access to the SRD so i don't know about shock trooper at all. But for power attack. It doesn't say anywhere i can see that if you DW the bonus doesn't apply to both weapons, so apart from the silliness that is PTWF being a epic feat, (meaning you can make a max of 7 attacks at a x1 bonus compared to 4 at a x2 without being epic), the bonus from PA should be nearly identical, (and your getting a free +X enhancement bonus x the number of off hand attacks to your overall damage output anyway).

The rest is fine idea's mind, and i'd have no issues with that kind of thing ;).

[Waker]

Power attack does grant TWF a 1-1 exchange rate for hit-damage. The other issues that make TWF less optimal though are things like DR, restrictions on weapon usage and a few other quirks. By spreading your damage out over more attacks with TWF compared to THF, you suffer from DR more, as each hit has damage subtracted from it. If you wield a non-light weapon in your offhand while using TWF, you suffer a penalty to hit. However you can't gain the bonus to damage from PA on a light weapon, but you still take the penalties to hit. There is a feat to remove that restriction call Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, but that just means you need to suck up a feat to still be behind THF.
Shock Trooper is a feat that says amongst other things that while making a PA, you can take a penalty to your AC instead of your Hit, meaning you can swing really hard and be very likely to hit.

Almost forgot, there are other reasons I could list why TWF is deficient compared to THF. Increased cost trying to enchant two weapons compared to one, feats to improve weapon strength (Improved Critical, Weapon Focus...), increased vulnerability to attacks like Disarm, increased reliance on full-round attacks (THF benefits from them, but can do just fine without) and some other stuff. I'm tired, I'll add more later maybe.

[Morty]

People have covered the gross deficiencies of the combat and weapon systems, so I'll mention an issue I personally consider somewhat important - flight. In 3rd edition D&D, everyone and their uncle can fly starting around level 5, where the Fly spell becomes available to wizards. Everyone who has wings or magic, that is. Those who don't - that is, the mundane classes - are out of luck and need to rely on magic items or spellcaster allies to reach the increasingly abundant fliers. I think making flight less cheap is a small, but necessary thing. Giving mundanes flight rather breaks their thematic boundraries.

[Xhosant]

Considering how mundane is generally weaker than magic, i'd start by adding something based either on "extreme mundane" or the exact lack of magic.

Maybe mundane classes simply ought to outdo magic ones on sheer mundane badassery (e.g. make them masters of the mundane such as health, movement and weapon use). Under this system, the warrior, being the most mundane class, would get the biggest numeric boost (to match with the feat one).

Maybe the fact they have no magic means something more (maybe they grow innately disruptive/foreign to magic as they level, getting "limited immunity" to magic) or maybe this exact lack of magic makes them more in tune with "ambient" magic, or with other-source magic (e.g. especially good at using (and maybe creating) (revamped) magic weaponry, such as swords with wand function, or magic finding it's place in their mundane abilities (a la Escalating Chain) or magic buffs growing much more potent on spell-less classes (also boosting casters in a "synergy" way, a solo fighter+ a solo caster < a fighter + a caster)).

[Poppatomus]

Considering how mundane is generally weaker than magic, i'd start by adding something based either on "extreme mundane" or the exact lack of magic.

Maybe mundane classes simply ought to outdo magic ones on sheer mundane badassery (e.g. make them masters of the mundane such as health, movement and weapon use). Under this system, the warrior, being the most mundane class, would get the biggest numeric boost (to match with the feat one).

Maybe the fact they have no magic means something more (maybe they grow innately disruptive/foreign to magic as they level, getting "limited immunity" to magic) or maybe this exact lack of magic makes them more in tune with "ambient" magic, or with other-source magic (e.g. especially good at using (and maybe creating) (revamped) magic weaponry, such as swords with wand function, or magic finding it's place in their mundane abilities (a la Escalating Chain) or magic buffs growing much more potent on spell-less classes (also boosting casters in a "synergy" way, a solo fighter+ a solo caster < a fighter + a caster)).

I agree with the first, but not as much with the second, just for fluff reasons. I understand that magic is powerful, but I think it's kind of a cheat to add things like inherent, explicit anti-magic abilities to the "mundane" classes. I don't mind a fighter who is to a warrior what a wizard is to a stage magician, but it takes something away from the class if it ends up being little more than a slightly different kind of magic user. Magical items and buffs should make the base fighter better, but the base fighter shouldn't be "magical", at least in the fluff sense.

Having read and participated in many of these threads, I don't think the real test is supposed to be is the fighter equal to the wizard at every level. That's never going to happen, nor should it. The real question is, once you have a wizard, (and a druid) do you also want a fighter? Right now, at higher levels, the answer to that question tends to be a resounding no. A fighter fix will work when the answer is yes.

[Xhosant]

So, how do we replace maneuvers and stances and yet offer a similar level of power? I have an elegant solution that not only provides a wider final range of power level, but also doesn't look anything like spells. All that is needed is something called the Arts of War, a few words that show up on the 1st level of the class features table. That's the most noticeable change to the Fighter class entry at first glance. This feature gives the Fighter a pool of Stamina Points (or SP) at the start of each day equal to 3 + his Con modifier which he may spend to reroll an attack roll or a saving throw made during combat. He may recover these points with a short rest (5 minutes or longer). Now, more interestingly, he also learns maneuvers and stances, which have Fighter feats as prerequisites. Maneuvers cost 1 SP each to use and are one-shot effects, but stances cost nothing and are passive benefits of which the Fighter may only benefit from one at a time. They do not have levels like spells do, but some are more powerful than others depending on what feats they use as prerequisites and how many feats are needed as prerequisites. Some of the most powerful maneuvers and stances require a specific Fighter level before they can be learned. Thoughts?

1, and only one, VERY major flaw: the relevant link's location doesn't make it clear that you are referring to it (in other words, i opened it in tab, continued reading this post, and was about to say i wait to see it done, luckily i checked the tab first)

Other than that: Ingenious. I'd also throw in something like The Edge (as a feat or stance?) but, ingenious.

[Xhosant]

I agree with the first, but not as much with the second, just for fluff reasons. [...]The real question is, once you have a wizard, (and a druid) do you also want a fighter? Right now, at higher levels, the answer to that question tends to be a resounding no. A fighter fix will work when the answer is yes.


Does 2b help? The part about him working better with magic because he's got none of his own to get in the way? On your question, I'd suppose you'd get a bigger "yes" than if you didn't have the druid and wizard. Although, that may reduce him to a very badass minion of the wizard's, since he'd just be a way for the wizard to apply his power.

[Poppatomus]

Does 2b help? The part about him working better with magic because he's got none of his own to get in the way? On your question, I'd suppose you'd get a bigger "yes" than if you didn't have the druid and wizard. Although, that may reduce him to a very badass minion of the wizard's, since he'd just be a way for the wizard to apply his power.

I think it could, yes. I was a little over-broad I think in describing what I was responding to in your post.

And I don't necessarily think the "bad ass minion" thing is bad. Or, rather, to put another way, minion is in the eye(s) of the beholder. The Wizard-Emperor out to become a god with his trusted, musclebound guardian is using his fighter as a minion. In contrast, the hero of old who convinces the ancient sorcerer to follow her and help her defeat the emperor's schemes is the one in the lead.

I wonder if there really aren't two things that would allow that to happen. First, as you note, a fighter should get slightly more out of the spells/abilities of others, so that there's an advantage to casting on them. Second, a fighter should have as much of an advantage over a fighter of lower level as a caster does. (so having a level 16 wizard and a level 16 fighter is equivalent to than having a level 16 wizard with a level 16 cleric, who can then summon 18HD worth of outsider.)

[Carl]

A lot of the issue with casters vs melee guys is simply their ability to render themselves nigh invulnerable. E.g. the well known Fly + Wind Wall + Mirrior Image + Stoneskin Combo.

That's enough capability to put the Mage in a position where nothing and no one that isn't a spell caster or a flier can do a thing and even they are going to have a rough time of it. There need to be less spells that totally neuter non-magic users. Those spells for that aren't cut back need to be very high level ones with significant downside, (how much less powerful would Fly be if staying in the Air needed a standard action each round to stay in the air even if you don't move and, it was a 7th level spell for example). Magical Spell Bonuses need separating out from magic item bonuses so you can use spells to buff friend in armour and the bonus Magnitude needs to be worth it. +5AC, BAB, and Damage isn't worth a mid level, let along a high level slot if the targets normally have +5 weapons and armour all over the place. At the same time whilst i don;t want spell targeting to be too hard, it's shouldn't be so easy it's nearly impossible to miss with them.

And that's just the obvious stuff. Bring in mind control, imprison, and summon/undead creation spells and it's even worse.

[Ziegander]

1, and only one, VERY major flaw: the relevant link's location doesn't make it clear that you are referring to it (in other words, i opened it in tab, continued reading this post, and was about to say i wait to see it done, luckily i checked the tab first)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean?


Other than that: Ingenious. I'd also throw in something like The Edge (as a feat or stance?) but, ingenious.

I would like to do something like that for a more broad game overhaul, but, yeah, it would definitely make it (and other warrior classes) more useful.

[Xhosant]

There need to be less spells that totally neuter non-magic users.

Let the fighter punch them so hard, the buffs get dispelled?

No, really, i think there's some thought to be given on that. Have a fighter's barrage interfere with the buffs somehow?


I'm not 100% sure what you mean?

When you linked to the reloaded warblade, i thought it was some irrelevant but mention-worth homebrew, and not the fix you were referring to in the following paragraph. Putting the link (or a "see link above") in the next paragraph might avoid some minor confusion.

[Carl]

No, really, i think there's some thought to be given on that. Have a fighter's barrage interfere with the buffs somehow?

Again your trying to fix the problem by ignoring the problem. By adding things to a fighter he shouldn't be able, (as a mundane), to do. Fix the problem by fixing the actual cause of the problem. I.e. Spells that are too powerful for a world where mundanes are supposed to matter.

There's a reason why worlds with spells that powerful in fiction tend to have mages at the top of the tree dictating and generally running things. It's because unless you make everyone a magic user there is no way for the majority to even hold a candle to the powerhouses.

[lesser_minion]

As far as changing the core of D&D is concerned, I'd like to see what happens when we impose something closer to actual realism on the game, instead of half-assing it.

If fighters are to be 'realistic', then about half a second (in-universe) is a significant amount of time. We don't need attacks of opportunity or anything like that -- the reason spellcasting and ranged attacks don't work against anything within twenty paces is that you're halfway to wizard en croute by the time any spell you could cast goes off.

If you can cast at all. The amount of mental conditioning required to pull off what D&D casters do in fights is beyond absurd. We can only conclude that the wizard class literally is the fighter class in disguise, since wizards demonstrably have far and away the most martial arts training and battle conditioning of any character class.

As for flyers, how much can you reasonably do -- beyond "come out of nowhere and..." -- when you're in flight and your enemies aren't?

[Xhosant]

Well, since a problem of our case can't be "solved" per se, we either remove the problem or we counter the problem. I tried to counter the problem (buffs OP? Dispell them). Removing the problem, which is what i think you suggest, is this:

"Fighter fix: remove spells A, B and C from wizards, class feature D from rogues, and weaken characteristic E of monsters"

The problem is, nobody will react well to this. The wizard (and everyone else) will resent playing with a warrior. Unless we're talking edition change, we can't do it (and the balancing effort of 4e wasn't well-received either, right or wrong). When we are talking fighter fix, it must ONLY affect the fighter plus how HE affects others. Otherwise we're looking at a system redesign (which is a huge thing). To solve the issue with any odds of success, we must be precise; affect only the detail we're interested in fixing, or all hell (might) break loose.

[Morty]

As far as changing the core of D&D is concerned, I'd like to see what happens when we impose something closer to actual realism on the game, instead of half-assing it.

If fighters are to be 'realistic', then about half a second (in-universe) is a significant amount of time. We don't need attacks of opportunity or anything like that -- the reason spellcasting and ranged attacks don't work against anything within twenty paces is that you're halfway to wizard en croute by the time any spell you could cast goes off.

If you can cast at all. The amount of mental conditioning required to pull off what D&D casters do in fights is beyond absurd. We can only conclude that the wizard class literally is the fighter class in disguise, since wizards demonstrably have far and away the most martial arts training and battle conditioning of any character class.

As for flyers, how much can you reasonably do -- beyond "come out of nowhere and..." -- when you're in flight and your enemies aren't?

Agreed. It's hard to make warriors balanced with everyone while casting spells and using other abilities is so easy and effortless but for some reason, fighting itself isn't.

[Carl]

Well, since a problem of our case can't be "solved" per se, we either remove the problem or we counter the problem. I tried to counter the problem (buffs OP? Dispell them). Removing the problem, which is what i think you suggest, is this:

"Fighter fix: remove spells A, B and C from wizards, class feature D from rogues, and weaken characteristic E of monsters"

The problem is, nobody will react well to this. The wizard (and everyone else) will resent playing with a warrior. Unless we're talking edition change, we can't do it (and the balancing effort of 4e wasn't well-received either, right or wrong). When we are talking fighter fix, it must ONLY affect the fighter plus how HE affects others. Otherwise we're looking at a system redesign (which is a huge thing). To solve the issue with any odds of success, we must be precise; affect only the detail we're interested in fixing, or all hell (might) break loose.

Actually it's more like:

Make spells balanced.

Very few need removing. What we need is a whole bunch of spells being made appropriate for the power level. here are countless low level spells that basically go:

"lol i just altered the world so no one without magic can do anything to me."

Spells like that should be high end magic, and for preference using them should impart a real negative on what the wizard can do in terms of other effects. A wizard shouldn't be able to freely throw down high powered summons as good or better than the best martial classes with a single spell whilst sitting pretty and immune to a non-spellcaster 200 feet up lobbing superpower fireballs at low or mid levels. And at high levels they should only be able to do some of that at the same time.

Making a fighter match a mage requires a level of power boosting and extra abilities that are the same as turning him into a mixed martial/spellcaster class. Because he needs Fly, DR, Spell Resistance, immunities to several types of affect, (imprison, immobolise, and several nasty debuff affects), as well as enough summoning or mind control abilities to ensure he can back his own martial prowess up with enough from other sources.

Let me borrow a quote from another forum:



For example, here's how the various Tiers might deal with a specific set of situations, cut to spoilers due to size:


Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

Okay, so, here we go.

Tier 6: A Commoner. Situation 1: If he's REALLY optimized, he could be a threat to the dragon, but a single attack from the dragon could take him out too. He can't really offer help getting to said dragon. He could fill up the entire cave with chickens, but that's probably not a good idea. Really, he's dead weight unless his build was perfectly optimized for this situation (see my Commoner charger build for an example). Situation 2: Well, without any stealth abilities or diplomacy, he's not too handy here, again unless he's been exactly optimized for this precise thing (such as through Martial Study to get Diplomacy). Really, again his class isn't going to help much here. Situation 3: Again, no help from his class, though the chicken thing might be amusing if you're creative.

Tier 5: A Fighter. Situation 1: If he's optimized for this sort of thing (a tripper might have trouble, though a charger would be handy if he could get off a clear shot, and an archer would likely work) he can be a threat during the main fight, but he's probably just about useless for sneaking down through the cave and avoiding any traps the dragon has set out without alerting said dragon. Most likely the party Rogue would want to hide him in a bag of holding or something. Once in the fight if he's optimized he'll be solid, but if not (if he's a traditional SAB build or a dual weilding monkey grip type) he's going to be a liability in the combat (though not as bad as the Commoner). Situation 2: As the commoner before, his class really won't help here. His class just doesn't provide any useful tools for the job. It's possible (but very unlikely) that he's optimized in a way that helps in this situation, just as with the Commoner. Situation 3: Again, his class doesn't help much, but at least he could be pretty useful during the main battle as a front line trooper of some sort. Hack up the enemy and rack up a body count.

Tier 4: The Rogue. Situation 1: Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat. Situation 2: With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do. Situation 3: Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.

Tier 3: The Beguiler. Situation 1: Again, getting through the cave is easy, perhaps easier with spell support. And again, if he's really prepared in advance, Shivering Touch via UMD is a possibility. But he's also got spells that could be quite useful here depending on the situation, and if he's optimized heavily, this is going to be pretty easy... Shadowcraft Mage, perhaps? Or Earth Dreamer? Either way, he's got a lot of available options, though like the Rogue he's somewhat squishy (and that Dragon won't fall for many illusions with his Blindsense) so he still needs that party support. Situation 2: Again, with his skills he's all over this one, plus the added ability to cast spells like charm makes this one much easier, allowing him to make contacts in the city quickly while he figures out where this guy is. Situation 3: Like the Rogue, he can get strategic advantages and be all over the Diplomacy. He's not quite as good at assassinating people if he takes that route (though sneaking up invisible and then using a coup de gras with a scythe is pretty darn effective), but using illusions during the fight will create some serious chaos in his favor. A single illusion of a wall of fire can really disrupt enemy formations, for example.

Tier 2: The Sorcerer. Situation 1: It really depends on the Sorcerer's spell load out. If he's got Greater Floating Disk, Spectral Hand, and Shivering Touch, this one's going to be easy as pie, since he can just float down (and carry his party in the process) to avoid many traps, then nail the dragon in one shot from a distance. If he doesn't he'd need scrolls with the same issues that the UMD Rogue and Beguiler would need. If he's got Explosive Runes he could create a bomb that would take out the Dragon in one shot. If he's got Polymorph he could turn the party melee into a Hydra for extra damage. If he's got Alter Self he could turn himself into a Skulk to get down there sneakily. Certainly, it's possible that the Sorcerer could own this scenario... if he has the right spells known. That's always the hard part for a Sorcerer. Situation 2: Again, depends on the spell. Does he have divinations that will help him know who's part of the resistance and who's actually an evil spy for the Tyranical Govenerment? Does he have charm? Alter Self would help a ton here too for disguise purposes if he has it. Once again, the options exist that could totally make this easy, but he might not have those options. Runestaffs would help a bit, but not that much. Scrolls would help too, but that requires access to them and good long term preparation. Situation 3: Again, does he have Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone to make fortifications? Does he have Wall of Fire to disrupt the battlefield? How about Mind Rape and Love's Pain to kill off the enemy commanders without any ability to stop him? Does he have Blinding Glory on his spell list, or Shapechange, or Gate? Well, maybe. He's got the power, but if his spells known don't apply here he can't do much. So, maybe he dominates this one, maybe not.

Tier 1: The Wizard. Situation 1: Memorize Greater Floating Disk, Shivering Touch, and Spectral Hand. Maybe Alter Self too for stealth reasons. Kill dragon. Memorize Animate Dead too, because Dragons make great minions (seriously, there's special rules for using that spell on dragons). Sweet, you have a new horsie! Or, you know, maybe you Mind Rape/Love's Pain and kill the dragon before he even knows you exist, then float down and check it out. Or maybe you create a horde of the dead and send them in, triggering the traps with their bodies. Or do the haunt shift trick and waltz in with a hardness of around 80 and giggle. Perhaps you cast Genesis to create a flowing time plane and then sit and think about what to do for a year while only a day passes on the outside... and cast Explosive Runes every day during that year. I'm sure you can come up with something. It's really your call. Situation 2: Check your spell list. Alter Self and Disguise Self can make you look like whoever you need to look like. Locate Creature has obvious utility. Heck, Contact Other Plane could be a total cheating method of finding the guy you're trying to find. Clairvoyance is also handy. It's all there. Situation 3: Oh no, enemy army! Well, if you've optimized for it, there's always the locate city bomb (just be careful not to blow up the friendly guys too). But if not, Love's Pain could assassinate the leaders. Wall of Iron/Stone could create fortifications, or be combined with Fabricate to armour up some of the troops. Or you could just cast Blinding Glory and now the entire enemy army is blind with no save for caster level hours. Maybe you could Planar Bind an appropriate outsider to help train the troops before the battle. Push comes to shove, Gate in a Solar, who can cast Miracle (which actually does have a "I win the battle" option)... or just Shapechange into one, if you prefer.

The wizard can use a whole bunch of spells to just handwave away nearly any situation. To match a mage a Fighter needs immunities to those kinds of abilities as well as the ability to actually be able to hit the mage, and the ability to actually deal damage to the mage, and, well you get the picture, they need abilities out of all proportion.

[Xhosant]

What i was trying to say is, you can't fix a class by changing another class. If the title is "Warrior fix" the content can not be "add/remove/change/move spell/skill/feature A of class B". If the wizard is overpowered, that is to be addressed in a wizard fix meant to balance him, or in the designing of a new edition. If we're talking fighter fix, we must get the fighter up to the others, not the others down to the fighter.

[Morty]

But we've established in this thread that the Fighter cannot be truly fixed without reworking the system. And that includes reworking the magic using classes. Even the Warblade, which does a good job at making an effective martial class within the boundraries of 3.5, can't match wizards and clerics, because they're just that badly designed.

[Xhosant]

I believe we accepted that we can either rework the d20 or the warblade, and we have a link to the warblade.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The wizard can use a whole bunch of spells to just handwave away nearly any situation. To match a mage a Fighter needs immunities to those kinds of abilities as well as the ability to actually be able to hit the mage, and the ability to actually deal damage to the mage, and, well you get the picture, they need abilities out of all proportion.

I think solutions like these are sort of missing the point. Fighter-mage balance isn't about who can kill the other one. It's about whether or not the fighter (and mundanes in general) can contribute effectively in a group alongside the mage.

[Carl]

I think solutions like these are sort of missing the point. Fighter-mage balance isn't about who can kill the other one. It's about whether or not the fighter (and mundanes in general) can contribute effectively in a group alongside the mage.

To a degree your right, but honestly, can we afford to plan around the idea that a DM will only ever introduce enemies with wizard/sourcourer levels that use them stupidly.

A Basic 5th level wizard with a +3 in modifier can throw down enough damage via spells to deal with the total HP's of 9 fighter levels, (assumed +4 con modifier), whilst having enough fly and wind wall uses to hover a hundred feet up protected from any form of non-spell ranged attack.

I other words anything with a few levels of wizard can humiliate a fighter nearly twice it's level without using any physical abilities it may have. And unless you intend to give the Warblade the ability to fly, or to dispel wind walls, (and similar range immunity/reduction effects), there is nothing you can do to stop it.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Besides the (very good) idea someone up-thread mentioned about Buffs and the like being based on the effected target's HD, why not place a cap on how many such buffs they can place on themselves?

It could be fluffed however (same magic around you as in you, magic saturation, etc), but the gist would be that the Wizard has a max of X spells he can have on himself at any one time, meaning he has to pick and choose what defenses/immunities he's running instead of just "lol immune to everything!". Meaning a well-prepared martial class can always find a chink in their "armor" as it were.

[Waker]

Besides the (very good) idea someone up-thread mentioned about Buffs and the like being based on the effected target's HD, why not place a cap on how many such buffs they can place on themselves?

It could be fluffed however (same magic around you as in you, magic saturation, etc), but the gist would be that the Wizard has a max of X spells he can have on himself at any one time, meaning he has to pick and choose what defenses/immunities he's running instead of just "lol immune to everything!". Meaning a well-prepared martial class can always find a chink in their "armor" as it were.

Then mundanes would be less buffed up than they might be. Of course if you included a caveat concerning magical buffs saying they need a foundation to be placed on like say armor, mundanes would get more love. Not to mention gishes would be even more valued.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Then mundanes would be less buffed up than they might be. Of course if you included a caveat concerning magical buffs saying they need a foundation to be placed on like say armor, mundanes would get more love. Not to mention gishes would be even more valued.

I actually meant that Spellcasters can't overbuff themselves, but the idea about armor is good too.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To a degree your right, but honestly, can we afford to plan around the idea that a DM will only ever introduce enemies with wizard/sourcourer levels that use them stupidly.

A Basic 5th level wizard with a +3 in modifier can throw down enough damage via spells to deal with the total HP's of 9 fighter levels, (assumed +4 con modifier), whilst having enough fly and wind wall uses to hover a hundred feet up protected from any form of non-spell ranged attack.

I other words anything with a few levels of wizard can humiliate a fighter nearly twice it's level without using any physical abilities it may have. And unless you intend to give the Warblade the ability to fly, or to dispel wind walls, (and similar range immunity/reduction effects), there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The issue in question is the spells which render entire archetypes useless. Leaving those in but giving all mundanes the same sort of "no" buttons doesn't advance good game design.

Overpowered blasty magic? Limit metamagic cost reducers.
Wind Wall? It's only severe wind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm#winds); it doesn't auto-stop arrows. Or make a feat to do let you treat winds as if they were one or more categories less strong*.
Flight? Ranged combat. A flying mount. Buffs from the party mage.
Too many buffs/active spells? Put in some sort of limit. Take a page from Diskworld-- the more spells you cast in a small area in a small amount of time, the more risk you have of them going utterly wrong.

*No a good option due to an already-over-demanding combat style, but hey.

[Waker]

I actually meant that Spellcasters can't overbuff themselves, but the idea about armor is good too.

I realize what you meant, then you need to set the cap. Is is based on number of spells, the level of spells, does the cap increase, your class and so on. I just kind of jumped past that part and said that whatever the cap might be based on, that people who wear armor might get a bigger benefit.

[Ziegander]

The thing about making buffs less entirely awesome and making it harder for Mages to cast other spells while self-buffing is easy to fix. You give Mages a limited amount of magic juju to throw around and buffs tie that juju up for their duration. That means, while it might be entirely possible for a Mage to be magically flying, oakskinned, and wreathed in flames, it might also be entirely possible that in doing so they are unable to cast anything else until they dismiss one of those buffs or until their duration expires.

The system I outlined here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227916) does a pretty good job of letting Mages have their toys, just not 50 of them per day and a dozen at a time. I'm not saying the class is perfect, but it does powerful magic with sensible limits better than I've seen anywhere else.

But, like has been pointed out, this is a Fighter problem thread, not a Mage problem thread. Let's keep the discussion focused on our conclusions. When I asked about what changes you would make to the core of d20 modern there was a lot of discussion about changing specific classes or spells. But that's too narrow. We need to see the forest and stop looking at the trees.

What game rules, what system artifacts would you revise, omit, or review if you wanted to make d20 better for warriors? Again, let's talk more about Hit Dice, or Base Attack Bonus. Let's talk about the prohibitive cost of weapon and armor maintenance and how to solve the issue. Let's talk about how equal level melee monsters should stop soundly outclassing melee PCs. There's a laundry list of items we can and should talk about before we talk about what to do about the Mage.

[Xhosant]

Off the top of my head, and assuming magic saturation to avoid non- (or light-) armored noncasters from getting penalized, i think it would be inversely proportional to spells prepared+spent, or in the case of spontaneous casters inverse to spell slot (and letting them "close" slots during their preparation).

That means any caster (that i can think of, that works with spell slots) gets to choose between "loading his guns" and buffing himself. Let him leave a bunch of slots empty, and he gets more buffs. If the sorcerer says "i'll be limiting my resources today" he gets a couple extra "buff slots" in return. Under that system, you could even have their default buffs to 0, letting them not buff themselves or not come in full-force.

Edit: Like the above idea too, provided mundane classes get their own juju to power buffs on them. We don't want them punished for strengthening their weaker allies, right?

[Ziegander]

Edit: Like the above idea too, provided mundane classes get their own juju to power buffs on them. We don't want them punished for strengthening their weaker allies, right?

Can you say that in another way? I can't make heads or tails of it.

But to go in another direction, last night I had a breakthrough in the encumbrance rules I always wanted to write. Instead of armor bestowing any amount of armor check penalty, or speed reduction, or max Dex bonus, encumbrance handles that. Armors then come in varying weights, and that's all that you need to keep track of. So, instead of Padded Armor and Plate Mail being mechanically mirrored except that Plate Mail heaps on penalties and costs way more, no, you have Padded Armor gives +1 AC and weighs 10lbs and Plate Mail gives +10 AC and weighs 45lbs. Suddenly, that heavy armor seems like it's become a lot better.

Encumbrance would then work like so: there are seven weight categories, Featherweight, Lightweight, Welterweight, Mediumweight, Cruiserweight, Heavyweight, and Overburdened.

Carrying around equipment and other goods whose total poundage falls in the Featherweight category imposes no penalties, but each category above Featherweight bestows a -1 penalty to Dexterity and Dodge bonuses to AC and a -1 penalty to relevant skill checks. Mediumweight also reduces your speed some, and each weight category above Mediumweight does so a little more.

Once a character is Overburdened they suffer a -10 penalty to Dex/Dodge AC and to skill checks, and they cannot move.

I haven't yet worked out how to calculate a character's weight category thresholds, but it would be determined by Strength score.

[Morty]

Hmm. If I understand it right, under that system, characters who have the Strength for it would wear heavy armor, whereas light armor would be for the characters who don't have the Strength for the heaviest kind. Is that your goal?

[Xhosant]

Can you say that in another way? I can't make heads or tails of it.

Apologies. If we say the wizard gets a maximum of 3 buffs active, and no casting at 3 buffs, and whatnot, and then the wizard casts 3(or 2 or 4) buffs on the rogue, he can still cast spells or put 3 buffs on himself. Otherwise, the wizard will hesitate to empower his allies, so what was meant to be a wizard nerf becomes a global nerf instead.

On a side note, the armor idea is simple and ingenious.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What game rules, what system artifacts would you revise, omit, or review if you wanted to make d20 better for warriors? Again, let's talk more about Hit Dice, or Base Attack Bonus. Let's talk about the prohibitive cost of weapon and armor maintenance and how to solve the issue. Let's talk about how equal level melee monsters should stop soundly outclassing melee PCs. There's a laundry list of items we can and should talk about before we talk about what to do about the Mage.
Hmm. Saying "use this (http://www.d20herosrd.com/)" is probably going too far. So.. how about...

You have character level, which is equal to hit die, but also combat and caster levels.
Combat level is analogous to BAB; it gets added to attack, saving throws (except maybe Will), AC, damage, combat maneuvers, saving throws from mundane abilities, and so on. Maybe also have some movement benefits from this.
Caster level is what determines how how high level a spell you can cast, damage, duration, and so on.

You'd then write a nice list of combat maneuvers. Trips, disarms, and so on, but also new stuff like shield bashes, active parries, disruptions and the like. Allow them to be effective from the start, without feat investment, and make sure that skill (ie, BAB) is the primary factor in determining success, more than raw strength.

Following that, remove all +X magic items from the game. From +1 armor to belts of giant strength to manuals of gainful exercise, all gone. Make sure the math reflects this. That way mundanes don't have to sink so much money into their junk to keep up.

[lesser_minion]

Can you say that in another way? I can't make heads or tails of it.

I've suggested something similar in the past: the idea is that every character has however many magic points, and buffs are paid for by the recipient, not the caster.

Either way, the points are still committed until the spell wears off or the recipient voluntarily ends it.

[Carl]

The issue in question is the spells which render entire archetypes useless. Leaving those in but giving all mundanes the same sort of "no" buttons doesn't advance good game design.


This was what i was trying to say.

Also read wind walls description. It explicitly states it stops all non-siege grade ranged weapons.


But, like has been pointed out, this is a Fighter problem thread, not a Mage problem thread. Let's keep the discussion focused on our conclusions. When I asked about what changes you would make to the core of d20 modern there was a lot of discussion about changing specific classes or spells. But that's too narrow. We need to see the forest and stop looking at the trees.

I addressed some points of this but you can't not address magic as well, and magic's problems are obvious and well known. No amount of fiddling with the system will fix things if you don't sort magic out at the same time.

[lesser_minion]

As far as encumbrance is concerned, I'd actually go the opposite direction -- weight tracking isn't very realistic, and D&D's encumbrance mechanics generally lead to too much maths.

A better option, IMHO, would be to track encumbrance for weapons, armour, and combat equipment, and ignore everything else (it would be dropped, removed, or set aside when fighting breaks out anyway).

For simplicity, I'd be tempted to assume that the primary issue with armour is fatigue, and not have any sort of agility or mobility penalties for wearing it at all. But that means coming up with a good fatigue model for D&D.

Perhaps characters could accumulate fatigue penalty points each round -- melee opponents can then use those penalty points to purchase exploits, while casters simply get worse as magic the more penalty points they have.


Also read wind walls description. It explicitly states it stops all non-siege grade ranged weapons.

He's not discussing what Wind Wall says at the moment, he's talking about what it should say.

[Carl]

Well yeah that's sounds more sensible.

Me Duh :smalltongue:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Excellent conclusion overall, Ziegander. Since you mentioned having some trouble with what to do about WBL, I think I'll talk about that for a bit, if you don't mind (spoilered for length):


One of the harder parts of the d20 game to work on is the concept of wealth-by-level. Sure, it can be scrapped entirely, but then something must take it's place. I have worked on many a pipedream of game design in the past, and unfortunately, I have not come across a system, or worked to design one, that was able to deliver a mechanic that, in this area, did not sacrifice realism for game balance (or vice versa) to varying degrees but often in major ways. My favored solution is have the "economy" of the default game setting be based on coins and consumable goods (magic or not). The permanent magic items are either priceless artifacts or created by player characters and, thus, not likely to be sold. I would ditch all notion that any price be attached to a Gauntlet of Ogre Power such that a player could expect to walk into any town and buy or sell one for the same price anywhere on earth. Ditch that and you're on your way to a less restrictive, less-punishing character wealth system already and you haven't even written anything, instead you've omitted rules.

Wealth by Level's Flaws

The problem with WBL is not that magic items have a gold value and so you can buy the items you want that are appropriate to your power level; in fact, I'd say that that's a good thing, since it's nice to be able to outfit your characters with signature or favored items like a dragonslayer's dragon-bane lance or a pyromancer's wand of fireballs. The problems with WBL are the following:

1) Items are effectively another part of character advancement: Big Six items are "needed" as you level, characters need to buy certain items to cover their weaknesses, etc.

2) Some classes need more item support than others: martial classes need weapons and armor and flight and immunities and such while casters need a stat booster and they're good to go, so martial classes spend their WBL on necessary gear while casters get to spend theirs on extra "fun" items or other power-boosters.

3) You can buy power above your level: pooling your gold can buy you items more powerful than expected, which is why so many DMG items were overpriced. As a corollary, the exponential growth of WBL meant to counteract that means that a mid-level adventurer is ridiculously wealthy relative to the world.

4) Money only gets spent on direct power upgrades: characters rarely if ever build keeps, outfit followers, hire hirelings, etc. like they did in AD&D because all their wealth is needed for magic items, and even "fun" magic items get bypassed for basic stat boosts.

So magic items should be decoupled from wealth, but not in such a way that they just become their own economy, since that makes it harder for fighter types to get their needed items without solving all the other problems. I think the right approach to use is to only limit the items you can use right now as opposed to attempting to limit the items you can potentially buy.

Advancement By Character, Not By Cost

When it comes right down to it, no one cares about +5 weapons or armor. Special abilities are better than straight bonuses, and you're spending twenty-five thousand gold for what you could get with a single casting of greater magic weapon from a party caster. Seriously: one-eighth of a 15th-level character's permanent wealth spent to duplicate one-fortieth of a 15th-level caster's daily resources is ridiculous. But because they decided that buying yourself a +5 bonus at low levels is too strong, that's what we got. Instead, items should take the route of the Tome series, Earthdawn, and other systems that have items grow with the wielder.

How about if magic weapons and armor granted you one "plus" of special abilities per 3 BAB, maximum +5 (and if you must, an equal enhancement bonus, but I'd prefer bonuses inherent to the character), and you only had to pay a linear cost rather than an exponential one to unlock those abilities? A 20th-level fighter's +5 vorpal longsword wouldn't cost him a full one-seventh of WBL, it would cost him 1/38th of it; conversely, a 1st-level fighter could plunk down 20,000gp on a +5 vorpal longsword if he somehow had that much money, but it would only be a +1 flaming (or whatever) longsword for him (though it would advance automatically with level since he paid for the extra pluses up front).

A Batcave of Gadgets

If costs are decreased like that, won't characters be able to buy tons of magic items? Well, yes, but quite frankly it doesn't matter if a fighter has a +5 [ability 1] [ability 2] longsword in every color of the rainbow back home; it only matters what a fighter can use during an adventure, similar to how it doesn't matter if a wizard has scribed every spell in the game into a massive library back home if he only packed a traveling spellbook with his default spells on this adventure.

The key to restricting items, then, is to restrict how many can be used at once. We want to discourage swapping out permanent items to avoid the "golf bag of weapons" effect, and we want to limit consumables so they can't just be spammed. So let's introduce two new rules: each permanent magic item has a 24-hour attunement time, period, no exceptions, and you have an overall "magic items worn" limitation independent of item slots. Your body's natural magic can only support so many items at once, and having too many items close together can cause them to interfere with each other for the same reason that you're only allowed 2 rings in standard 3e.

The magic item limit chosen is fairly arbitrary; the AD&D paladin was only allowed to have 8 items at any given time, so let's go with that: you can only attune 8 permanent items at once. Let's add the additional restriction that each body part (arm, leg, head, torso) can only have one item on it. No more wizards using a headband of intellect, artificer's monocles, a robe of the archmagi, a cloak of resistance, an amulet of health, and more: he gets one of the first two and one of the second three, that's it.

How to account for fighters needing more items than casters? Well, let's change the item limits slightly: you don't start with 8 attunement slots at level 1, you gain them as you level, and they're split between "martial" items (weapons, armor, helms, bracers, gauntlets) and "utility" items (everything else). To once again make BAB more important, characters have [1 + 1/5 level] slots for any items and [1/5 BAB] slots for martial items only. This brings the total up to 9 by 20th level for martial classes, as at least half their items will likely be martial items anyway, and casters end up with at most 7 items at level 20, 2 of which can't be ones that directly boost their casting power.

Buffs and Potions and Scrolls, Oh My

How to account for consumables? Well, there are two general kinds of consumables, those that store spells for casters and those that serve as buffs for everyone else. The first kind need to be rewritten to make spells per day an actual limit again:
Wands are no longer spell guns with 50 bullets. Instead, they're all eternal wands, which makes them a permanent item rather than a consumable, which makes them require attunement.
Staffs likewise become permanent items, this time runestaffs (which let you use the spells inside the staff instead of your prepared or known spells, instead of giving you extra spells), and so are also permanent items requiring attunement.
Scrolls are still consumables, but they also draw on existing spell slots. To preserve their function of granting higher-level spells to low level enemies and serving as "oh crap" emergency spells, they don't require expending an equivalent spell slot as staffs do (3rd level for fireball etc.), but rather expending a number of equivalent spell levels--at the Versatile Spellcaster exchange rate, so 1 4th level = 2 3rd level = 4 2nd level = 8 1st level or some combination like that. It's thus possible to give 1st-level mooks fireball scrolls or allow you to hold onto an emergency teleport scroll and power it with lower level spells, but you can't use gate scrolls at low levels or stock up on combat scrolls to expand your versatility or the like.
To still allow noncasters to use scrolls and staffs, UMD would need to be changed; off the top of my head, perhaps you have one virtual spell level per UMD rank that you can use to activate those items.
The second type, along with the longer-duration buff spells, should take up permanent item slots somehow. Let's change ongoing potions so that their durations extend to 24 hours if you assign them to an attunement slot (which then gives sane people a reason to ever craft or use potions), and beneficial spells with a duration of 1 min/level or longer also require being assigned to an open attunement slot or have their duration reduced by one step (1 hour/level to 10 min/level, 10 min/level to 1 min/level, 1 min/level to 1 round/level, etc.). And long-duration combat buffs like divine favor and divine power take up the martial item slots that casters don't have very many of. So a fighter can gulp down a barkskin potion for a quick 1 min/level pick-me-up or, if he has attunement slots open, have barkskin for 24 hours; a druid can also have a pick-me-up barkskin, or get the full 10 min/level by attuning the spell.

Cut the Stacking

Another problem related to martial and caster items that isn't strictly due to WBL is the proliferation of bonus types. In theory, bonus typing is supposed to limit stacking, but there are 18 bonus types listed in the SRD and more are introduced in splatbooks. This means that while a fighter has to pay thousands of gold to get +8 to his attack or AC using +X weapons and armor, a caster can usually find four spells or items that grant four +2s of stacking types. This needs to go.

So let's simplify: There are now four bonus types. Bonuses from your biology and permanent magic (racial bonuses, stat bonuses, natural dodge bonuses, wishes, etc.) are now all inherent bonuses. Bonuses from training or knowledge (such as class-based bonuses, divination bonuses, etc.) are insight bonuses. Bonuses from equipment are now equipment bonuses (shields grant cover now, and natural armor counts as armor). Bonuses from magic that don't fit into the above three categories are now all enhancement bonuses. Untyped circumstance bonuses still exist, but in general stacking is reined in.

So now a high-level cleric's AC bonus might look something like AC 36 = 10, +5 equipment and +5 enhancement from a +5 mithral breastplate, +7 insight from Wis from dipping monk or the like, +5 inherent from Dex, +4 untyped from a shield's cover. No deflection from rings of protection, no luck from recitation, no sacred from one of a bunch of cleric buffs, no natural armor, no getting Wis to AC multiple times, etc. Much better than the 40-60 AC it's possible to get at those levels right now, and much easier for the fighter to hit (+20 BAB, +8 Str, +5 enhancement means he hits on a 3 with his first attack at 20th level). That extra +5 or +10 to attack the fighter gets from BAB (and any class-based AC bonus people want to add) is a lot more meaningful now that BAB is one of the few bonuses that stacks with everything and attack and AC are harder to buff otherwise.


I could probably go on and on for a while, but I'll stop for now. The above isn't the only possible solution, could still use some expansion, and is probably more complex than some people would want to deal with, but it's a possible solution or at least part of one.
-----------------------------------


But to go in another direction, last night I had a breakthrough in the encumbrance rules I always wanted to write. Instead of armor bestowing any amount of armor check penalty, or speed reduction, or max Dex bonus, encumbrance handles that.
[...]
I haven't yet worked out how to calculate a character's weight category thresholds, but it would be determined by Strength score.

I also like the "encumbrance handles ACP" model. Here's what mine looks like: Instead of using pounds, I use the stone (an old unit of weight equivalent to 14-15 pounds), so in your example padded armor would be 1 stone and plate would be 3 stone. The load limits are as follows:
{table=head]Load|Maximum Stone|Check/AC/etc. Penalties|Speed Penalties
Unencumbered|Str bonus|N/A|N/A
Light|.25*Str score+Str bonus|-1|N/A
Medium|.5*Str score+Str bonus|-2|N/A
Heavy|.75*Str score+Str bonus|-4|reduced to 2/3 speed
Lift|2*heavy load|-8, no Dex to AC|reduced to 1/3 speed
Drag|3*heavy load|-8, no Dex to AC|reduced to 1/3 speed[/table]
Adjustments are made for quadrupeds, different sizes, etc., but those don't matter for right now.

As an example, a Str 10 human has full plate (3 stone), a heavy shield (1 stone), a longsword (.3 stone), a backpack full of stuff (let's say 1 stone), and 1000 gold coins in pouches (1.3 stone assuming 50gp to the pound), for a total load of 6.6 stone. That's higher than his medium load of 5 (10/2 + 0), so carrying ~6 stone means he's under a heavy load; he takes a -4 penalty on whatever you want encumbrance to impair and is reduced to a speed of 20 feet. Meanwhile, a Str 16 character is unencumbered up to and including 3 stone and has a light load of 7, so he would only take a -1 penalty while wearing all that stuff, and if he only had the plate armor on he could do cartwheels in it without penalty.

Once you've converted equipment weights to stone (petrified them, if you will :smallwink:), the system is very simple to work with; as lesser_minion noted, the major problem with by-the-book encumbrance is too much math and too much fiddliness at the table, which this system takes care of. On a side note, those weight limits happen to be within plus or minus 2 stone of the core encumbrance chart up through Str 18, when the heavy loads start growing larger exponentially, and a rule could be added in for very high Str if you want to let them keep carrying literal tons of stuff at the high end.

[Carl]

Another problem related to martial and caster items that isn't strictly due to WBL is the proliferation of bonus types. In theory, bonus typing is supposed to limit stacking, but there are 18 bonus types listed in the SRD and more are introduced in splatbooks. This means that while a fighter has to pay thousands of gold to get +8 to his attack or AC using +X weapons and armor, a caster can usually find four spells or items that grant four +2s of stacking types. This needs to go.

Most of those modifier types are either skill specific or very rarely applied to anything but skill checks in practise. Finding non-enhancement, bonuses that aren't dodge or ability modifier's on the SRD is like finding needles in a haystack.

It's part of the problem IMO. There's little or no advantage gained form picking up a +5 Weapon/Armour compared to a mage because a mage can replicate the same magnitudes of the same type, (so it can't be stacked on top of equipment), making the equipment less worth it and the spells worth it only for those without the equipment. It's ludicrous. It makes a mage's buffs better for the mage than for the martial types, and that's just dumb.

Equipment Bonus's should be separate from Spell bonuses, which should be separate from Ability modifiers which should be separate from dodge and the like and so on. There needs to be less "lets use non-stacking modifiers", and more "lets use stacking modifiers", so that equipment and spells and feats on the same person providing bonuses to the same thing are actually useful.

I agree there are times when you don;t want stuff to stack, (like a whole munch of buff spells at once), but there are plenty where denying stacking just neuters huge chunks of the game unnecessarily.

[Grod_The_Giant]

All equipment that does nothing but offer +X bonus needs to go die in a fire. I don't want scaling, I want dead! Give me an item with interesting effects. Why not fold all the raw number scaling into standard progressions and cut gold and magic item drop rates way back?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Equipment Bonus's should be separate from Spell bonuses, which should be separate from Ability modifiers which should be separate from dodge and the like and so on. There needs to be less "lets use non-stacking modifiers", and more "lets use stacking modifiers", so that equipment and spells and feats on the same person providing bonuses to the same thing are actually useful.

Disagree; dodge bonuses and all the other fiddly little stacking bonuses are one of the reason why fighter feats suck. Casters get feats that do stuff, fighters get feats that add +1 to +3 to something. Skill synergies are supposed to reward you for breadth of skill training, but most people forget about them until they're trying to stack a bunch together to break the Diplomacy rules. An extra +1 to attack is cheap and weak until you can stack 6 of them for a tenth of the cost of a +6 attack bonus. Instead of looking around for cool new things to do, small stacking bonuses encourage people to Catch 'Em All and gather all the little bonuses they can.

Getting rid of every single feat that does nothing but add a small bonus to something would be good for the game, because it would mean that if you want to make a feat called Weapon Focus or Skill Focus or something, you have to make the feat let you do stuff like weapon-specific maneuvers, expanded skill uses, extra attacks, rerolls, etc. instead of adding a piddly little bonus on top of all the other piddly little bonuses you get. And if that means half the PHB feats are gone, good, chuck out the terrible feats and replace them with ones that are worth taking.


I agree there are times when you don;t want stuff to stack, (like a whole munch of buff spells at once), but there are plenty where denying stacking just neuters huge chunks of the game unnecessarily.

Such as? The game functions just fine when you're just adding class bonus + inherent bonus + magic bonus + equipment bonus to a check or stat, and it's precisely when you get more than, say, 18 base + 5 inherent + 6 item to a stat or 10 base + armor + enhancement + dodge to AC or whatever that the numbers start spiraling out of control.

[Carl]

All equipment that does nothing but offer +X bonus needs to go die in a fire. I don't want scaling, I want dead! Give me an item with interesting effects. Why not fold all the raw number scaling into standard progressions and cut gold and magic item drop rates way back?

The problem is you can't really do effective equipment scaling with level without them unless you intend to make people change weapons/armour type every several levels. Or bring in completely illogical, (to the degree needed), auto scaling rules.


@PairO'Dice Lost: I really don't understand what your trying to say here. Feats power or perceived lack of has nothing to do with the fighter problem. A terrible Magic System. HP System. Equipment System. And a basic class design that tries to be a generalist whilst failing all 3 cardinal rules of generalist design are what makes a fighter suck. Buffing feats just buffs everyone, the fighter gets nothing for it.




Such as? The game functions just fine when you're just adding class bonus + inherent bonus + magic bonus + equipment bonus to a check or stat, and it's precisely when you get more than, say, 18 base + 5 inherent + 6 item to a stat or 10 base + armor + enhancement + dodge to AC or whatever that the numbers start spiraling out of control.

Equipment scaling is the big one. Having non-stacking quality and basic magic bonuses that don't stack with buff spells just emphasizes wizards to go all out me, me, me, even if they've got access to good buffing capabilities, (and often they work better on a me, me, me approach, but that's a separate issue), at the same time as limiting equipment advancement in the end for martial classes.

The very same feats and class abilities you mentioned earlier are another one, without stacking their'd be no point or benefit to many feats and class features. Sure if as your wanting to, re-writing the whole system from the ground up it doesn't matter, you can replace features and feats with other stuff and it will all work. But that's just one way of going about it. And whilst i think care and attention has to be paid to overall system design and changes made where appropriate, there also has to be a lot of thought given to weather a change is necessary. Basically if it performs all the necessary system design functions, and doesn't have any system design undermining elements present, keep it. If it does, re-work the necessary elements till it fits. The trick is know when you need to re-invent and when you need to modify. In this case modify fits better from my perspective.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem is you can't really do effective equipment scaling with level without them unless you intend to make people change weapons/armour type every several levels. Or bring in completely illogical, (to the degree needed), auto scaling rules.
I'm not sure I follow you here. The issue you describe is what already exists-- the need to constantly cycle through new weapons and armor with ever-increasing values of X.

I'm talking about completely divorcing numerical scaling from equipment scaling. Characters should be defined by, you know, their character, not their equipment. In 3.5 terms, think about making the scaling from Vow of Poverty an inherent part of the level-up process, but allowing (non-numerical) magic items on top of it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The problem is you can't really do effective equipment scaling with level without them unless you intend to make people change weapons/armour type every several levels. Or bring in completely illogical, (to the degree needed), auto scaling rules.

Equipment scaling doesn't have to be based on d20 modifiers. There's no reason to require a fighter to start with a +1 flaming weapon and end up with a +5 flaming weapon if he wants to have a flaming weapon through his whole career. A different (and in my view better) way to do it would be to have flaming scale--start with 1d6 fire damage on a hit, add extra fire damage on a crit, add a flaming aura type effect, maybe creating walls of flame with your swings, etc.). Number inflation for the sake of number inflation is unnecessary.


@PairO'Dice Lost: I really don't understand what your trying to say here. Feats power or perceived lack of has nothing to do with the fighter problem. A terrible Magic System. HP System. Equipment System. And a basic class design that tries to be a generalist whilst failing all 3 cardinal rules of generalist design are what makes a fighter suck. Buffing feats just buffs everyone, the fighter gets nothing for it.

On the contrary, the "stacking many small bonuses" paradigm has a lot to do with the fighter. It seems like everyone tries to fix the fighter with lots of small numbers. Weapon training here, armor training there, dodge bonuses for swashbucklers, and so forth. Numbers are what the fighter already has, options are what he needs; casters' weakest spells are those that give small bonuses, so why do people insist on making the fighter care whether he has a +2 sword or a +3 sword?

Now, inherent and automatic bonuses that scale as you level as Grod mentioned are a different case--they're not abusable by lots of stacking and you can't be left behind by not getting them, and they can be accounted for in the math--but the item treadmill is neither necessary nor desirable.


The very same feats and class abilities you mentioned earlier are another one, without stacking their'd be no point or benefit to many feats and class features.

Exactly! If there's a class feature that hands out a +1 or +2 and is only useful if you can stack that with a bunch of other +2s, get rid of it! If the only way you can think of to write a feature is to express it as a bland numerical bonus, don't write that ability!

You don't cast haste for the +1 to attack, AC, and Ref saves, you cast it for the extra attack; you don't cast foresight for the +2 to AC and Ref saves, you cast it to avoid being surprised. The good spells that only give out numerical bonuses are ones like nerveskitter (+5), true strike (+20), and similar spells that give out fewer, more meaningful bonuses.


Basically if it performs all the necessary system design functions, and doesn't have any system design undermining elements present, keep it. If it does, re-work the necessary elements till it fits. The trick is know when you need to re-invent and when you need to modify. In this case modify fits better from my perspective.

Emphasis mine. The small-bonus-stacking abilities do indeed undermine the system.

The 3e skill system is incredibly breakable, right? It's those +30 skill bonus items that are causing the problem, right? Nope. The "world record" Diplomacy build gets a +222 Diplomacy bonus at level 20 via use of lots of small bonuses:

Updated: My math is shown below:

Your Cha:
18 base
+2 magic-blooded
+2 half-elf paragon
+2 human paragon
+2 age
+5 levels
+5 book
+6 cloak
= 42 (+16)

Your Cohorts Cha:
18 base
+2 magic-blooded
+2 half-elf paragon
+2 human paragon
+3 age
+4 levels
+5 book
+6 cloak
= 42 (+16)

Diplomacy check for your cohort:
21 ranks
+16 charisma
+16 aura
+6 unnamed (beguiling influence)
+3 racial (half-elf paragon)
+3 unnamed (skill focus(diplomacy))
+2 unnamed, (alluring)
+2 unnamed (courteous mageocracy)
+2 unnamed (trustworthy)
+2 perfection (sacred vow)
+4 exalted (vow of peace)
+2 synergy (bluff)
+2 synergy (sense motive)
+2 synergy (knowledge: religion and nobility)
+21 unnamed, (item familiar)
+30 competence (custom skill item)
+3 synergy (complementary insight)
+3 unnamed, psicrystal affinity (friendly personality)
+2 circumstance (nymph's kiss)
+4 sacred (herald domain)
+2 unnamed (mind domain)
+5 unnamed (friendly face)
+2 circumstance (mwk tool)
+1 unnamed (polite trait)
+1 unnamed (honest trait)
+3 circumstance (circlet of persuasion)
+4 unnamed (wendsday's left eye)
+20 insight (moment of prescience)
+5 morale (pendant of joy)
+2 enhancement (commanding armor)
=+191 diplomacy
Skill mastery makes you take 10
=201 diplomacy

Your cohort then turns that around into a circumstance bonus for your check. Your check now looks like this:

23 ranks
+16 charisma
+16 aura
+6 unnamed (beguiling influence)
+3 racial (half-elf paragon)
+3 unnamed (skill focus(diplomacy))
+2 unnamed, (alluring)
+2 unnamed (courteous mageocracy)
+2 unnamed (trustworthy)
+2 perfection (sacred vow)
+4 exalted (vow of peace)
+2 synergy (bluff)
+2 synergy (sense motive)
+2 synergy (knowledge: religion and nobility)
+23 unnamed, (item familiar)
+30 competence (custom skill item)
+3 synergy (complementary insight)
+3 unnamed, psicrystal affinity (friendly personality)
+2 circumstance (nymph's kiss)
+4 sacred (herald domain)
+2 unnamed (mind domain)
+5 unnamed (friendly face)
+2 circumstance (mwk tool)
+21 circumstance (cohort's aid another)
+1 unnamed (polite trait)
+1 unnamed (honest trait)
+3 circumstance (circlet of persuasion)
+4 unnamed (wendsday's left eye)
+20 insight (moment of prescience)
+5 morale (pendant of joy)
+2 unnamed (fleeting fame)
+2 enhancement (commanding armor)
=+216 diplomacy
Skill mastery makes you take 10
=227 diplomacy
Rushed check : only -5 (Evangelist).
=222.


Let's take all the fiddly bonuses (+3 or less) out:
Your Cha:
18 base
+5 levels
+5 book
+6 cloak
= 34 (+12)

Your Cohorts Cha:
18 base
+4 levels
+5 book
+6 cloak
= 33 (+11)

Diplomacy check for your cohort:
21 ranks
+11 charisma
+11 aura
+6 unnamed (beguiling influence)
+4 exalted (vow of peace)
+21 unnamed, (item familiar)
+30 competence (custom skill item)
+4 sacred (herald domain)
+5 unnamed (friendly face)
+4 unnamed (wendsday's left eye)
+20 insight (moment of prescience)
+5 morale (pendant of joy)
=+142 diplomacy
Skill mastery makes you take 10
=152 diplomacy

Your cohort then turns that around into a circumstance bonus for your check. Your check now looks like this:

23 ranks
+12 charisma
+11 aura
+6 unnamed (beguiling influence)
+4 exalted (vow of peace)
+23 unnamed, (item familiar)
+30 competence (custom skill item)
+4 sacred (herald domain)
+5 unnamed (friendly face)
+15 circumstance (cohort's aid another)
+4 unnamed (wendsday's left eye)
+20 insight (moment of prescience)
+5 morale (pendant of joy)
=+162 diplomacy
Skill mastery makes you take 10
=172 diplomacy
Rushed check : only -5 (Evangelist).
=167.
Obviously that record is an extreme example, but look at how many little stackable bonuses are out there. Saying "no" to the little bonuses brings lots of boundary-pushing builds into line and drops the world record by 25%. Alluring? The Polite trait? Fleeting fame? Is there really no other way to represent all those sorts of traits and spells besides generic small bonuses to skill checks?

The same holds for combat numbers. The fighter is supposed to be the best at attacking things, yet setting aside divine power a 20th level melee cleric can cast a few buffs to make up for the fighter's extra +5 BAB because he has access to a lot more small stackable bonuses--and more bonus types, for that matter, 'cause when was the last time you saw a martial class feature or feat hand out a sacred, insight, or luck bonus to attacks?

The more that scaling is made intrinsic to a character, the more valuable having high intrinsic numbers (i.e. good attack bonus, AC, and saves) is. If BAB is to be made worthwhile, limiting the casters' capability to get high attack bonuses despite having low BAB is the best if not only way to achieve that.

[Ziegander]

Just chiming in to say that the stones instead of pounds idea is brilliant. But magic items scaling by character level? I'm not really sure about that. Why does it happen? If the only explanation you can come up with that you aren't pulling from your ass is, "because game balance," then I call foul. It would be fine for some items, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that a hero finds a flaming sword and as he becomes more heroic the flaming sword becomes more on fire. :smallconfused:

[Seerow]

Just chiming in to say that the stones instead of pounds idea is brilliant. But magic items scaling by character level? I'm not really sure about that. Why does it happen? If the only explanation you can come up with that you aren't pulling from your ass is, "because game balance," then I call foul. It would be fine for some items, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that a hero finds a flaming sword and as he becomes more heroic the flaming sword becomes more on fire. :smallconfused:

A system I was working on a year or two back and have since mostly abandoned (due more to lack of time to invest in homebrewing combined with the enormity of the project than thinking the idea wouldn't work) was making all magic items function similarly to Incarnum, where all characters get so many points they can invest into items (ie bonding them), and as you invest more into it, more of the item's power comes out. Using PoD's Flaming Sword example you might have something like:

Flametongue Longsword
Unbonded-This weapon is warm to the touch, and detects as magic. With a command word it can shed light as a torch.
Bond Effects:
1 Essence-The weapon adds 1d6 fire damage to all attacks made using it.
3 Essence-A critical strike with the weapon increases the fire damage dealt to 2d10. Additionally while in battle the wielder of this weapon is enveloped in an aura of flame, dealing 1d6 fire damage to any creature that attacks them.
5 Essence-All fire damage effects from the sword are doubled. Additionally Once per encounter the wielder can use the weapon to make a maximized scorching ray attack (caster level 11).
7 Essence-Any enemy with fire resistance attacked with this sword has their fire resistance reduced by 5 for 1 hour following being attacked. This effect stacks. If the creature has immunity, it has the immunity reduced to Resist 20 for 1 hour, but cannot be reduced any further.




Anyway, essence numbers there are just pulled out of thin air. But the point is you'd have a pool of essence that scales with level, as well as a maximum investment that scales with level. So as the character improves in level, he's able to choose to invest more of his own essence into the weapon unlocking more of its abilities. But if he gets it at level 1, he has no way to get more than just the +1d6 fire damage.

You could use this mechanic to skew things in mundane characters' favor by giving them better essence progressions, or if you want to keep things uniform have casters spend essence for their own abilities. (For example, in the system I was working on, wizards would invest Essence to improve their spell book. Sorcerers to improve spells known. Etc)




Anyway I had more to say, particularly on the topic of stacking bonuses but I just noticed the time and gotta run. I'll post back here again soon-ish.

[Yitzi]

Disagree; dodge bonuses and all the other fiddly little stacking bonuses are one of the reason why fighter feats suck. Casters get feats that do stuff, fighters get feats that add +1 to +3 to something.

If that +1 to +3 represents being able to do stuff with a substantially higher chance of success, and wizards can't get similarly high chances of success for what they're doing, that's worth quite a bit.

The problem with fighters isn't that wizards get new abilities instead of good success chances, it's that wizards get new abilities in addition to good success chances.


Skill synergies are supposed to reward you for breadth of skill training, but most people forget about them until they're trying to stack a bunch together to break the Diplomacy rules. An extra +1 to attack is cheap and weak until you can stack 6 of them for a tenth of the cost of a +6 attack bonus. Instead of looking around for cool new things to do, small stacking bonuses encourage people to Catch 'Em All and gather all the little bonuses they can.

That's a reason not to have 10 different types of stacking bonuses, but 2 or 3 should be ok.


Such as? The game functions just fine when you're just adding class bonus + inherent bonus + magic bonus + equipment bonus to a check or stat, and it's precisely when you get more than, say, 18 base + 5 inherent + 6 item to a stat or 10 base + armor + enhancement + dodge to AC or whatever that the numbers start spiraling out of control.

That's true for AC, but I don't think "out-of-control AC" is one of the things that's breaking D&D. Far more of a culprit is out-of-control spell DCs, and there 18 base+5 advancement+5 inherent+6 enhancement (item) plus maybe 2 racial is plenty to make things overpowered.

[Morty]

I have a slightly different view of magic items than most. While I agree that straight numerical bonuses are boring and problematic, I hate "gadgets" even more. It's bad enough that my Fighter can't function properly without gauntlets that increase his Strength, a pendant that increases his Constitution and a cloak that boosts his saves. But he also needs a pair of boots that let him fly, a headband that lets him see invisible, a rod that lets him bypass force fields... ugh. Am I playing Beowulf or Inspector fricking Gadget? Come to think of it, the dynamic between Gadget and his niece resembles that between a fighter and a wizard in a high level party...

Now, this problem is connected to the fact that martial classes have very weak defenses against things that don't attack their AC and hitpoints without magic gadgets. But even then, I'm not a big fan of them. I prefer items that directly enchance the skill of the user than ones that give her entirely new powers. I also believe in quality over quantity.

[Seerow]

On the topic of stacking bonuses, I agree that 3.5 is over the top in that regard, but PoD's idea is too restrictive. Taking the relevant part out:


So let's simplify: There are now four bonus types. Bonuses from your biology and permanent magic (racial bonuses, stat bonuses, natural dodge bonuses, wishes, etc.) are now all inherent bonuses. Bonuses from training or knowledge (such as class-based bonuses, divination bonuses, etc.) are insight bonuses. Bonuses from equipment are now equipment bonuses (shields grant cover now, and natural armor counts as armor). Bonuses from magic that don't fit into the above three categories are now all enhancement bonuses. Untyped circumstance bonuses still exist, but in general stacking is reined in.

Biology and Permanent magic no longer stack. So a Human Fighter can bump up his constitution with wishes, but a Dwarf cannot (or at least requires far more investment for the same benefit). That to me is silly. Racial can stand alone as its own type, it will only apply to a few things anyway.

Training and Insight/Divinations overlap. So you have a Jedi who is exceptionally well trained and using his force precognition, the effects don't stack. A completely untrained person with precog is just as effective as one who has trained extensively. I don't like that. These deserve to be separated

Equipment bonuses are fine, as long as it's referring to stuff like AC from armor, skill bonuses from masterwork stuff, etc.

Competence on the other hand I don't see as meaningfully different from skill.

Taking the competence bonus's place as the go-to temporary buff would be the Morale bonus. Morale Bonuses are associated with the most prominent buffing classes (which should have a buff type that stacks with whatever effects their party members are using on a general basis), and makes sense as short term buffs from the outside that cannot be made permanent.

So I'd go with something like this:
-Racial (things that come with race)
-Inherent (bonuses that come from changes to physiology either through training or permanent magic)
-Skill (bonuses that come from training or talent in a particular field)
-Insight (bonuses that typically come from divinations or knowledge checks, possibly synergy bonuses)
-Equipment (bonuses coming from mundane equipment. A masterwork weapon. An armor bonus. etc)
-Morale (temporary bonuses)
-Enhancement (magical effects, usually available permanent or long duration via long term buffs or magic items. Short duration buffs that are higher than normal may be available.)


Overall 7 bonus types instead of 5. The big difference was separating out racial and skill, and name changing competence.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Just chiming in to say that the stones instead of pounds idea is brilliant. But magic items scaling by character level? I'm not really sure about that. Why does it happen? If the only explanation you can come up with that you aren't pulling from your ass is, "because game balance," then I call foul. It would be fine for some items, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that a hero finds a flaming sword and as he becomes more heroic the flaming sword becomes more on fire. :smallconfused:

Something like Seerow's essence system is what I was thinking of, or like Earthdawn's thread weaving: all Earthdawn items work kind of like 3e legacy items, where they start off as mundane or not very magical and then grow more powerful the more you discover about their powers and bind them to your magical essence with "threads" of magic.


If that +1 to +3 represents being able to do stuff with a substantially higher chance of success, and wizards can't get similarly high chances of success for what they're doing, that's worth quite a bit.

The problem with fighters isn't that wizards get new abilities instead of good success chances, it's that wizards get new abilities in addition to good success chances.

A +3 on a d20 is still just a +15% chance, which isn't a "good" success chance. My point is that instead of giving the fighter lots of abilities that have to be collected to add up to a good success chance at the expense of getting cool abilities, any ability the fighter gets should give a good success chance on its own (larger, more noticeable bonus) or a non-numerical benefit.


That's true for AC, but I don't think "out-of-control AC" is one of the things that's breaking D&D. Far more of a culprit is out-of-control spell DCs, and there 18 base+5 advancement+5 inherent+6 enhancement (item) plus maybe 2 racial is plenty to make things overpowered.

I definitely agree that saves vs. spell DCs aren't going to be solved with bonus stacking; that's an area where they need to be changed entirely so saves increase relative to DCs like in AD&D as opposed to 3e where DCs increase relative to saves. We could move saves to a secondary stat, change base save progressions, remove spell level from the DC formula, or something else, but condensing bonus types isn't going to fix the inherent flaws in the current formulas.


I have a slightly different view of magic items than most. While I agree that straight numerical bonuses are boring and problematic, I hate "gadgets" even more.
[...]
But he also needs a pair of boots that let him fly, a headband that lets him see invisible, a rod that lets him bypass force fields... ugh. Am I playing Beowulf or Inspector fricking Gadget?

Unfortunately, that's one of those problems that can't be fixed without a complete overhaul. It's possible to tweak the skill system to give more benefits with higher ranks such as seeing invisible things with perception skills, tweak the combat system to allow breaking walls of force (or just giving them HP and hardness normally so they interact with the combat system), and so forth, but without that kind of overhaul the closest you can get to avoiding Gadget Syndrome is to have one signature intelligent item that has a bunch of capabilities and can see invisible creatures and such for you.


Biology and Permanent magic no longer stack. So a Human Fighter can bump up his constitution with wishes, but a Dwarf cannot (or at least requires far more investment for the same benefit). That to me is silly. Racial can stand alone as its own type, it will only apply to a few things anyway.

Training and Insight/Divinations overlap. So you have a Jedi who is exceptionally well trained and using his force precognition, the effects don't stack. A completely untrained person with precog is just as effective as one who has trained extensively. I don't like that. These deserve to be separated

My suggestion was admittedly off-the-cuff and perhaps not well thought out, so thanks for taking a look at it. For racial/inherent bonuses, I was thinking of the fact that wishes stack with one another up to +5 (so a dwarf would be limited to +5 as well, but would hit the cap with less investment) but forgot about the "consecutive casting" clause. :smallredface: So the intention was for Mr. Dwarf and Mr. Human to both be able to boost Con to a certain limit but to give Mr. Dwarf the advantage. I suppose racial bonuses wouldn't break anything if left it, I just find it a bit inelegant.

For training/insight, I should have explained better. By "class-based bonuses" I didn't mean things like BAB or base defense bonuses, I meant things like the monk's Wis to AC, the swashbuckler's +Int to damage, or the factotum's +level to skill checks; adding defensive precognition or offensive precognition to that, adding another stat bonus on top of that, or the like wouldn't stack because amazing insight or precognitive reflexes only go so far. So Mace Windu can have his precognition and Spider-Man can have his spider sense, but you can't multiclass Jedi/Superhero and have them stack (though the resulting lightsaber would probably look awesome).

[Morty]

Unfortunately, that's one of those problems that can't be fixed without a complete overhaul. It's possible to tweak the skill system to give more benefits with higher ranks such as seeing invisible things with perception skills, tweak the combat system to allow breaking walls of force (or just giving them HP and hardness normally so they interact with the combat system), and so forth, but without that kind of overhaul the closest you can get to avoiding Gadget Syndrome is to have one signature intelligent item that has a bunch of capabilities and can see invisible creatures and such for you.


That's true. However, a maneuver-based class such as the Warblade can also alleviate some of those problems. I think there's a martial maneuver that gives you blindsense. Then again, at this point we just shift the focus from "have these items of lose" to "have these maneuvers to lose". Like you said, the problem isn't so much in the existence of items but in the existence of effects that can only be overcome with magic or imitation thereof.

[Seerow]

My suggestion was admittedly off-the-cuff and perhaps not well thought out, so thanks for taking a look at it. For racial/inherent bonuses, I was thinking of the fact that wishes stack with one another up to +5 (so a dwarf would be limited to +5 as well, but would hit the cap with less investment) but forgot about the "consecutive casting" clause. So the intention was for Mr. Dwarf and Mr. Human to both be able to boost Con to a certain limit but to give Mr. Dwarf the advantage. I suppose racial bonuses wouldn't break anything if left it, I just find it a bit inelegant.

Even with that intent clarified, I disagree with what you were going for. I don't think it is right to have a Human who can gain more total bonus from magic to his constitution than a dwarf. They may end up in the same place, but the dwarf should be able to end higher. The way you are doing it makes the implication that dwarves are inherently magical.


I was thinking that maybe instead you could just change how racial bonuses work. ie make them as free stats/skill ranks that apply before you add everything else.

So if you're doing a point buy, the dwarf starts with a 10 in con and 6 in charisma before you start assigning points, rather than after (If you're rolling you just cap the stat at 18. Unless the player rolls 6 stats of 16 or better this won't negatively affect anything). Similarly, things like bonuses to skills are just free skill ranks in those skills. Dwarves are good at search checks? Give them a free 2 ranks in search.



Honestly though, I'm not sure I like it. The intent here would be that you eliminate racial bonus type and get rid of some of the weirdness with your method, but it has its own weirdness and requires getting rid of a lot of the quirky/specific racial bonuses, which I'd honestly rather see stay.



For training/insight, I should have explained better. By "class-based bonuses" I didn't mean things like BAB or base defense bonuses, I meant things like the monk's Wis to AC, the swashbuckler's +Int to damage, or the factotum's +level to skill checks; adding defensive precognition or offensive precognition to that, adding another stat bonus on top of that, or the like wouldn't stack because amazing insight or precognitive reflexes only go so far. So Mace Windu can have his precognition and Spider-Man can have his spider sense, but you can't multiclass Jedi/Superhero and have them stack (though the resulting lightsaber would probably look awesome).


Okay that makes more sense. I was thinking things like BAB/Skill Ranks falling under "skill bonus", and that's more or less what I had in mind with my bonus grouping.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Then again, at this point we just shift the focus from "have these items of lose" to "have these maneuvers to lose".

Right; its possible to add feats and maneuvers to overcome the problem, but that still still creates the "you must have X, Y, and Z to play" problem and noncasters can't generally shuffle around their resources to compensate like prepared casters can. Much better to bake those benefits it in to the system (or, conversely, make sure that the solution to invisibility and force fields is not "magic or GTFO" like it is now), but that requires a lot more effort.


Even with that intent clarified, I disagree with what you were going for. I don't think it is right to have a Human who can gain more total bonus from magic to his constitution than a dwarf. They may end up in the same place, but the dwarf should be able to end higher. The way you are doing it makes the implication that dwarves are inherently magical.

Or that magic is limited by your own biology. I mean, you can't get more than +5 inherent to a stat from wishes, why not a +6? Can't wish keep on enhancing you indefinitely? Same thing here.


I was thinking that maybe instead you could just change how racial bonuses work.
[...]
Honestly though, I'm not sure I like it. The intent here would be that you eliminate racial bonus type and get rid of some of the weirdness with your method, but it has its own weirdness and requires getting rid of a lot of the quirky/specific racial bonuses, which I'd honestly rather see stay.

I like your suggestions for changing how racial bonuses could work. Regarding quirky bonuses, I like the fact that dwarves hate giants and elves have keen ears too, I just don't think lots of fiddly bonuses are the best way to express that stuff. I mean, dwarves get +2 on Appraise, Craft, and Search checks with stone items and construction, +1 attack against orcs and goblinoids, +4 AC against giants, and +2 on saves vs. poison and magic. That's a bunch of bonuses that are situational, easily-forgettable, relatively insignificant past low levels, and not very evocative, and I bet most players couldn't name all of them off the top of their head.

Much better to have more active and/or interesting abilities; one of the (few) things 4e definitely did right in my view was to give races abilities that are useful at all levels and more unique than just a handful of bonuses.

[Yitzi]

A +3 on a d20 is still just a +15% chance, which isn't a "good" success chance. My point is that instead of giving the fighter lots of abilities that have to be collected to add up to a good success chance at the expense of getting cool abilities, any ability the fighter gets should give a good success chance on its own (larger, more noticeable bonus) or a non-numerical benefit.

Ok, I'll grant that. Let's say that if it's only a single numerical benefit, it should be +6 minimum in d20, or +3 minimum in 3d6 (since 3d6 gives larger boosts with smaller numbers around the middle of the spectrum.)


I definitely agree that saves vs. spell DCs aren't going to be solved with bonus stacking; that's an area where they need to be changed entirely so saves increase relative to DCs like in AD&D as opposed to 3e where DCs increase relative to saves.

I would say that strong saves should increase relative to DCs, weak saves should stay about the same.


We could move saves to a secondary stat, change base save progressions, remove spell level from the DC formula, or something else

I'd favor change base save progressions, with some classes playing around with the relevant ability score as well.


My suggestion was admittedly off-the-cuff and perhaps not well thought out, so thanks for taking a look at it. For racial/inherent bonuses, I was thinking of the fact that wishes stack with one another up to +5 (so a dwarf would be limited to +5 as well, but would hit the cap with less investment) but forgot about the "consecutive casting" clause. :smallredface: So the intention was for Mr. Dwarf and Mr. Human to both be able to boost Con to a certain limit but to give Mr. Dwarf the advantage. I suppose racial bonuses wouldn't break anything if left it, I just find it a bit inelegant.

How's this for an idea: Wishes (and items that are based on wishes, i.e. tomes and manuals) stack with each other without consecutive casting, and they stack with racial bonuses...and they aren't capped at +5...but they share a cap with your base amount and the bonus you get every 4 levels, and the cap is at 18+level/4. That way, if you're already taking 18 in an ability score and boosting it every 4 levels, wishes won't help you any, but they're very useful for secondary abilities. (Naturally, this will depower single-ability classes such as casters and heavily help MAD classes; I think we can all agree that they need it.)

For training/insight, I should have explained better. By "class-based bonuses" I didn't mean things like BAB or base defense bonuses, I meant things like the monk's Wis to AC, the swashbuckler's +Int to damage, or the factotum's +level to skill checks; adding defensive precognition or offensive precognition to that, adding another stat bonus on top of that, or the like wouldn't stack because amazing insight or precognitive reflexes only go so far. So Mace Windu can have his precognition and Spider-Man can have his spider sense, but you can't multiclass Jedi/Superhero and have them stack (though the resulting lightsaber would probably look awesome).[/QUOTE]

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Ok, I'll grant that. Let's say that if it's only a single numerical benefit, it should be +6 minimum in d20, or +3 minimum in 3d6 (since 3d6 gives larger boosts with smaller numbers around the middle of the spectrum.)

Something like that, yes. I'm not opposed to giving martial classes numerical bonuses at all, I just think that the bonuses they get should be meaningful and straightforward.


I would say that strong saves should increase relative to DCs, weak saves should stay about the same.

I'd favor change base save progressions, with some classes playing around with the relevant ability score as well.

The issue with leaving weak saves is that casters can still target weak saves, and you need to boost 3 stats to keep up with saves while casters just need 1 stat to keep their DCs up. A combination approach of boosting weak saves and nerfing DCs would be best, maybe increasing good saves from 1/2 level + 2 to 2/3 level + 4 and poor saves from 1/3 level to 1/2 level + 2 and making casters MAD for save DCs (Cha for Int and Wis casters, maybe make the Cha casters use Int or Wis based on type of spells; Int-dependent spontaneous casters worked for the warmage and beguiler...)? Or drop spell level from the DC formula, so it's just 10 + stat bonus?

It would require some mathing out, but as long as high-level casters can calculate DCs based on a main stat of 25-30 and fighter types are dependent on a 14 Wis and 16 Dex to shore up their weak saves, they're going to have problems with being shut down by casters and casting monsters.

[Yitzi]

The issue with leaving weak saves is that casters can still target weak saves, and you need to boost 3 stats to keep up with saves while casters just need 1 stat to keep their DCs up.

Not if boosting ability scores is hard when they're already high; when I said that weak saves should grow at the same rate as DCs, I meant after including things like ability score increases for a normal character. (It might be ok to have unusual builds that break that rule, so long as they are overall weaker than the builds that follow it.)


A combination approach of boosting weak saves and nerfing DCs would be best, maybe increasing good saves from 1/2 level + 2 to 2/3 level + 4 and poor saves from 1/3 level to 1/2 level + 2 and making casters MAD for save DCs (Cha for Int and Wis casters, maybe make the Cha casters use Int or Wis based on type of spells; Int-dependent spontaneous casters worked for the warmage and beguiler...)? Or drop spell level from the DC formula, so it's just 10 + stat bonus?

I'd say increase good saves to level+something, and poor saves to level/2+something, and then make it hard enough to go SAD that even casters usually won't do it.


but as long as high-level casters can calculate DCs based on a main stat of 25-30 and fighter types are dependent on a 14 Wis and 16 Dex to shore up their weak saves, they're going to have problems with being shut down by casters and casting monsters.

Well, you could always compensate by boosting saves even more, and "let wizards beat fighters, but make monks able to beat wizards but lose to fighters" also has potential if looking just at combat, but yeah the best approach is to hit the "25-30 main stat, 14-16 secondary stat" phenomenon. Hence my above suggestion about wishes, which directly hurts the high main stats and helps secondary stats.

[Seerow]

Or that magic is limited by your own biology. I mean, you can't get more than +5 inherent to a stat from wishes, why not a +6? Can't wish keep on enhancing you indefinitely? Same thing here.

But in this case I would expect it to work the other way around. Maybe it's just my shadowrun experience talking here, but I expect a naturally tough race to have a higher augmented max, not a lower one (ie in shadowrun you have a Human with 6 maximum body, but an augmented max of 9. A troll has a maximum body of 10, ie +4 over the human, but a maximum augmented of 15, ie +6 over the human).

Having all races cap out at the same point regardless of their base biology just feels wrong to me.




I like your suggestions for changing how racial bonuses could work. Regarding quirky bonuses, I like the fact that dwarves hate giants and elves have keen ears too, I just don't think lots of fiddly bonuses are the best way to express that stuff. I mean, dwarves get +2 on Appraise, Craft, and Search checks with stone items and construction, +1 attack against orcs and goblinoids, +4 AC against giants, and +2 on saves vs. poison and magic. That's a bunch of bonuses that are situational, easily-forgettable, relatively insignificant past low levels, and not very evocative, and I bet most players couldn't name all of them off the top of their head.

True, you don't need all of those things. But losing the option to have any of them I'm not sure is acceptable. I'd like to have at least one or two of those.

[T.G. Oskar]

But magic items scaling by character level? I'm not really sure about that. Why does it happen? If the only explanation you can come up with that you aren't pulling from your ass is, "because game balance," then I call foul. It would be fine for some items, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that a hero finds a flaming sword and as he becomes more heroic the flaming sword becomes more on fire. :smallconfused:

Ever considered the idea that everyone is a magical capacitor, except Wizards are like USBs and Fighters have a plug system that's a bit more complex? The Wizard can cast spells and distributes that magical energy through them, but they can't provide that through items because they're not compatible (aside from staffs, which have compatibility). Fighters, on the other hand, deploy that magical power through their items; ergo, they increase in power as you gain levels. A gish would sacrifice its spellcasting capabilities and its magic-item boosting capabilities, but would have access to both of them. Incarnum would be a different method, a hybrid method if you will (something like the plug used by Apple products), where you can boost items through essentia or create soulmelds of your own that you can boost.

It involves that everyone is magical in some sense, but if you're willing to accept the supernatural, it makes perfect sense. Or at least some sense.

[Seerow]

Ever considered the idea that everyone is a magical capacitor, except Wizards are like USBs and Fighters have a plug system that's a bit more complex? The Wizard can cast spells and distributes that magical energy through them, but they can't provide that through items because they're not compatible (aside from staffs, which have compatibility). Fighters, on the other hand, deploy that magical power through their items; ergo, they increase in power as you gain levels. A gish would sacrifice its spellcasting capabilities and its magic-item boosting capabilities, but would have access to both of them. Incarnum would be a different method, a hybrid method if you will (something like the plug used by Apple products), where you can boost items through essentia or create soulmelds of your own that you can boost.

It involves that everyone is magical in some sense, but if you're willing to accept the supernatural, it makes perfect sense. Or at least some sense.

Interesting. It seems you managed a post under 500 words.

[LordErebus12]

Interesting. It seems you managed a post under 500 words.

thats how legends die...


Interesting concept.

perhaps spellcasting could become a bonus feat or skill trick type ability. at least spells under a certain level. say third spell level or lower can be learned by all, usable with points in spellcraft. half casters (bards, ranger, paladin, etc) could access up to 6th level and lower. primary casters can use all spells.

add features to wizard, sorcerer, etc that makes them better utilizing magical weapons, adding their stats, instead of the items, plus more.

i think i might actually use this as a basis of a class idea, plus a rule change.

[T.G. Oskar]

Interesting. It seems you managed a post under 500 words.

Well, sometimes I get a gist of inspiration.

Though, if you want a more extense bit of writing...

MAGIC ITEMS
One of the biggest challenges regarding the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition, aside from how to balance classes, is to deal with the so-called "Christmas Tree effect". This term refers to the notion of characters that their effectiveness is related to the ease of access regarding magic items, as if they were sold in a department store at virtually any city. As with many things, the DM is the final arbiter of which magic items does the characters gain access at any point in the game, but newcomers are usually given the ability to choose the magic items they desire, based on a table present at the Dungeon Master's Guide and replicated to some extent at the Magic Item Compendium generally known as "wealth by level". This guideline, which is meant to determine the average wealth a character is expected to have at any level based specifically on the amount of battles, quests and rewards the group acquires throughout the campaign, if generously split between four people. The notion, owing to many factors, lacks a proper fundament regarding its validity as there has been little extensive testing over various game tables, but as the Magic Item Compendium states (regarding the notion of "item levels"), it is a reasonable abstraction: most magic items are quite expensive, so the end result is cherry-picking the right set of items to complement the lack of features of certain classes. In this way, a fighter could gain the ability to fly, see invisible creatures, and potentially do many things that many spellcasters can do naturally.

However, how this notion is presented within the game is utterly ridiculous, to say the very least. There are two moments in the history of the 3.5 edition where great advances regarding magic items were made: first, the creation of the incarnum mechanics, which granted certain classes the ability to create "soulmelds", which are functionally similar to magic items in all but name (and permanency). The other is the reformatting of pretty much everything within the Magic Item Compendium, which made low-cost magic items easily accessible. Even then, the results were not satisfactory enough to solve the inherent problems with magic items.

The first, and probably the most mind-bending of all concepts, is the actual process of item creation. In this method of creation, only spellcasters (and only spellcasters of certain caster levels, to be precise), could forge magic items. To assist them on the proposal, spells such as fabricate or major creation were made in order to assist the spellcaster in that proposal. This is inimical to the fantastic notion of item creation: a spellcaster with several caster levels, a way to procure experience points and gold with ease and several days worth of downtime could, with little effort, create any amount of magic items it desired. In most fantastical settings, magic items are created through accessing rare metals, ancient gems and through ancient lore, using ancient artifacts and mostly relying on the crafter's skill rather than any magical talent. Item creation feats work very well to replicate that, but it eliminates one of the key traits a non-spellcaster could have, which implies the creation of magic items to overcome its own flaws (such as a warrior born of blacksmiths whom wishes to forge a hammer with which to shatter the mightiest of walls, or a rogue well-versed in mechanics attempting to create a flying contraption). Certainly, this would allow wizards and clerics to forge their own items, but it will require greater talent on their own right rather than a simple casting of spells and ways to bypass the inherent blockades in the process (namely, experience and gold). Items of legacy (explained in the Weapons of Legacy sourcebook) work very well to allow any character to create its own magic item, but unfortunately that is not enough; it is, however, a very flavorful way to handle the concept of creating magic items based on the legacy of its users.

The second, of course, is how magic items work pretty much equally to anyone who wears it. A gauntlet of ogre power, for example, could provide anyone from a fighter to a wizard to a commoner with a sizable increase in Strength. Ideally, the item is replaced with the more powerful belt of giant strength, but eventually all characters gain the same bonus. The biggest offender, of course, is weaponry; the one thing in which a fighter is meant to be better than a wizard (combat) is utterly negated since the damage provided by the item does not stack. 1d6 points of fire damage might seem like a reasonable increase in damage at low levels, but at high levels the increase seems to lose steam (no pun intended) as the damage remains functionally similar while the monster's hit points increase. Likewise, certain abilities that could provide great benefits (such as enhancements that cause the enemy to suffer an effect when attacked) have so many hurdles that, when it actually WORKS, the wizard has already finished the rest of the battle with a single spell. What's worse, of course, is that a wizard with some proficiency using the weapon could achieve the same effect without casting a spell, and it STILL has the spell to work with, which means the fighter definitely has a disadvantage regarding the wizard in what it does best: combat.

THE INHERENT MAGIC POTENTIAL
Introduced in a way through Magic of Incarnum and Weapons of Legacy, the idea that magic items could improve based on the character's inherent potential, or rather, that the power a warrior can draw from a magic item based on its degree of experience remains an unexplored way on how to further improve magic items. This might seem a bit odd, given that if a fighter has some degree of inherent magical potential, a wizard could draw from it with greater ease given that they can already manipulate magical forces, and that wouldn't be far from the truth.

All I ask is; bear with me with this one.

Consider the following notion: all creatures are born with a degree of magical potential. Incarnum somewhat dealt with that, as well as legacy items: unborn souls are receptacles of incredible power, and the use of certain items in legendary acts allows the item to absorb part of the power within that "story" and become more powerful on its own. Now, let's assume some creatures learn to harness that power in their own way: wizards learn to use their magical potential through a conceited effort to understand the laws of nature and how to bend them; sorcerers learn to harness their power once it flares forth in a burst of raw magic. Clerics and favored souls are awakened their magical potential through their deities, but in different ways; for clerics, deities (or divine agents) temporarily grant them the potential of how to harness their faith and innate magical potential into action, while favored souls are granted the knowledge of the same acts permanently, yet with restrictions. Archivists, students of the faith, learn the structures behind the prayers and harness their power through a rare mixture of faith and innate magical potential. Warlocks awaken their inherent magical potential through a pact, whether with fiends, with fae or even the entities beyond the Material Plane. Psionic characters, such as psions, wilders and psychic warriors, harness a different expression of the same potential; instead of magic, they harness the power within their own minds, a power which is similar in many respects to magic yet at the same time strikingly different (the actual degree of separation relies, as usual, within the DM; magic and psionics could emerge within the same source or from a different source). Incarnum users or "meldshapers" learn to harness the power of incarnum, binders learn how to harness the power of vestiges and so forth, but all classes have something in particular: they harness what seems to be a singular essence.

This doesn't happen with other classes. The humble and noble Fighter, for example, relies on his physical prowess and skill to achieve his goals, but there's a limit on how his skill and prowess can assist him. The samurai has a stringent code of honor and advanced combat technique, but at the end it's as limited as the fighter in what it can do; however, as presented in Oriental Adventures, it had a method of how to improve his weapons by awakening his ancestral spirits. Even the warblade, master of various schools comprising the Sublime Way, can do just enough to excel in various stages of combat but eventually his prowess reaches a limit that only magic can bypass. All three, if assuming all creatures have some degree of magical potential, hold something that archivists, clerics, favored souls, meldshapers, soulbinders, sorcerers and wizards lack; untapped magical potential.

Assume each character is, using a famous pop reference, a "battery". A wizard starts as a battery on a flashlight, but eventually grows to be a reactor that powers various houses. A meldshaper starts as a backup battery for a single computer, but eventually becomes the generator for an entire server and potentially all computers connected to it. Now, assume the Fighter is also a battery, but it's used only as a projectile. Eventually, the fighter becomes a reactor ready to unleash its power, but it will never stop being anything else than a massive paperweight if only because it has no way to distribute its power. The Fighter, thus, would be a font of untapped magical potential that has no way to unleash its power unless there's some way to establish a connection. Multiclassing, for example, could provide the fighter with a way to unleash some of that power, but the multiple hits and dents have dulled its full magical potential, and it'll never reach the power of a reactor (as the wizard would be).

Now, let's assume for a while that the Fighter's magical potential is resolved differently. Instead of having no connections, let's assume it has a different plug. You know, the wizard's plugs are meant to be connected with just about anything, while the Fighter requires a very specialized form of connection. Not the best example, but assume the Wizard is NTSC, while the Fighter is PAL; or, the Wizard is a USB plug while the Fighter is...let's say a serial I/O plug. The Wizard will be capable of connecting and distributing its power, information and whatnot easily, but the Fighter will need a specialized method of distributing that same power; however, once done, the Fighter may do stuff that the Wizard will be uncapable of doing because its magical potential is compromised in other things, while that of a Fighter is essentially free to distribute to that very specific service. That doesn't mean Rogues are exempt from that; in fact, Rogues have the same potential as Fighters do, except that instead of a battery that has been used as a projectile, in the case of a Rogue the battery was used for things it was not meant to be used, and sometimes you could connect two wires to it and use that potential to emulate magic (a fancier way to say "Rogues have Use Magic Device").

And, what about classes such as Paladins or Rangers? Being part warriors and part spellcasters, Paladins and Rogues (and Bards, to an extent) have a part of their magical potential unleashed. In the case of Bards, they have at least two-thirds of their magical potential unleashed, with a part reserved for Use Magic Device and their songs. Paladins have only one-eighth of their magical potential unleashed (technically one half, but with half spells, half caster level and half the spell list, the effect becomes one eighth of their potential), and so do Rangers (although Paladins have their smites and their mount as quasi-magical abilities). Hexblades, duskblades and others also work on similar ways. The monk and the swordsage blur the lines between magical and mundane, with the Monk attempting (poorly) to be self-reliant while the Swordsage becomes almost completely reliant yet still "mundane" enough. All classes have a degree of magical potential that's partially tapped. In the case of feats (as presented in the Alternate Rules section), effective fighter levels work very nicely to determine improved abilities that spellcasters could duplicate with their spells but otherwise only dream of. This isn't the same regarding magic items, which are extremely varied.

So: how to deal with magic items in a way that is both reasonable, respecting the untapped magical potential of most melee characters and the slightly-tapped potential of hybrid classes without providing too much power to spellcasters?

[LordErebus12]

Well, sometimes I get a gist of inspiration.

Though, if you want a more extense bit of writing...

thats the kind of post where you just nod and hope for someone else to reply. :smallyuk:

[Ziegander]

Something like Seerow's essence system is what I was thinking of, or like Earthdawn's thread weaving: all Earthdawn items work kind of like 3e legacy items, where they start off as mundane or not very magical and then grow more powerful the more you discover about their powers and bind them to your magical essence with "threads" of magic.

So you want a system in which ALL magic items are:

A) Abundant and readily available in all major cities.

B) Price-regulated by trade organizations so that they have the same price tag, regardless of where in the world you might be.

and, let's not forget

C) Legendary artifacts that grow in power while their wielders discover more of their quirks and themselves grow in power.

I'm sorry, but... whaaat?


Ever considered the idea that everyone is a magical capacitor, except Wizards are like USBs and Fighters have a plug system that's a bit more complex? The Wizard can cast spells and distributes that magical energy through them, but they can't provide that through items because they're not compatible (aside from staffs, which have compatibility). Fighters, on the other hand, deploy that magical power through their items; ergo, they increase in power as you gain levels. A gish would sacrifice its spellcasting capabilities and its magic-item boosting capabilities, but would have access to both of them. Incarnum would be a different method, a hybrid method if you will (something like the plug used by Apple products), where you can boost items through essentia or create soulmelds of your own that you can boost.

It involves that everyone is magical in some sense, but if you're willing to accept the supernatural, it makes perfect sense. Or at least some sense.

It isn't that I haven't considered the idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183631), it's that I find that the idea works well for some settings and that it shouldn't be pre-baked into a system, because I can't imagine there's tons of gamers, D&D fans especially, who want their warriors to have "essence power" that they imbue their items with to make said items more magical.

Something like that can work, sure, but it has to be an option and not the enforced rule.


Interesting. It seems you managed a post under 500 words.

lol :smallsmile:

[Seerow]

So you want a system in which ALL magic items are:

A) Abundant and readily available in all major cities.

B) Price-regulated by trade organizations so that they have the same price tag, regardless of where in the world you might be.

and, let's not forget

C) Legendary artifacts that grow in power while their wielders discover more of their quirks and themselves grow in power.

I'm sorry, but... whaaat?

A and B do not follow from the premise. At all. What part of "Magic items need to be bonded to unlock their abilities, and items bonded more closely unlock more power" turns into "Magic items must be readily available and price regulated"?

Seriously, the main purpose of implementing such a system to me was that you could get rid of wealth by level entirely, and run with as many magic items as you want without upsetting game balance. On the other extreme you could run with magic items being relatively rare (especially if as I mentioned you give many classes other things they can invest essence in, such as improving spell lists), and characters who get their one magic item just bond it as much as they can. Or forge their own items through deeds (as has been mentioned a couple of times in the thread).


As for C, Artifacts have always existed outside normal game rules. But even if that weren't the case, what's wrong with a higher level character unlocking more of its power. Think back to Lord of the Rings, why was it Gandalf was afraid of taking the ring? It's because he would have been able to do much more with it than the hobbits, and would have been tempted towards using its power. Meanwhile for the hobbits it only acted as a ring of invisibility, hardly a world shattering power, and probably the least of the ring's powers. It seems to me that personal power being required to take full use of artifacts is something already well represented in literature.

[Carl]

@Grod: You can't wholly avoid it. Look a martial class, (excepting a monk), gets most of their protection from AC, they get most of the damage from their choice of weapon. Unless you provide some way for that to scale from low levels to high one of the key martial class elements will always be ongoing equipment upgrading. We just need to make sure Wizards et all do the same in some fashion.

@PairO'Dice Lost:

1. You've explained where your going with this a bit better in the posts after your reply to my last one and i honestly disagree for similar reasons to both Seerow and Ziegander. Obviously sometimes you have to employ gameplay story segregation. But i don't see a reason to here. And what your doing either requires every magical item is something akin to LOTRO's legendary items. Or requiring that everybody has magical powers they can pour into their magical items. Whilst how compatible that is with many campaign setting will vary with each setting. There are gong to be plenty of settings that players will wish to play in that are absolutely incompatible with either of the two possibilities. Thematically I dislike the notion that all setting must now have scaling magic items as a basic part of the setting itself.

2. I agree and disagree here, on a whole slew of levels. I agree that as a method to fix the fighter they're poor on their own. But small incremental bonuses are key to effective levelling. Give out super effects and you end up with exponential levelling, which makes minor differences in levels very important and makes balancing a real nightmare when you've got mixed levels and want a subtle range of difficulty levels for the group, (as DM's are want to do). Small incremental bonuses produce a better levelling curve whilst still giving the feel of power increases. You could make a few basic bonuses that scale with level from level 1 but this runs afoul of basic Psychology. Players want to feel like they get something new at every level. Several small bonuses stacking together achieve the same end affect as one scaling bonus, but feel better to the player because their separated. In this case it's a playability issue rather than a system design issue that demands they work like that.

3. Now this is where you and me part company. Whilst it's not a deadly sin like my top 2 pet hates. I definitely don't hand out points for using complex mechanics to fulfil system design requirements when simpler options are available that perform the same function. 85% of balance problems that aren't down to bad or non-existent system design, (the 2 things that i hate with a horrid passion), are down to unintended interactions. Inevitably the more complex the mechanic and the more mechanics interacting with each other the more unintended interactions. Humans are imperfect, no game designer or group thereof can hope to conceive of every possible interaction or every possible way a player can come up with to utilise something.

The best way to avoid that kind of thing is to create as few interactions as the system design goals allow whilst using the bare minimum possible number of variable elements within the mechanics that do interact. The best way to do that is the old engineering adage. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Obviously system design goals, (including player satisfaction), often demand a certain minimum level of complexity within the individual mechanic elements.

That said IMO it's my suspicion your going this route, (i.e. a complicated mechanic), because given your background that's the normal minimum level of complexity. Computer game design allows for a level of complexity in system design, (and thus individual mechanics), that tabletops don't. So it's natural to take advantage of that. And no bad thing. But it also in this case IMO is probably why your preference is towards this over simple bonuses. (Feel free to disagree of course, and nothing personal btw).

4. I disagree with your assessments about how the scaling is being handled with spell DC's and saves. DC is scaling off Spell level which for your highest spells is scaling of your level. Saves scale of level as well. The problem is that even a strong save is only above a 50/50 chance if the governing ability modifier is equivalent or near equivalent to the casters own governing ability modifier. Realistically a strong save without magical boosting should be a very high 80% or more pass rate, and a weak save should still be around a 20-40% chance. A strong save stops the dependent spells in their tracks while a weak save at least throws some need to consider the consequences of a successful save into the mix without heavily neutering the dependent affects.

I also disagree with your comment vis a vis wizards targeting weak saves. That's the whole point of weak saves. Give the wizard a list of things he can use. The problem here is save or die affects, (and their many non-lethal equivalents). Affects like that just shouldn't exist in that form to start with. To deal with them to an adequate level via saves requires that you hand out saves so high people only normally fail on a natural 1. A which point all you've really done is nerfed every save allowing spell by proxy. You could achieve the same affect with lower more vulnerable saves and a nerfed, (and thus more balanced), spell list. Why go the long way round when you should be going direct.

5. Okay i skipped ahead with that last point and am now going to go back to the "world record" diplomacy bit. I see several issues with that. First it's a combination that explicitly abusing the rules in unintended ways. The DM is there to stop such things. That said this is the least of my points as DM fiat is the ultimate fall-back, it should be avoided wherever possible. The Second point is that unless i'm misunderstanding some of those modifiers this involves epic levels. The epic rules are poorly written and a terrible argument for anything. The third issues is that your seemingly including a huge number of effects i don't recognise which implies non-core books. Core limits Skill Check modifiers primarily to Competence, Circumstance, and Enhancement types and Circumstance modifiers are totally DM fiat from start to finish, and thus should be ignored since there's no guarantees in any given situation either way, their there solely to allow a DM to account for role-play and the like. Competence and Enhancements modifiers are non-stacking. Maximum for any skill therefore is Skill level +15 + Racial + assist + feats + ability modifier. Alertness et all do provide unnamed modifiers, but these are rare and given their feats of low power i don't see the issues since you can only stack up an extra +5. Don't get me wrong you can still hit huge skill checks. But this is a consequence of the skill system IMHO. If i had to pick one badly designed element vis a vis stacking it would be this.


Also don't mistake me for saying every single bonus you can possibly acquire should stack with each other. The point is there are cases, (equipment and class features are just an examples), where stacking is necessary.

To go through the modifier types in order:

Ability Modifier: The most basic type. Sensible and absolutely should stack with anything else relevant. If it didn't having high stats would be hugely de-valued, and I honestly don't see the point of having variable stats at all if their value is irrelevant.

Alchemical Modifier: Seems to exist only for a limited range of potions. I can see it's value in some settings where potions are innate ingredients combined in some fashion, but it's not exactly necessary.

Armour Bonus: Another odd modifier, mainly because off the top of my head i can't think of anything that uses it in core. It could certainly stand to be dropped.

Circumstance Modifier: Ye olde roleplaying Bonus, enough said, good reason to be there, it's just important to remember it's purpose and not give it as an effect anywhere in any rulebook.

Competence/Deflection/Insight/Luck/Morale Modifier: A bit of a mixed bag. Skill modifiers aside these form the core of a set of modifiers that are there to provide alternate types for class features and dedicated buffing capabilities, (Bards are especially notable with competence modifiers and Morale Modifiers). There's some solid merit to that point but some of these are a little under-used IMO, and thus i question the necessity. There's also an issue with a lot of these being normal sources of skill bonuses on magic items, but the norm being varied and including enhancement as well. The prior noted extreme skill stacking has a lot to do with this, there's no constancy for skill bonuses, (with dedicated exceptions for special circumstances), as there is for other stats.

Dodge Modifier: The basic stacking Bonus to AC, important to effective AC scaling, but in some respects making a modifier that can be removed by numerous effects isn't the most ideal. I suspect that's another reason there are so many non-stacking modifiers that can affect AC lying around. To provide a non-removable AC bonus.

Natural Armour Bonus: Pretty much exists for monsters and their hides. Could definitely be handled better IMHO n that case though.

Racial Modifier: Sound and obvious, though it would be nice to see some modifications to the racial templates to limit the benefit gained from stacking a whole bunch together. Having a part dragon, part giant, part human shouldn't be applying the full affects of part human and part dragon, and part giant to full affect. But that's an open abuse in the templates system as much as the racial modifier, though a change to the modifier rules is probably the best fix.

Resistance Modifier: The basic Save modifier on top of the whole Competence/Deflection/Insight/Luck/Morale chain. Works fine IMO. Nothing wrong here.

Sacred/Profane Modifier: Another part of the whole Competence/Deflection/Insight/Luck/Morale chain. Unlike those, these feel redundant being yet more bonuses. The fact that their alignment specific at heart does make the interesting, but you could condense that down to a single Alignment Bonus if you wished and it's yet more modifier types I'm not sure we need if we keep many of the rest.

Shield Modifier: For shields, very rarely used for anything else. Sensible but better off integrated into the equipment modifier.

Enhancement Bonus: The last of the lot and the root of so many Ills. Intrinsically the concept of yet another non-stacking bonus able to affect many stats is sound if redundant. What makes it an issue is how it's used. t's heavily utilised, (good thing), but it represents mundane manufacturing quality, magical enchantment strength, and the majority of buffing spell affects. The result is that equipment scaling is limited to a max of a +5 bonus, (this mostly solid standard keeps the other modifiers in line, well mostly, a few ignore it to everyone's detriment), and it never stacks with spells giving magic users without non-enhancement bonus spells zero reason to cast them on anyone but themselves.Even for the weak stuff equipment needs bigger modifiers than that to keep up through the upper levels, and more powerful equipment needs even more. The whole spell thing is just further fuel on the wizard fire as it gives them even less ways to be useful that don't involve smacking the enemy about directly.

@Seerow: in most fiction non-mages rarely if ever walk around with powerful items, in fact most magic items are worn by the mage that crafts them with the benefit proportional to the power of the person crafting it. The one ring is an exception not the rule in my experience. And the mage rule such as it is is already represented by D&D's crafting system. The other main type of item is (as T.G. Oskar noted), those crafted by powerful smiths from innately magical materials. But rarely if ever does a person walk around with an arsenal of the things.

@T.G. Oskar: Lots of good points. This is why i want to see both separate modifiers for spells. Magical power in an item and the basic crafting quality. Not only does the system desperately need better equipment scaling, (including innately better equipment getting a bigger bonus from special construction), but there needs to be less ways for mages to be the only source of powerful magic items. This is another point where Seerow's analogy breaks down too. Stuff crafted by master smiths doesn't typically involve flying boot, teleporting armour or flaming swords. It's just really hard to cut armour or sword sharp enough to drive into granite. Powerful stuff but nowhere near the mage level.

I do disagree with your second point for reasons me and Ziegander have outlined. But your first point makes a number of good points regarding the crafting system. And i see separated modifier as a way to kill two birds with one stone.

Anyway i think that's everything covered.

[Ziegander]

A and B do not follow from the premise. At all.

I agree.


What part of "Magic items need to be bonded to unlock their abilities, and items bonded more closely unlock more power" turns into "Magic items must be readily available and price regulated"?

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Earlier in the thread PoDL stated that magic items with price tags are good for the game so that a player can expect to get the items he needs. He then adds that he wants magic items that grow with the character.

I don't particularly enjoy the premise of either and I definitely think that combining them is madness.


Seriously, the main purpose of implementing such a system to me was that you could get rid of wealth by level entirely, and run with as many magic items as you want without upsetting game balance.

I was replying to PoDL, not to you specifically. He said that he would run with a system similar to what you were proposing but strictly without scrapping the Wealth by Level concept.

I too agree that a system that allows the group to run with as many or as few magic items as they wish is best. No player should have any items that it needs, or else we have a hostile Christmas tree gaming environment again.


As for C, Artifacts have always existed outside normal game rules. But even if that weren't the case, what's wrong with a higher level character unlocking more of its power. Think back to Lord of the Rings, why was it Gandalf was afraid of taking the ring? It's because he would have been able to do much more with it than the hobbits, and would have been tempted towards using its power. Meanwhile for the hobbits it only acted as a ring of invisibility, hardly a world shattering power, and probably the least of the ring's powers. It seems to me that personal power being required to take full use of artifacts is something already well represented in literature.

I never said that unlocking the powers of artifact was a bad thing. What I was intending to say was that making all magic items into artifacts with scaling, unlockable powers seems untenable to put it mildly and rather not to my liking.

[Seerow]

Dammit I had a long post written up and accidentally hit refresh.

Edit: Okay short version. Magic items in TTRPGs are fundamentally broken. They have a lot of fundamental assumptions that don't work for a balanced game. The worst part is that the majority of these assumptions have no counterpart in the source material, so it exists mainly as a sacred cow of the game. Changing those assumptions are going to ruffle some feathers, but is ultimately needed if you want to have magic items without breaking the game.

The way I see it there's two options. You keep magic items of the same general type and versatility as exists in D&D, and find another way to limit them. In this case the suggestion is item bonding. The other option is to return to the source material, most magic items are caster only, with the occasional artifact that is special because non-mages can use it.

In the first scenario, you get to keep the general types of magic items, even if the function changes, and it is inherently modular as it can be adjusted to suit many different game styles, from high magic monte haul to low magic lucky to find a couple of items in your career.

In the second scenario, you have a couple options. You can neuter magic using classes to make them more dependent on magic items for their abilities. A lot of literature uses magic items as effectively a spells known list. So having a mage who needs his staff to cast a fireball, and his ring to cast featherfall is supported, and can be workable with mundane characters getting no magic items, especially since mages are now pretty vulnerable to sundering and such. Alternatively, you keep mages capable of acting independent of items, and have items augment them further (think Wheel of Time, Riftwar Saga), but in this scenario Mundanes become incapable of keeping up unless they get high powered artifacts (see Thomas in Riftwar) or super plot warping abilities (see: Mat in Wheel of Time).


Scenario 2 holds closer to most fantasy literature, but I consider scenario 1 the better option from the perspective of what I'd expect from a fantasy tabletop rpg. Especially since the latter half of scenario 2 would look very similar to scenario 1 if you wanted to use mundanes, since you'd be giving them artifacts anyway.




As for complaints about characters themselves acting as a power conduit, I don't get it. It's generally accepted that all characters have the capacity for magic, given it's not something you need to have at character generation. Anybody can take a level of Wizard. There is nothing inherently different from a Wizard and a Fighter at a biological level, it's just how they apply their talents. Given that a Fighter has the same inherent potential for magic as a Wizard, why is it so strange to think he might channel that potential through his equipment rather than casting spells?


Edit2: okay guess that wasn't so short. Oh well.

[Grod_The_Giant]

@Grod: You can't wholly avoid it. Look a martial class, (excepting a monk), gets most of their protection from AC, they get most of the damage from their choice of weapon. Unless you provide some way for that to scale from low levels to high one of the key martial class elements will always be ongoing equipment upgrading. We just need to make sure Wizards et all do the same in some fashion.
Right, I'm saying that we should bake that scaling into the normal level-up process. Something like (and this is off the top of my head)

+1 competence bonus to attack every 3rd level
+1 competence bonus to AC every even-numbered level
+2 to one ability score every 3rd level
+1 competence bonus to saves every 4th level

This would replace the normal bonuses from equipment.

(Or, maybe we make the bonuses based on BAB instead of level)

[Ziegander]

Right, I'm saying that we should bake that scaling into the normal level-up process. Something like (and this is off the top of my head)

+1 competence bonus to attack every 3rd level
+1 competence bonus to AC every even-numbered level
+2 to one ability score every 3rd level
+1 competence bonus to saves every 4th level

This would replace the normal bonuses from equipment.

(Or, maybe we make the bonuses based on BAB instead of level)

Well you need some scaling with the level-up process, but adding more scaling on top of that, a la some sort of "everyone gets Vow of Poverty" patch, is unnecessary as long as you alter the target numbers. Fighters don't need an extra competence bonus to attacks if ACs are lowered.

Some sort of level-based bonus to AC? Well, yeah, that's pretty necessary if attack bonus automatically goes up by at least +1/two levels. Not scaling messes things up pretty bad.

Automatic bonuses to ability scores? Sure, that should be there, especially if you want to get rid of the ability enhancement items (or make them less important).

Additional bonuses to saves? Not really necessary as long as save DC don't outpace saving throw bonuses. Since they do, this is just like the attack bonus vs Defense case. Save DCs are 10 + 1/2 level + modifier, so Defense bonuses need to be 1/2 level + modifier to keep up. But, again, this doesn't need to be some competence bonus tacked on in addition to the character level based bonuses. The game just needs to be made right from the start rather than patched with band-aids after the fact.

EDIT: Seerow, you bring up some good points, I'll try to get back to you in a few minutes.

[Ziegander]

The way I see it there's two options. You keep magic items of the same general type and versatility as exists in D&D, and find another way to limit them. In this case the suggestion is item bonding. The other option is to return to the source material, most magic items are caster only, with the occasional artifact that is special because non-mages can use it.

I'm going to say that I want a happy mixture (no, not medium) of both. With maybe a dash of a third, different scenario. I also would prefer to steer clear of item bonding as my preferred method of limiting magic items and work in a slightly different direction. I'll explain later.


In the first scenario, you get to keep the general types of magic items, even if the function changes, and it is inherently modular as it can be adjusted to suit many different game styles, from high magic monte haul to low magic lucky to find a couple of items in your career.

Right. It's good stuff.


In the second scenario, you have a couple options. You can neuter magic using classes to make them more dependent on magic items for their abilities. A lot of literature uses magic items as effectively a spells known list. So having a mage who needs his staff to cast a fireball, and his ring to cast featherfall is supported, and can be workable with mundane characters getting no magic items, especially since mages are now pretty vulnerable to sundering and such.

That definitely has strong precedence in literature and could be a fine, workable solution, especially with some tweaks and minor additions.


Alternatively, you keep mages capable of acting independent of items, and have items augment them further (think Wheel of Time, Riftwar Saga), but in this scenario Mundanes become incapable of keeping up unless they get high powered artifacts (see Thomas in Riftwar) or super plot warping abilities (see: Mat in Wheel of Time).

Well, it depends on how capable the mages are of acting independent of items, and how much the items augment them beyond that. I feel confident that it would be possible to not screw over mundanes in this sort of environment with the right mixture of controls and limitations.


Scenario 2 holds closer to most fantasy literature, but I consider scenario 1 the better option from the perspective of what I'd expect from a fantasy tabletop rpg. Especially since the latter half of scenario 2 would look very similar to scenario 1 if you wanted to use mundanes, since you'd be giving them artifacts anyway.

The best scenario, I think, would be one where mundanes could acquire artifacts and exchange the charles atlas superpowers they might have gained through their mundane training for actual magical abilities they get through training with their artifacts. Instead of gaining new abilities, they trade one kind of advancement for another.


As for complaints about characters themselves acting as a power conduit, I don't get it. It's generally accepted that all characters have the capacity for magic, given it's not something you need to have at character generation. Anybody can take a level of Wizard. There is nothing inherently different from a Wizard and a Fighter at a biological level, it's just how they apply their talents. Given that a Fighter has the same inherent potential for magic as a Wizard, why is it so strange to think he might channel that potential through his equipment rather than casting spells?

You're not getting it precisely right. It's generally accepted that any given character can potentially acquire magic if that character's player wishes them to. It's absolutely reasonable for players to expect that a 20th level Fighter has no magic in his bones whatsoever. But if he doesn't then he's a badass norm the likes of which literature has never seen (and Batman has rarely seen). Then again, the Fighter 10 that decides to take his 11th level as a Wizard? Well, then you say that he had the potential all along and simply hadn't tapped it yet.

But the key component of all that is player choice. It should be up to the player whether or not their character has the capacity for magic, not up to the game system to decide. It isn't strange at all to think that a Fighter with some inherent, untapped magical potential to find some way to channel that into his magic sword and do awesome things with it. But it's wrong to force all players Fighters to do that in order to keep up with system expectations and play the game beyond Xth level.

Ideally, I would want the game system to assume that if the world the game is being played in has magical monsters and locations and stuff, that there is magic inherent in the world itself. It runs through it and sometimes (but not always) into the creatures that inhabit it. This means that sometimes humanoids are born with magical gifts, but it also means that even if you're not one of those lucky ones, with grit and skill, you can go out into the world and take that magic for yourself. Sure, that might mean that you find a magical sword. Or it might just mean that you crush up a few herbs, steep them in a pot over a fire, and make yourself a Resist Frost potion. And if the world doesn't have magical monsters and stuff? Well, then, the game system assumes that the world has no magic inherent in the world the players play in, and spellcaster classes should not be allowed and magic items shouldn't exist.

So, to use scenario 1, if magic items exist, then the common folk are going to want them. Most of those folk won't be able to afford most such items, and if an item is difficult to mass produce (or impossible, see below), then a market for them is either rare or non-existent. But, such items that workers and socialites can afford that can be regularly mass-produced? Yeah, those have a market price. Artifacts, on the other hand, can't be mass-produced and are ripe for scaling with character level. If they can't be mass-produce and they get better as you do, why would you sell them? The answer, of course, is that you don't. Except for arbitrary sums of money determined by the owners of such things.

To use scenario 2, some magic items are caster-only, indeed, because the casters require them to function to their fullest potential. Casters make these items themselves, because without them they either can't use all the magic they know of, or their magic would be significantly less useful without them. They are the mage's tools in the same way a sword and a shield are the warriors'. Using magic becomes a combination of innate magic power helped along by mundanely crafted magical tools. In a similar way to how using... fighting... becomes a combination of innate physical ability helped along by worldly magic acquired through trial and exploration.

A magical world would have fauna and flora with special magical abilities and properties, even inanimate objects infused with magic, each with things to collect, if a player was so inclined. Unicorns' horns. Gillyweed. Psychic Slime. Etc, etc. Making these sorts of things easily available, if not to the common masses, to the player characters that go out, adventure, encounter and overcome these crazy magical things, would be an improvement to game-player immersion and fairness from player-to-player. Maybe Wizards need those sorts of things to work greater magics, but the Fighter can put them to use just fine, exploiting their inherent magical effects to help his fighting skill along.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Spoilering responses for length:

Ziegander
No, that's not what I'm talking about. Earlier in the thread PoDL stated that magic items with price tags are good for the game so that a player can expect to get the items he needs.
[...]
I was replying to PoDL, not to you specifically. He said that he would run with a system similar to what you were proposing but strictly without scrapping the Wealth by Level concept.

That's not what I was saying, actually, and I'm sorry I made you write two posts about that. :smallwink: You had originally said that you wanted to entirely decouple magic items from wealth so that magic items have their own economy independent of gold, and my response was just to say that being able to buy items with gold isn't inherently problematic like it's made out to be; one of the more common solutions people propose for WBL is to make magic items un-buyable by fiat and leave players to the mercy of the random treasure tables. I feel that that's unrealistic (everyone has their price) and not really fair to the player (since random treasure means distribution can be lopsided and you can't count on getting that favored item).

After that, I listed off what I view as the problems with WBL and some solutions to them--and "the wealth and power imbalanced between martial types can be ameliorated by not making fighters pay exponential gold for items that really aren't so special" solution was meant to be entirely separate from the "making items unbuyable won't actually help anything" point. I'm actually in favor of what Seerow was saying, that you should be able to run games with as many or few items as you want rather than requiring a certain number for balance, as I hoped I conveyed with my points about making numerical bonuses not part of items and limiting items only by what you can use, not what you can buy.

I did have two sentences about pricing, but that was to point out that you don't need exponential pricing if character level is the limiting factor rather than just gold; whether you make items buyable is independent of the scaling, and in fact the "characters should be able to get signature weapons" position is better under the suggested system, since you can just let a fighter have his flaming weapon and you won't break anything as long as it's scaled to his level and you limit him to the total amount of items he can use at once.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with this:
I too agree that a system that allows the group to run with as many or as few magic items as they wish is best. No player should have any items that it needs, or else we have a hostile Christmas tree gaming environment again.
...but I apparently didn't do a good job of making the topic change more evident.


You're not getting it precisely right. It's generally accepted that any given character can potentially acquire magic if that character's player wishes them to. It's absolutely reasonable for players to expect that a 20th level Fighter has no magic in his bones whatsoever. But if he doesn't then he's a badass norm the likes of which literature has never seen (and Batman has rarely seen). Then again, the Fighter 10 that decides to take his 11th level as a Wizard? Well, then you say that he had the potential all along and simply hadn't tapped it yet.

But the key component of all that is player choice. It should be up to the player whether or not their character has the capacity for magic, not up to the game system to decide. It isn't strange at all to think that a Fighter with some inherent, untapped magical potential to find some way to channel that into his magic sword and do awesome things with it. But it's wrong to force all players Fighters to do that in order to keep up with system expectations and play the game beyond Xth level.

A fighter already has to become superhuman to keep up with system expectations beyond Xth level, and like I say to Carl below, you don't have to make magic item scaling dependent on the fighter casting spells to bind his weapon to him or something.

There are plenty of other takes on it that would work:
Item magic is powered by life force to an extent, which is why you can make permanent items that don't degrade over time, so more powerful items require more powerful wielders to use them to their full potential and weaker wielders who tried would just have their life sucked out of them.
There are small amounts of latent magic surrounding all living things which lets dragons fly, plants walk around, etc., and since powerful warriors have this latent magic surrounding them but don't actually use it due to being so nonmagical themselves, it can be used to power their items.
The magic in items is sympathetic magic, which is why magic that enhances mental qualities is infused into headgear, magic that enhances offensive abilities goes on weapons, and so forth; the strength of a magic weapon thus reflects the skill and passion of the wielder as it draws on their anger to power flaming weapons, their dedication to power keen weapons, etc.
And there's more where those came from.

Carl
There are gong to be plenty of settings that players will wish to play in that are absolutely incompatible with either of the two possibilities. Thematically I dislike the notion that all setting must now have scaling magic items as a basic part of the setting itself.

I don't see why. A flaming sword is still a flaming sword, it just gets better as you level. They're not special snowflake unique items unless you want them to be, so you don't have to go around naming your weapons and clothing; they don't require in-game explanations of infusing inherent magic into items unless you want to give one, just like there's currently no explanation why you can wear a necklace and a cloak and two rings but not two necklaces and three rings despite having plenty of body space.


Small incremental bonuses produce a better levelling curve whilst still giving the feel of power increases.
[...]
Several small bonuses stacking together achieve the same end affect as one scaling bonus, but feel better to the player because their separated. In this case it's a playability issue rather than a system design issue that demands they work like that.

That's not a playability issue, actually, that's a player preference issue; a playability issue would be one like "it's easier during play to keep track of a few large bonuses than lots of small ones."

But seriously, where are you getting leveling curves out of the small-bonus issue? All of the small bonuses in 3e are from practically any source but leveling. Racial attack bonuses, skill synergies, masterwork items, feats, spells...none of those bonuses are the kind that would be turned into a scaling progression, because they're entirely unnecessary to begin with. If you dropped skill synergies and masterwork weapons and tools from the game entirely, changed racial bonuses to grant rerolls on the attack/check/save in question, and changed the feats and skills to grant non-numerical bonuses instead, the game wouldn't explode.

It would, however, have a less breakable skill system, more dynamic races, harder-to-emulate martial classes, and lower caster numbers. I think that's a good trade.


3. Now this is where you and me part company. Whilst it's not a deadly sin like my top 2 pet hates. I definitely don't hand out points for using complex mechanics to fulfil system design requirements when simpler options are available that perform the same function.

I'm not sure which of my suggestions you're referring to here, as I don't think anything I suggested is particularly complex compared to existing systems; elaborate, please?


4. I disagree with your assessments about how the scaling is being handled with spell DC's and saves.
[...]
Realistically a strong save without magical boosting should be a very high 80% or more pass rate, and a weak save should still be around a 20-40% chance. A strong save stops the dependent spells in their tracks while a weak save at least throws some need to consider the consequences of a successful save into the mix without heavily neutering the dependent affects.

I also disagree with your comment vis a vis wizards targeting weak saves. That's the whole point of weak saves.

The idea behind weak saves is to give characters a weakness, I agree, but if you only change the strong saves and don't improve the weak saves as well, then (A) you haven't actually fixed anything, the "easily-dominated Big Stupid Fighter" trope is still in full force and (B) you encourage casters to target weak saves more than they are now because they get a greater comparative benefit for doing so.

As is often mentioned when save DC scaling is discussed, AD&D save DCs scaled based on the target--your Save vs. Spells modifier was the same against a 1st level spell cast by a 1st-level caster and a 9th level spell cast by a 20th-level caster--so it was difficult to impossible for a caster to boost their DCs, and saves out-scaled DCs by high level so SoD/SoS weren't a problem like in 3e despite both editions using practically identical spells.

Now, a 3e save revision doesn't have to go to "the fighter saves against magic on a 2 or higher" extremes, but having weak saves start with a ~30% chance of success and end with a ~60% chance of success would not be a bad thing. It makes casters less able to screw multiple enemies with a single spell and reins in the power of their most dangerous offensive spells, which are both very good things.


5. Okay i skipped ahead with that last point and am now going to go back to the "world record" diplomacy bit. I see several issues with that. First it's a combination that explicitly abusing the rules in unintended ways. The DM is there to stop such things.

You'll note that I mentioned less powerful "boundary-pushing" builds along with the incredibly broken one. That particular build abuses high stats, a cohort, large aura bonuses, and so forth...but all of those small stackable bonuses are ones that are likely to be allowed on a real character and it's very easy to pick up lots of them in play. You automatically thought to ban the rules-bending cheese, but thought nothing of letting players collect all the little bonuses they want.

Yet just using synergy bonuses, traits, a single feat, and domain granted powers--which are all things that aren't cheesy independently and might reasonable be chosen by a "face" character--gives you an extra +20, all of which can be picked up by the incredibly cheesy tactics known as "having traits," "taking a level in cleric," and "being 2nd level." Yes, that's right, a cleric 2 with Cha 10 and zero ranks in Diplomacy can have a +20 modifier to Diplomacy. That's precisely what's bad about small stacking modifiers: they're fairly weak and not worth taking independently, stacking them flies under the radar, and someone who takes a lot of them gets a huge bonus not dependent on levels.


The third issues is that your seemingly including a huge number of effects i don't recognise which implies non-core books.

<Insert standard paragraph explaining that non-core is more balanced than core and that martial types need splats to keep up.>

Either you let characters use non-core stuff to give fighters some Nice Things or you limit them to core to rein in bonus inflation, you can't have it both ways.


@Seerow: in most fiction non-mages rarely if ever walk around with powerful items, in fact most magic items are worn by the mage that crafts them with the benefit proportional to the power of the person crafting it.

Narsil, Stormbringer, and many other magic swords wielded by noncasters say hi. As for magic arsenals, the Fellowship had 3-4 magic items apiece, all of which they used to complete their mission.


I never said that unlocking the powers of artifact was a bad thing. What I was intending to say was that making all magic items into artifacts with scaling, unlockable powers seems untenable to put it mildly and rather not to my liking.

Once again, scaling benefits do not an artifact make just because D&D has only used scaling for artifact-level items in the past.

[Seerow]

The problem with your solution is that it drastically changes how casters work, or removing them entirely. I think more people are more inclined to deal with fighters having inherent magic they can't use than wizards requiring magic items to be magical and/or magic users being removed completely.

I mean you're talking about a fluff issue vs a huge mechanical one. It's ironic that the position you take is because you want something that will appeal to more people, while your alternative solutions are even more restrictive to the types of settings they will fit in with.

[gooddragon1]

I think a few changes I'd like to see would be

-Feat that doubles power attack damage with focus+specialization weapon (can be taken multiple times) {use multiplier addition so 2x becomes 3x becomes 4x...} [Improved Power Attack] [Can only be taken as a fighter bonus feat from the fighter class]

Potential to exceed barbarian damage very nicely.

That and +2 skill points but not too much more versatility in skill selection as their primary profession is fighting.

[Seerow]

{scrubbed}

[Morty]

So, to diverge from the magic items discussions for a second - what do you think about combat styles? I'm not really talking about the THF/TWF/S&B trinity, but things like heavy armor vs. light armor, strength-based attacks vs. dexterity-based ones, melee vs. archery et cetera. Do you think the Fighter class should support them equally? Or should some methods of fighting be relegated to other classes?

[Ziegander]

Sigh... :smallsigh:

I too had a long post written and then I clicked away from the page by accident... I'd have sworn I posted it.


So, to diverge from the magic items discussions for a second - what do you think about combat styles? I'm not really talking about the THF/TWF/S&B trinity, but things like heavy armor vs. light armor, strength-based attacks vs. dexterity-based ones, melee vs. archery et cetera. Do you think the Fighter class should support them equally? Or should some methods of fighting be relegated to other classes?

I think the Fighter class can and should support them equally, especially if you are not overhauling the game itself.

[Morty]

I certainly agree. Now, those styles aren't equal - builds other than Strength-based melee tend to suffer problems - but that's another problem not related to the Fighter class.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

So, to diverge from the magic items discussions for a second - what do you think about combat styles? I'm not really talking about the THF/TWF/S&B trinity, but things like heavy armor vs. light armor, strength-based attacks vs. dexterity-based ones, melee vs. archery et cetera. Do you think the Fighter class should support them equally? Or should some methods of fighting be relegated to other classes?

I think fighting styles should be supported by any class whose concept supports them. The ranger's hunter/survivalist theme means archery support falls under the ranger umbrella, and the fighter's weaponmaster theme means archery support falls under the fighter umbrella, so I feel both should have the same level of archery support, and most of the same options.

Giving the ranger a few ranger-specific archery spells and the fighter a few fighter-specific archery feats/maneuvers/whatever is fine, but if either the ranger or fighter has much better archery support than the other then people who want to play archers are forced into a specific class, and if they have different kinds of archery styles (e.g. the ranger is a sniper archer while the fighter is a volley archer) then the design space of the archery fighting style is needlessly divided and once again pigeonholes character concepts.

[T.G. Oskar]

It isn't that I haven't considered the idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183631), it's that I find that the idea works well for some settings and that it shouldn't be pre-baked into a system, because I can't imagine there's tons of gamers, D&D fans especially, who want their warriors to have "essence power" that they imbue their items with to make said items more magical.

Something like that can work, sure, but it has to be an option and not the enforced rule.

I looked at the link you provided (by the way; the character in the pic is hilariously similar to the guy in the cover of the Magic Item Compendium, mostly because of the long hair, the armor, the tabard, the scroll on one hand and the curved blade in another, though the pic has it with lens and the MIC cover has it with an eyepatch, plus the bracers are different), and it seems we have differing perspectives on the matter.

At first, it sounds similar: the character starts with mundane or low-power magic items and ends up boosting them to quasi-epic magic items. The fluff I provided would work with both, but the execution (the mechanics, to put it bluntly) are quite different.

Your idea suggests that the Fighter has some sort of essence that it adds to items in order to improve them, which is adding an entirely new subsystem to the Fighter. Mine, on the other hand, assumes that class levels are enough to empower existing magic items; in essence, patching all magic items to improve with an existing mechanic, as Fighter levels are required for purposes of qualifying for very specific feats (the Weapon Focus chain, specifically). My suggestion works fine as an alternate rule, because it's more of a patch than anything else, but it doesn't involve adding a new subsystem, unless you want to extend that to ALL martial characters. You could use BAB or IL, but both apply to every single individual; perhaps some spellcasters might want to make good use of these, but my idea is to vehemently prohibit magic item boosting to spellcasters (but NOT meldshapers, which might reach a point of emulation) because the whole purpose is to empower melee.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't understand, or even agree with, your idea. Quite the contrary: I understand it (it's a good explanation, but not one that will fly with everybody) and I could agree in some points (being homebrew, by default few people will agree with it; alternatively, some people will want to depend more on their innate and class-improved capabilities and less in magic items because it might undermine them, or doesn't fit with the idea they envision), but I don't reach that conclusion because I watched it through your perspective. Would you reach the same agreement if seen through a different lens? It would define whether you agree because of a specific point of view or because of a general perception about the matter.

The one solution you could provide, though, would be to analyze the superheroes with relatively mundane powers (like those in the Alphas series, maybe?) and make Fighter-only or melee-only feats that allow this? Such as what makes the Hulk so brutal, and yet because of the "gamma ray bath" nobody blinks an eye to why he's so strong, or can pretty much leap between state boundaries at once, or why he's just so darn hard to kill, and yet uses no magic items and can take away people who are as powerful, if not more, than Wizards.

[RedWarlock]

I looked at the link you provided (by the way; the character in the pic is hilariously similar to the guy in the cover of the Magic Item Compendium, mostly because of the long hair, the armor, the tabard, the scroll on one hand and the curved blade in another, though the pic has it with lens and the MIC cover has it with an eyepatch, plus the bracers are different), and it seems we have differing perspectives on the matter.

Actually, if you look at them side by side, they're the same character, same artist. The other pic was probably a concept work-in-progress alternate pose option for the artwork when being commissioned by WotC.

As for the fighters-better-magic-items, couldn't it be just be said that the fighter has learned how to better make use of the magic item? He's learned the quirks and advantages of the magics in the item, and how to apply them to maximum effect.

Kind of the same way he's already learned how to take that sharp piece of metal and figured out the most effective way to obliterate other beings with it? The scaling effect comes from him having learned to use its effect to maximum possible damage, because that's the way the fighter's mind works. He's like an engineer of killing people.

[Carl]

Damm you guys type fast. Just finished a nap and Ill probably be going back soon so you may not see a reply for a few days as I'm well enough to head back to work in the morning. Much less free time from now on. Just keep your eye's peeled ok :smalltongue:.

[GunbladeKnight]

Giving the ranger a few ranger-specific archery spells and the fighter a few fighter-specific archery feats/maneuvers/whatever is fine, but if either the ranger or fighter has much better archery support than the other then people who want to play archers are forced into a specific class, and if they have different kinds of archery styles (e.g. the ranger is a sniper archer while the fighter is a volley archer) then the design space of the archery fighting style is needlessly divided and once again pigeonholes character concepts.

I actually prefer the idea of classes having different methods for the various combat styles they choose. They would need to be balanced in areas of damage and effectiveness, though. Otherwise you run into the problem people have with 4th edition: classes all feel the same.

I would also give the various classes combat styles a la TG Oskar's Ranger, though each class would have different styles. Examples:

Fighter/Marshal: TWF, THF, S&B, Einhander, Archery
Ranger: Archery, TWF, Wrestling, Throwing
Barbarian: TWF, THF, Throwing, Wrestling
Paladin: THF, S&B, Mounted
Monk: Unarmed, Wrestling, Throwing, TWF

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I actually prefer the idea of classes having different methods for the various combat styles they choose. They would need to be balanced in areas of damage and effectiveness, though. Otherwise you run into the problem people have with 4th edition: classes all feel the same.

They'd feel the same if "archer" or "TWFer" is all the class is, as is basically the case with the 4e fighter and ranger, but ideally fighting styles would just be a component of the whole class: a ranger has nature magic and scouting/stealth abilities and monster slaying abilities and beastmaster abilities...and, as a side benefit, he also has archery abilities.

[Carl]

1. I don't see why. A flaming sword is still a flaming sword, it just gets better as you level. They're not special snowflake unique items unless you want them to be, so you don't have to go around naming your weapons and clothing; they don't require in-game explanations of infusing inherent magic into items unless you want to give one, just like there's currently no explanation why you can wear a necklace and a cloak and two rings but not two necklaces and three rings despite having plenty of body space.


That's not a playability issue, actually, that's a player preference issue; a playability issue would be one like "it's easier during play to keep track of a few large bonuses than lots of small ones."

2. But seriously, where are you getting leveling curves out of the small-bonus issue? All of the small bonuses in 3e are from practically any source but leveling. Racial attack bonuses, skill synergies, masterwork items, feats, spells...none of those bonuses are the kind that would be turned into a scaling progression, because they're entirely unnecessary to begin with. If you dropped skill synergies and masterwork weapons and tools from the game entirely, changed racial bonuses to grant rerolls on the attack/check/save in question, and changed the feats and skills to grant non-numerical bonuses instead, the game wouldn't explode.

It would, however, have a less breakable skill system, more dynamic races, harder-to-emulate martial classes, and lower caster numbers. I think that's a good trade.

3. I'm not sure which of my suggestions you're referring to here, as I don't think anything I suggested is particularly complex compared to existing systems; elaborate, please?

4.The idea behind weak saves is to give characters a weakness, I agree, but if you only change the strong saves and don't improve the weak saves as well, then (A) you haven't actually fixed anything, the "easily-dominated Big Stupid Fighter" trope is still in full force and (B) you encourage casters to target weak saves more than they are now because they get a greater comparative benefit for doing so.

As is often mentioned when save DC scaling is discussed, AD&D save DCs scaled based on the target--your Save vs. Spells modifier was the same against a 1st level spell cast by a 1st-level caster and a 9th level spell cast by a 20th-level caster--so it was difficult to impossible for a caster to boost their DCs, and saves out-scaled DCs by high level so SoD/SoS weren't a problem like in 3e despite both editions using practically identical spells.

Now, a 3e save revision doesn't have to go to "the fighter saves against magic on a 2 or higher" extremes, but having weak saves start with a ~30% chance of success and end with a ~60% chance of success would not be a bad thing. It makes casters less able to screw multiple enemies with a single spell and reins in the power of their most dangerous offensive spells, which are both very good things.

5. You'll note that I mentioned less powerful "boundary-pushing" builds along with the incredibly broken one. That particular build abuses high stats, a cohort, large aura bonuses, and so forth...but all of those small stackable bonuses are ones that are likely to be allowed on a real character and it's very easy to pick up lots of them in play. You automatically thought to ban the rules-bending cheese, but thought nothing of letting players collect all the little bonuses they want.

Yet just using synergy bonuses, traits, a single feat, and domain granted powers--which are all things that aren't cheesy independently and might reasonable be chosen by a "face" character--gives you an extra +20, all of which can be picked up by the incredibly cheesy tactics known as "having traits," "taking a level in cleric," and "being 2nd level." Yes, that's right, a cleric 2 with Cha 10 and zero ranks in Diplomacy can have a +20 modifier to Diplomacy. That's precisely what's bad about small stacking modifiers: they're fairly weak and not worth taking independently, stacking them flies under the radar, and someone who takes a lot of them gets a huge bonus not dependent on levels.

6. <Insert standard paragraph explaining that non-core is more balanced than core and that martial types need splats to keep up.>

Either you let characters use non-core stuff to give fighters some Nice Things or you limit them to core to rein in bonus inflation, you can't have it both ways.

7. Narsil, Stormbringer, and many other magic swords wielded by noncasters say hi. As for magic arsenals, the Fellowship had 3-4 magic items apiece, all of which they used to complete their mission.

Once again, scaling benefits do not an artifact make just because D&D has only used scaling for artifact-level items in the past.


Numbered your paragraphs for response.

1. Actually they do require explanations. A sword does not magically, (pun not intended), become more flaming just because you went up a level. In fact it doing so goes against the majority of fantasy content out there. In the majority you make an item. It has X power. That power never changes unless it's re-forged. D&D isn't just about cute rules. The lore and setting can be rather important to players as well. Pushing them away with an arbitrary mechanic that violates basic principles of many settings is not a good idea.

Also maybe where using different definitions of playability. To me playability is: Does the player find the system playable. Fun is probably the single biggest factor in this. If the player doesn't enjoy it, all the well written rules in the world won't drag them in.


2. :smallconfused:. It's a fairly basic part of every RPG i've ever encountered. Part of the levelling up process is using your new found wealth/whatever to acquire magic items that then boost your power. The better your level, the better the items you can acquire, but the better your level, also the better your basic stats, thus limiting the fraction that comes from items, (the size of the fraction that comes from items being dependent on the system of course).


3. I was responding to the following:


Exactly! If there's a class feature that hands out a +1 or +2 and is only useful if you can stack that with a bunch of other +2s, get rid of it! If the only way you can think of to write a feature is to express it as a bland numerical bonus, don't write that ability!

4.You completely ignored everything i had to say about Save r Die effects with that response. The only reason you need to be able to save more that 1 or 2 out of every 5 or so spells on a save is if those spells are so powerful they can end the battle in one or two spells. Something magic users simply shouldn't be doing vs level equivalent threats to start with.

5. No domain spells exist for this. Your thinking of a level 0 non domain. it's a +1 bonus. Synergy. +2, Base max at Lv2. 5, single Feat. +3. Total 11+ability modifier. That's nowhere near 20. Now start bringing in a competence +1 from somewhere and a +1 enhancement from an item, and another feat for +2 and your start approaching the point where 20 is doable at level 2. I agree it's excessive but one of my points, (poorly articulated), regarding your example is that it's specific to skill checks. Your maximum ranks in a given skill scale very slowly relative to level. But multiple stacking bonuses are available quite early on. AC avoids this by starting in the mid teens. Attack Rolls avoid staking modifier in the early levels. As do saves. Damage is the only one to really equate and that avoids the issue because excessive damage scaling is part of keeping up with wizards, (and generally fails, a blasty wizard, however inefficient, is capable of making a martial class cry in damage output).

This was kind of what i was getting a in my list of existing modifiers. Skills are subject to a few too many stacking affects whilst most other stuff is subject to too few, resulting in some real problems. It's why over the long term Martial classes start to fall behind so much in terms of attack, damage, AC, HP's, e.t.c. They run out of new modifiers to stack well before the monsters stop getting stronger. At that point they start to lag to an ever increasing degree.

6. The point is that Core has a specific system in place, and non-core books that mess it up by explicitly allowing excessive scaling of things ignore that. Depending on how positive or negative a limited stacking is for a given "stat", this either breaks the balance or it doesn't. Right now Many stats are being limited to their detriment by the stacking rules. Conversely Skills are already standing on the boundary. Deliberately ignoring the system is the fastest way to break the system, and thus create imbalances. It's only acceptable if your re-designing the system underlays to deal with a flaw. Right now there's a huge gaping flaw in that AC, Damage, and Attack rolls just don't cut it on several levels. Some of this can't be dealt with by simple positive modifiers, i agree. But many elements can, and going for a more complicated solution when other options exist is just asking to create new problems.

7. These are exceedingly rare and, (at least in Narsil's case), turns up in a setting where such things are exceedingly rare and where the difference between an excellent smith and a magic user is a little blurred. Certainly if a character in a setting is carrying a magic items and he has no innate magic it's likely to be a weapon. But rarely do they walk around bedecked in them like mages often do. Nor do the majority walk around with them. (The hobbit got weapons from ancient Annorian Nobles/Kings. Narsil is the king of Gondor's weapons, Gandalf has one of two very ancient swords forged when magic was more common, e.t.c. The majority of weapons in the setting are non-magical in nature, and magical items that aren't weapons are rare indeed).

Nor does that change the fact that lore wise the only way for a characters armour and weapons to scale with him is for him to either be a steadily improving smith who can use new skills and new materials to re-forge his equipment as better mundane equivalents. Or he's a magic user who can pour magical power into it. Weather the source is mundane quality, better materials, or magic thee has to be a valid explanation for why an items getting better. And if, (as your whole focus on complicated effects is), the affect that is improving is magical, then there must be a source of additional magic being poured into the weapon to explain how it's happening.


@Grod: Almost forgot you, sorry.

I'm not against martial skill granting benefits, indeed if i ever get my equipment fix written that will be a part of it. But there's only so much skill with a weapon can let you be more effective. Same with armour. If your opponent is wearing armour able to resist your weapon, even if you strike a weak-point, or he has a sword able to cut through it with ease no amount of skill will help you. Even before we get to such levels, there's a limit a which increasing skill will see diminishing returns, you'll get a benefit from it, but once you know all the weakpoints of your how and your opponents armour and the basic methods of exploiting that your going to run into limited growth room. AT the end of the day superior equipment is the only way to get any-more of a significant advantage.

[Xhosant]

The idea of magic tools made by the wizard to balance costs makes sense. Don't have it cost XP, of course, just force them to spend gold and time or suffer the equivalent of dexterity cap from heavy armor when it comes to casting. Either have the cap scale with upgraded "tools", or every new spell level needs better tools to avoid a fixed cap.

So casters need upgrades either every new spell level or every new Int/Cha boost.

[Carl]

The idea of magic tools made by the wizard to balance costs makes sense. Don't have it cost XP, of course, just force them to spend gold and time or suffer the equivalent of dexterity cap from heavy armor when it comes to casting. Either have the cap scale with upgraded "tools", or every new spell level needs better tools to avoid a fixed cap.

So casters need upgrades either every new spell level or every new Int/Cha boost.

That's certainly one set of ways to do it. The imbalance in the wealth by level system and the whole inspector gadget thing is a consequence of a few highly abusable spells and the fact that wizards need proportionally less equipment.

[Morty]

I actually prefer the idea of classes having different methods for the various combat styles they choose. They would need to be balanced in areas of damage and effectiveness, though. Otherwise you run into the problem people have with 4th edition: classes all feel the same.

I would also give the various classes combat styles a la TG Oskar's Ranger, though each class would have different styles. Examples:

Fighter/Marshal: TWF, THF, S&B, Einhander, Archery
Ranger: Archery, TWF, Wrestling, Throwing
Barbarian: TWF, THF, Throwing, Wrestling
Paladin: THF, S&B, Mounted
Monk: Unarmed, Wrestling, Throwing, TWF

This only ever works if the classes have no features other than the styles, like Dice said. Otherwise it leads to pidgeonholing and class bloat. Why can't I play a Ranger with a spear? Or a shield? Or a rapier?

Combat styles shouldn't be class features in general. Every martial class should be able to utilize their unique skills through any weapon type they want.

[Jane_Smith]

Honestly, as a dm, I am not seeing the huge problem with fighters/barbarians/etc vs. casters. Luckily, my group is supportive enough that the casters heal/buff/haste/nerveskitter the bruisers or go pure evocation/nuke style, and usually leave the save or die stuff alone. I guess I have been blessed.

The only house rules I have implemented that affects martial types is armor bonus, natural armor bonus, are Damage Reduction, and I have allowed damage reduction to stack within reasonable means (like ok, your a lizardfolk, you get 1 DR for scales/etc, you got a +1 mithril breastplate, 6 DR, and your a barbarian 10, so 1 more.) and I allowed base reflex saves to become a Dodge Bonus to armor class to help rogues, monks, rangers, etc out with the new armor changes, sense they get a paltry sum of damage reduction and they prefer not to be hit at all over 1-3 DR you know?

And lastly I use the wounds/vitality system from pathfinder, ultimate combat, but made vitality heal at a rate of 1/2 character level per minute, but wounds only 1/2 character level per full day of rest (minimum 1 for each). So my warriors absorb more damage, refresh more quickly for the next fight. Oh, and I added stats for helms, neckguards, undershirts, etc for armor, war cloaks, and the like, and added called shot rules from A Game of Thrones d20.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

@Carl
1. Actually they do require explanations. A sword does not magically, (pun not intended), become more flaming just because you went up a level. In fact it doing so goes against the majority of fantasy content out there. In the majority you make an item. It has X power. That power never changes unless it's re-forged. D&D isn't just about cute rules. The lore and setting can be rather important to players as well. Pushing them away with an arbitrary mechanic that violates basic principles of many settings is not a good idea.

Fantasy is full of heroes whose weapons only work for them, who unlock the powers within their weapons, etc. Narsil is a +X ghost touch longsword for Aragorn, a pretty sword for anyone else. All of those "only the pure of heart can wield this blade" weapons are scaling weapons whose abilities are unlocked by the wielder.

And in "the majority of fantasy content" you can't see the items' stats, you just see the results. Luke Skywalker doesn't need a +3 deflecting lightsaber to face Darth Vader in RotJ...but if he did, would you prefer that he traded out his +2 lightsaber for a new one or that the stats upgraded "behind the scenes"?


Also maybe where using different definitions of playability. To me playability is: Does the player find the system playable. Fun is probably the single biggest factor in this. If the player doesn't enjoy it, all the well written rules in the world won't drag them in.

To me, "playability" is the system's playability (complexity of rules, barriers to entry, learning curves, etc.) while things like whether people like the system, how much they enjoy it, and so forth is player experience.


2. :smallconfused:. It's a fairly basic part of every RPG i've ever encountered. Part of the levelling up process is using your new found wealth/whatever to acquire magic items that then boost your power. The better your level, the better the items you can acquire, but the better your level, also the better your basic stats, thus limiting the fraction that comes from items, (the size of the fraction that comes from items being dependent on the system of course).

Indeed...and none of that power needs to come in the form of abusable, irritating, minor bonuses. The bonus treadmill is separate from the acquisition of new abilities; the former is a problem, the latter is good advancement. Rand al'Thor doesn't trade out his heron-marked blade for a slightly sharper heron-marked blade, he trades it out for Callandor. Luke doesn't build a new lightsaber because green blades have +1 to attack over blue blades, he builds a new one because the previous one is destroyed.


3. I was responding to the following:

I see. So when you said:

85% of balance problems [...] are down to unintended interactions. Inevitably the more complex the mechanic and the more mechanics interacting with each other the more unintended interactions. [...] no game designer or group thereof can hope to conceive of every possible interaction or every possible way a player can come up with to utilise something.

The best way to avoid that kind of thing is to create as few interactions as the system design goals allow whilst using the bare minimum possible number of variable elements within the mechanics that do interact.
...you don't think that the "unintended interactions" of chasing after bonuses is a problem because the designers can't anticipate "every possible way a player can come up with to utilize" them, and it's not a good idea to minimize the number of bonuses because doing so is "using the bare minimum possible number of variable elements"?


4.You completely ignored everything i had to say about Save r Die effects with that response.

Because SoDs are only a problem in 3e because the current save DC paradigm makes them superior options. As I mentioned before, SoDs were plentiful in AD&D but they weren't nearly as abusable because they couldn't be relied upon to end the fight with one spell.


The only reason you need to be able to save more that 1 or 2 out of every 5 or so spells on a save is if those spells are so powerful they can end the battle in one or two spells.

The difference between 5 full-damage cones of cold and 5 half-damage cones of cold at CL 15 is an average of 131.25 damage and a max of 225. Blasting spells are much maligned in 3e due to hit point inflation, but even that half damage will likely drop a 15th level caster unless they have max HP per HD and high Con and max damage will take a big chunk out of a fighter's HP; only making 1 save instead of 5 means 236 average damage and 405 damage, the latter of which can kill even a max-HP high-Con fighter at that level.

If the most boring, straightforward, and weak magic can potentially kill you if you only have a save bonus good enough to make 1 out of 5 saves at that level, how is the fighter expected to deal with spammed enchantments, or a save-debuff followed by a SoS, or anything more interesting than 4e-style XdY damage of Z type plus W condition in area A?


5. No domain spells exist for this. Your thinking of a level 0 non domain. it's a +1 bonus. Synergy. +2, Base max at Lv2. 5, single Feat. +3. Total 11+ability modifier. That's nowhere near 20.

+6 from Bluff, Sense Motive, and Knowledge (Nobility) skill synergies, +4 from the Herald domain granted power, +2 from the Mind domain granted power, +2 from the Polite and Honest traits, +4 from the Alluring and Trustworthy feats, +2 from Nymph's Kiss. Yes, my bad, I lumped Alluring and Trustworthy in with traits instead of feats, so give him 2 flaws for the extra feat slots. There, +20 for a Diplomacy-focused character before ranks and Cha.


I agree it's excessive but one of my points, (poorly articulated), regarding your example is that it's specific to skill checks.[...]AC avoids this by starting in the mid teens. Attack Rolls avoid staking modifier in the early levels.

There are Weapon Focus, racial bonuses vs. favored enemies, masterwork weapons, high ground from a mount, bless, and plenty of other +1/+2 bonuses for attack rolls before we even touch magic items; for AC, there are 3 or 4 different Dodge variants (that all stack), racial bonuses, TWDefense, broadblade swords, ways to add secondary stats to AC, and plenty more.

And wouldn't you know it, the vast majority if those options are either better for casters than martial classes (mental stats to AC, spells castable on the caster, etc.) or are useful for martial classes but taking them prevents getting better feats (so the pattern of giving small bonuses with feats is directly harmful to fighter power and options).


But rarely do they walk around bedecked in them like mages often do. Nor do the majority walk around with them. (The hobbit got weapons from ancient Annorian Nobles/Kings. Narsil is the king of Gondor's weapons, Gandalf has one of two very ancient swords forged when magic was more common, e.t.c. The majority of weapons in the setting are non-magical in nature, and magical items that aren't weapons are rare indeed).

Lembas bread, the elven cloaks, the rope of Lurien, the phial of Galadriel, the Athelas plant, the cordial of Imladris, Gandalf's staff and Ring of Power, Merry's horn, and of course the palantir and the One Ring were all specifically named non-weapon magical items the Fellowship had, and many of their weapons and other items (e.g. Legolas's bow) were implied to be magical as well despite not being specifically named as such.


And if, (as your whole focus on complicated effects is), the affect that is improving is magical, then there must be a source of additional magic being poured into the weapon to explain how it's happening.

I still can't see why you insist that a solution that removes a lot of pointless math is more complicated than a solution that retains them.

And again, scaling weapons does not mean that every item suddenly has new and unusual properties pop out of nowhere when you level. It means that numerical properties attached to your weapons (threat range, attack bonus, damage dice, etc.) advance without you having to go buy new ones, and any abilities they grant you improve and change as you level or improve based on your own inherent skill. The difference between a low-level fighter's flaming sword being able to shoot a jet of flame 5 feet away and a high-level fighter's flaming sword being able to shoot a 30-foot cone of flame is the same as a high-level fighter being able to out-grapple a troll while a low-level fighter gets smushed: better wielder means better weapons and better results.

[Yitzi]

This only ever works if the classes have no features other than the styles, like Dice said. Otherwise it leads to pidgeonholing and class bloat. Why can't I play a Ranger with a spear? Or a shield? Or a rapier?

Combat styles shouldn't be class features in general. Every martial class should be able to utilize their unique skills through any weapon type they want.

I'd disagree. A ranger is fundamentally a wilderness expert, so he should naturally tend toward styles that fit with that theme: Bows, or traps, or poisons, or animal companions, etc. A shield or rapier just doesn't make sense in the wilderness (a spear, especially a throwing spear, might, though), so "ranger with a shield" or "ranger with double weapons*" is a nonsensical concept and doesn't need supporting.

Likewise, a rogue is fundamentally sneaky, so should tend toward weapons that support that, such as daggers and crossbows.

*Yes, I went there.

[T.G. Oskar]

This only ever works if the classes have no features other than the styles, like Dice said. Otherwise it leads to pidgeonholing and class bloat. Why can't I play a Ranger with a spear? Or a shield? Or a rapier?

Combat styles shouldn't be class features in general. Every martial class should be able to utilize their unique skills through any weapon type they want.


I'd disagree. A ranger is fundamentally a wilderness expert, so he should naturally tend toward styles that fit with that theme: Bows, or traps, or poisons, or animal companions, etc. A shield or rapier just doesn't make sense in the wilderness (a spear, especially a throwing spear, might, though), so "ranger with a shield" or "ranger with double weapons*" is a nonsensical concept and doesn't need supporting.

Likewise, a rogue is fundamentally sneaky, so should tend toward weapons that support that, such as daggers and crossbows.

*Yes, I went there.

Careful, guys. This sounds like a "fluff/mechanics" debate that won't end.

In comparison with a fighter, a ranger has some degree of pigeonholing, because it follows a theme (as Yitzi suggests, a "wilderness expert"; alternatively, a Ranger could be looked as the "spec ops" of armies, but that works better as an ACF), so it's natural that they prefer some weapons to others. GunbladeKnight used my retool as a suggestion, which worked amongst the lines of Rangers being wilderness experts, and aside from the existing archetype of the hunter and the legacy archetype of the two-handed warrior, I added the archetype of the weapon thrower (hearkening to Native American warriors, or swifter vikings) and the capturer (bounty hunters, cowboys/gaúchos), with a Trapsmith and a natural weapon user as ACFs. This collapses the ranger to specific archetypes, and that's somewhat expected to see in a ranger. Combat styles could reach a wider application if Rangers followed the theme of "spec ops", but most people associate fantasy rangers with wilderness experts.

The fighter, on the other hand, cannot be limited to specific combat styles, because they're supposed to encompass the universe of combat options. They're the sword 'n boarders, the pikemen, the archers, the duelists, the cavalry, the weapon throwers, the brawlers and grapplers, the gladiators...quite a bit of options, actually. The actual notion of the 3e Fighter was that, with the wealth of bonus feats, it could dabble into two or three feat chains and cover up every single option just with the feats. Of course, that precluded the idea that Fighters also need to be worthwhile outside of combat, and the amount of skills given aren't enough for them.

Returning to the ranger: you may think something along the lines of dragoons when working with rangers (light mounted infantry), so you could justify a mounted combat option with rangers. Spears are part of hunting, so it's natural to see them with those options. However, it's pretty difficult to see a ranger wielding a two-handed axe or two-handed sword, because that requires a very strong ranger, which doesn't fit with the idea of light armor and mastery at hiding and tracking, which are the class features of the ranger as defined in 3.5 (alongside spellcasting and its animal companion). It would also dabble on the toes of the Barbarian, minus the Rage.

Speaking of the Barbarian: with the focus on Strength and Constitution, do you think a Barbarian will ALSO add Dexterity just to get TWF, when the return investment is minimal than if compared with TWF? They might incline towards thrown weapons, because those also use Strength. However, because of how composite longbows work, they might eschew archery because it won't make good use of their main class feature, as thrown weapons would (disregarding the benefit of range, of course).

Those offered options are inefficient when coupled with those classes, which is one key aspect of the Fighter's problem. The feat chains per se are inefficient without more specific investment, which precludes choosing between two or three feats. To put it best: if 1 is the ideal effectiveness of a style, a Barbarian might reach 1.2 in THF but somewhere around 0.5 with archery, 0.75 with mounted combat and 0.55 with TWF (this is hypothetical, of course). The idea is that the Fighter should, with moderate investment, reach close to 1 with every style, or at least styles that have some synergy (THF and throwing, TWF and archery); however, with that same moderate investment, the Fighter requires a lot to reach 1 on a single style, at the expense of never reaching 0.5 on any other, unless you sacrifice your main style. Classes and style efficiencies are relative in 3.5; a Paladin, by fluff, fits the idea of mounted combatant (but not mounted archer; i.e English longbowman), sword 'n board and THF, but from those, mounted combat excels because the class' options incline towards it (the special mount is key, and splats further improve their connection with the mount and improve the damage of mounts), while sword 'n board is inefficient for them pretty much by design and splats only make it somewhat worthwhile (Agile Shield Fighter, the Energized Shield spell, Shield Ward and the Shield of Warding spell) and THF is workable, again, by design (you only need Power Attack and a good two-handed weapon). Trying to adapt, say, archery would take far too much investment for it to work, and won't reach the same degree of efficiency as a Fighter or Ranger would, which by itself requires some investment (at least 3-4 feats to reach Multiattack).

Now, style efficiency is merely a symptom of the melee problem (which is why ToB is so effective; it doesn't deal with combat styles via feats and instead packs them in maneuvers); it explains how combat styles can be worked to each class, but not why they can be effective as a general melee fix per se. It's a decent concept to study, though: if all styles were to work at a similar degree with specific traits (say, physical stats 12-14 and same number of feats per feat chain, with each step of the chain providing the same benefit) instead of the current inequality between styles (THF > all with high Strength, TWF > THF with added damage dice, SnB < almost everything except perhaps throwing, Archery as the only viable ranged physical combat option), then things would be different. As it stands, you need to compare what each class brings and what other class/style combinations bring (i.e. why go Mounted Combat on anyone sans a Paladin, or why THF works best with Fighters and Barbarians) in order to be effective.

[RedWarlock]

I'd disagree. A ranger is fundamentally a wilderness expert, so he should naturally tend toward styles that fit with that theme: Bows, or traps, or poisons, or animal companions, etc. A shield or rapier just doesn't make sense in the wilderness (a spear, especially a throwing spear, might, though), so "ranger with a shield" or "ranger with double weapons*" is a nonsensical concept and doesn't need supporting.

Likewise, a rogue is fundamentally sneaky, so should tend toward weapons that support that, such as daggers and crossbows.

*Yes, I went there.

I dunno, I think double weapons works for a ranger, a lot more than a greatsword would, primarily because double weapons tend to be small, hacking and piercing weapons like handaxes and shortswords, rather than massive-swing stuff. Two medium blades can maneuver a lot quicker in a dense forest than a greatsword that needs an 8-foot clearance to swing properly.

Spears I can get behind tho. A thrusting spear, big or small, is an archetypal hunting weapon going back to the stone age. (Throwing it is a waste of energy (esp. compared to a bow), and leaves you disarmed until it's recovered, it should really be held and thrust two-handed to use best.)

[T.G. Oskar]

I dunno, I think double weapons works for a ranger, a lot more than a greatsword would, primarily because double weapons tend to be small, hacking and piercing weapons like handaxes and shortswords, rather than massive-swing stuff. Two medium blades can maneuver a lot quicker in a dense forest than a greatsword that needs an 8-foot clearance to swing properly.

Note that the term "double weapon" is used for weapons such as the orc double axe, or the two-bladed sword. An orc double axe isn't even the same size as two handaxes bound by their handles; that weapon is the size of a greataxe with another axe head at the other side. A two-bladed sword is almost of the same size as a greatsword (if not larger, because of the need for a larger handle), so you can't count on double weapons.

On the other hand, because of TWF, a ranger already can count as using double weapons (the whole point of double weapons is using TWF to attack with each side), so by core 3.5 it's doable (you just need the proficiency for it; thus, a half-orc ranger qualifies for an orc double axe because of weapon familiarity). Is it fitting, to have an axe of immense size, in the hands of a character that might be suited to small, handy weapons?

[Yitzi]

The fighter, on the other hand, cannot be limited to specific combat styles, because they're supposed to encompass the universe of combat options.

Definitely.


Returning to the ranger: you may think something along the lines of dragoons when working with rangers (light mounted infantry), so you could justify a mounted combat option with rangers. Spears are part of hunting, so it's natural to see them with those options. However, it's pretty difficult to see a ranger wielding a two-handed axe or two-handed sword, because that requires a very strong ranger, which doesn't fit with the idea of light armor and mastery at hiding and tracking, which are the class features of the ranger as defined in 3.5 (alongside spellcasting and its animal companion). It would also dabble on the toes of the Barbarian, minus the Rage.

Speaking of the Barbarian: with the focus on Strength and Constitution, do you think a Barbarian will ALSO add Dexterity just to get TWF, when the return investment is minimal than if compared with TWF? They might incline towards thrown weapons, because those also use Strength. However, because of how composite longbows work, they might eschew archery because it won't make good use of their main class feature, as thrown weapons would (disregarding the benefit of range, of course).

Although while we're on the topic, I see no reason that barbarians should be limited to the "raging berserker" model found in 3.5; it should certainly be an option, but consider a barbarian variant that loses rage (in all its forms) and DR and has only a d8, but gets bonuses for light mounted combat. Thus, instead of Vikings, you have Mongols.


a Paladin, by fluff, fits the idea of mounted combatant

Well, unless you want to refluff the paladin to not focus so much on mounted combat...which may not be such a bad idea.


I dunno, I think double weapons works for a ranger, a lot more than a greatsword would, primarily because double weapons tend to be small, hacking and piercing weapons like handaxes and shortswords, rather than massive-swing stuff. Two medium blades can maneuver a lot quicker in a dense forest than a greatsword that needs an 8-foot clearance to swing properly.

Yes, TWF does make more sense for a ranger than most melee THF does...neither works particularly well, though.

[Carl]

@Dice: Thankfully you kept things in sections so i can number it,.

1. Whilst i'm not going to disagree there are a share of magical swords out there that can only be wielded by their wearer, the only examples I've ever seen that grow with the character really either on some input of magic from somewhere, (often the wielder, but sometimes not, or sometimes it uses the souls of the slain), or require reforging. Or some other kind of action from the wielder or someone else to upgrade them. I'm going to skip over your individual examples as i suspect we could get stuck in a thicket about them and your last point seems to touch on a lot of the rest i want to say, so i'll go into it there.

2. I think this comes back to point 3. If a system requirement can most simply be fulfilled by a simple bonus. Do so. If it can't then keep the idea that the mechanic should have as few elements as possible, thus minimising the number of points of interaction.

3. Bonuses are fairly one dimensional. Unintended excess stacking is the only negative method of interaction with the outside world. And that's a matter of establishing ground rules in the system and enforcing them in your mechanics. I never said every bonus should be able to stack without limit. The point is there are area's right now (primarily equipment related), where the stacking limits in core make it impossible for equipment to adequately scale. Once a Martial class gets a +5 weapon, (or 2 if TWF), they stop gaining scaling effects from their equipments. Wizards on the other hand continue to get ever more powerful spells and ever increasing numbers of them. They keep scaling just as strongly whilst the martial class slows down. That needs to be addressed, and the simplest method of doing this is to allow martial equipment to scale more along existing lines.


4. The only way for SoD's to not be a reliable means of ending a battle is for every save to be so high it's a majority pass. That either implies no weak saves, (i.e. all are equal), or a strong save that is effectively an auto pass.At that point no interesting game mechanics are added by the save system. It's just a roundabout method of nerfing the spells whilst doing it via a mechanic that adds a whole bunch of extra rolling and a dose of randomness to do it. If your going to do that, eliminate the rolling, the random and the unnecessary paper and just make all spell effects = to what happens when you save and eliminate the save system. It achieves the same effect but it's a hell of a lot less complicated or able to be screwed up by outside factors.

As for your Cone of Cold example does is show how HP's don't scale well with damage output. HP's in D&D 3.5 are hugely deflated compared to the levels they need to be. Though some spells scale too far as well. Basically HP's are scaled for martial class damage outputs. Which whilst theoretically the same as other damage types, aren't. The problem is martial attacks miss much more due to AC than spells or the like. Even if you go for an all out damage build of +5 Bane Greatsword on a raging lv20 barbarian with a subsequent +14 Strength modifier and throw on a -10 power attack modifier, (+20 damage on a 2-hander), your maximum damage output after inevitable DR isn't much different to a 20 spellcaster throwing a 2 damage spells out a round via quicken. Except the spellcaster will miss less,(As an example the above barbarian against the average AC of a CR 20 creature would hit 11 out of 16 attacks), and/or hit several targets, and/or be more mobile since a quickened spell is a swift action and many others are standard actions. If you hadn't noticed i said earlier the HP system was screwed up when we started this discussion.

5. Ok again a bunch of non-core stuff in there. I don't recognise Nymph's Kiss though i'll give you the benefits of the doubt and assume it's a core half template affect i haven't come across yet. The two domains are non-core. I also don't recognise either feat, and i have no idea what traits are, (that could be something missing from the SRD due to copyright though, it doesn't have the level advancement rules for example, I've had to piece those together from random comments in the rules on the SRD and random comments here). That said you got me bang to rights on stacking synergies. I assumed the wording meant for any one of the three skills, and granted it only once. My fault. That said this just showcases something. None of those bonuses you listed are given a modifier type. Synergy really ought to be competence or insight, same with the domain effects. I'm not sure about nymphs kiss but I'm guessing insight or morale. If taking alluring and trustworthy involves taking downsides I see no balance issue there. So using the best case scenario: +4 Herald +2 Synergy, +4 feats, Much more manageable. It's still going to give a modestly high base check, (a 4 ability modifier and maxed lv1 skill would be 18+1D20), but give 4 of those points come with downsides i don't see a serious issue. This is what I've been getting at all along. Unilaterally saying "no staking period", is a terrible way of doing things because it means anyone trying to specialise and willing to take the negatives suffers for no benefit. Whilst a generalist doing a bit of everything gets everything with no downside. It's an important and necessary feature that some bonuses be able to stack. But you should limit this. Ideally by insisting every bonus be one of several types and then providing only a limited number of valid options. Which is more or less what core does. This means in most situations you cannot scale them unnecessarily. AC and Attack Modieiers and Damage modifiers due to equipment though are kind of stuck in that there's only one modifier. One modifier isn't enough for effective scaling, (and setting a higher cap open abuse up in other modifiers if they follow the leader). The main places, you need stacking modifiers without limits is feats and class skills. You never know what non-feat based, or non-class skill based modifiers a specific build may have so trying to use a non-stacking modifier has a high probability of rendering certain feats or class skills useless for specific builds. Which is bad. Fortunately when doing initial system design you can design feats first, which means feats only have to worry about other feast on an abuse level. Classes can be added next which allows class skills to take account of all extant feats to avoid abuse. At that point non-core stuff just has to go around obeying the system rules and taking account of Feats and Class skills that are pre-existing when adding stacking bonuses to feats or class skills of their own.


There are Weapon Focus, racial bonuses vs. favored enemies, masterwork weapons, high ground from a mount, bless, and plenty of other +1/+2 bonuses for attack rolls before we even touch magic items; for AC, there are 3 or 4 different Dodge variants (that all stack), racial bonuses, TWDefense, broadblade swords, ways to add secondary stats to AC, and plenty more.

Racial and Weapon Focus are available at low levels yes. Masterwork however raises weapon prices to Heavy Armour Levels and that's not a 1st level thing. Neither are mounts generally, (nor are they universally usable, many area's can't accept mounts or there isn't the room to fight effectively), Magic items are also getting into the later levels where base BAB starts to reach higher levels meaning it's still not scaling it that much. Most spells are enhancement bonuses and so don;t stack with Masterwork or magic items, and the rest are morale bonuses, (+5 max). Dodge comes from a variety of sources, but again, mostly not 1st level or, (Combat Expertise, Fighting Defensively, Total Defence) have major downsides. TWF is just a way to get a Heavy Shield benefit at the whilst DW'ing.


Lembas bread, the elven cloaks, the rope of Lurien, the phial of Galadriel, the Athelas plant, the cordial of Imladris, Gandalf's staff and Ring of Power, Merry's horn, and of course the palantir and the One Ring were all specifically named non-weapon magical items the Fellowship had, and many of their weapons and other items (e.g. Legolas's bow) were implied to be magical as well despite not being specifically named as such.


Most of which they got from Galadriel, they didn't exactly carry them as an everyday item the way D&D requires high level characters to do so, and Gandalf is explicitly a Maiar (or however you spell it, book are in storage grrrr). I'd also point out that none of this changes the fact that the fellowship is the exception, not the rule within LOTR.


I still can't see why you insist that a solution that removes a lot of pointless math is more complicated than a solution that retains them.

And again, scaling weapons does not mean that every item suddenly has new and unusual properties pop out of nowhere when you level. It means that numerical properties attached to your weapons (threat range, attack bonus, damage dice, etc.) advance without you having to go buy new ones, and any abilities they grant you improve and change as you level or improve based on your own inherent skill. The difference between a low-level fighter's flaming sword being able to shoot a jet of flame 5 feet away and a high-level fighter's flaming sword being able to shoot a 30-foot cone of flame is the same as a high-level fighter being able to out-grapple a troll while a low-level fighter gets smushed: better wielder means better weapons and better results.

What your saying in the second paragraph is VERY different to my reading of your initial comment. I read it as every weapon having several scaling versions of things similar to the effects on this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#anarchic) list. That induces a great many more variables in the system. ore variables is bad if it can be avoided. The majority of game balance problems i've observed that don;t come down to bad or non-existent system design. Or a badly thought out stat value come from unintended interactions between mechanics. he more complex the mechanic the more likely such interactions are because there are more points of interaction between them.

That's said this still doesn't excuse the comment about a flaming sword going from 5ft t 30ft. The problem there is this:

There is no way for this to happen in many settings.

Simple as that. For a sword to get more powerful in many settings it requires an input of power from somewhere. So either the fighter is magical and is improving his sword. Or he needs to go out and spend GP's on getting it improved. And no amount of that gets around the fact that if you want a sword made from special materials, (and the DR rules don't give you much option of dropping this atm, though an overhaul of them might work that kink out), you'll have to go get a new one. Now if you want to argue that you should be able to have one weapon re-forged into a another offsetting it's current value against the old. or it's magical effect improved, (with the same offsetting). That's fine. That's a well established method for such things to happen. But it can't be coming from nowhere.




All that said i think we've got some fundamental differences in approach here. Your clearly more interested in eliminating the whole concept of bought magic items as a game mechanic and don't really care what affect that will have on roleplayer's or lore people. Equally I have a preference for the simplest most basic mechanics that i cna figure out that will do the job for me, you prefer more complicated and showy mechanics. I don't think where going to reconcile those varied viewpoints so if you prefer we could just agree to disagree.

[Yitzi]

3. Bonuses are fairly one dimensional. Unintended excess stacking is the only negative method of interaction with the outside world. And that's a matter of establishing ground rules in the system and enforcing them in your mechanics. I never said every bonus should be able to stack without limit. The point is there are area's right now (primarily equipment related), where the stacking limits in core make it impossible for equipment to adequately scale. Once a Martial class gets a +5 weapon, (or 2 if TWF), they stop gaining scaling effects from their equipments. Wizards on the other hand continue to get ever more powerful spells and ever increasing numbers of them. They keep scaling just as strongly whilst the martial class slows down. That needs to be addressed, and the simplest method of doing this is to allow martial equipment to scale more along existing lines.

Of course, "simplest" isn't always "best", but it largely ends up as a matter of taste.


4. The only way for SoD's to not be a reliable means of ending a battle is for every save to be so high it's a majority pass.

Not quite. "SoD's have multiple-round (or even minute) casting times" could work well too, especially if spell-based defenses are nerfed.


That either implies no weak saves, (i.e. all are equal), or a strong save that is effectively an auto pass.At that point no interesting game mechanics are added by the save system. It's just a roundabout method of nerfing the spells whilst doing it via a mechanic that adds a whole bunch of extra rolling and a dose of randomness to do it.

Not automatically; if strong saves are effectively auto-passes against same-level enemies, spells that target the strong save can still be useful against weaker enemies. If there are ways to boost save DCs, that can again make such spells useful, while still potentially being difficult enough not to be reliable means of ending a battle. And of course not every class needs to have the same strong save; if SoD spells have a decent chance of success against rogues and casters but low against monks and full-BAB classes, that would mean there'd still be interesting mechanics.


The problem is martial attacks miss much more due to AC than spells or the like. Even if you go for an all out damage build of +5 Bane Greatsword on a raging lv20 barbarian with a subsequent +14 Strength modifier and throw on a -10 power attack modifier, (+20 damage on a 2-hander), your maximum damage output after inevitable DR isn't much different to a 20 spellcaster throwing a 2 damage spells out a round via quicken. Except the spellcaster will miss less,(As an example the above barbarian against the average AC of a CR 20 creature would hit 11 out of 16 attacks), and/or hit several targets, and/or be more mobile since a quickened spell is a swift action and many others are standard actions. If you hadn't noticed i said earlier the HP system was screwed up when we started this discussion.

Your argument seems less that HP is screwed up, and more that Quicken and inevitable DR are overpowered. (Why is DR inevitable, by the way?)


and Gandalf is explicitly a Maiar (or however you spell it, book are in storage grrrr).

Maiar is the correct spelling, but is plural; singular is "maia".


I'd also point out that none of this changes the fact that the fellowship is the exception, not the rule within LOTR.

The same can be said for D&D adventuring parties.

[Morty]

Careful, guys. This sounds like a "fluff/mechanics" debate that won't end.

Well, it's not. Whatever the relationship betwee fluff and mechanics, there's absoultely nothing about the Ranger, however we define the class, that precludes them from using a shield or a light one-handed weapon. Why can't a scout operating in the wilderness carry a shield? It'll come in handy when some conveniently evil humanoids decide to shoot arrows at him. It makes more sense than Rangers who need to use two weapons if they want to melee.

I prefer an inclusive approach to weapon styles - if there's no good reason why a class shouldn't support one, it goes in. 3.5 is all about excluding and telling you what you can't do. This is why it has so many problems, but this thread is about fixing the part of 3.5 that's about Fighters and to a lesser degree all weapon users.


Returning to the ranger: you may think something along the lines of dragoons when working with rangers (light mounted infantry), so you could justify a mounted combat option with rangers. Spears are part of hunting, so it's natural to see them with those options. However, it's pretty difficult to see a ranger wielding a two-handed axe or two-handed sword, because that requires a very strong ranger, which doesn't fit with the idea of light armor and mastery at hiding and tracking, which are the class features of the ranger as defined in 3.5 (alongside spellcasting and its animal companion). It would also dabble on the toes of the Barbarian, minus the Rage.

Unless, of course, the system works well enough that a light-armored warrior with a two-handed weapon is viable. A Ranger who uses a bow but switches to a two-handed weapon is actually already viable in Pathfinder - one of the few actual improvements Pathfinder makes.

And I maintain that the Barbarian class is redundant. A Barbarian is a Fighter or Ranger that gets angry.

Now, the Rogue is another story because it's not really a martial class. I can see the Rogue being limited in combat styles, because a Rogue is not a warrior. But Paladins, Fighters and Rangers should be free to use whatever weapon they please.

[Carl]

Of course, "simplest" isn't always "best", but it largely ends up as a matter of taste.



Not quite. "SoD's have multiple-round (or even minute) casting times" could work well too, especially if spell-based defenses are nerfed.



Not automatically; if strong saves are effectively auto-passes against same-level enemies, spells that target the strong save can still be useful against weaker enemies. If there are ways to boost save DCs, that can again make such spells useful, while still potentially being difficult enough not to be reliable means of ending a battle. And of course not every class needs to have the same strong save; if SoD spells have a decent chance of success against rogues and casters but low against monks and full-BAB classes, that would mean there'd still be interesting mechanics.



Your argument seems less that HP is screwed up, and more that Quicken and inevitable DR are overpowered. (Why is DR inevitable, by the way?)



Maiar is the correct spelling, but is plural; singular is "maia".



The same can be said for D&D adventuring parties.

1. Thats a valid way of looking at it, and to be fair much of my game tinkering experience is either GW TT systems or computer based. GW just don't have a handle on statistics at all and RNG rules their games to an excessive degree to the point many other issues are minor. Whera's most computer games have a high degree of complexity, (it's their biggest advantage over pen and paper), and that, (unintended interactions), is the most common source of balance issues there.

2. Nice idea. This actually works better IMO. That's the biggest problem with KISS, you sometimes need a bit of outside perspective for that hit of inspiration. Still needs some care and thought putting into it to ensure people don't find sneaky ways of bypassing or reducing it or it's benefits., but very nice.

3. I'm not sure i especially like the dynamic described in the last sentence and I'm not going to dispute the second. My point is in a system where every save is at least good the average failure rate across all saves is so low that regardless of what save is targeted the result is normally a passed save. he save system becomes de-valued and a bit of an annoying add on mechanic because it so rarely does anything unexpected. A more wildly varied system makes it worth having to some degree. It's not perfect now either. but it is better, (in the specific respect being discussed here, obviously in balance terms with quick casting SOD'd it's a huge issue).

4. I based the inevitable DR bit on a comment i read about Dr commonality, not sure where now, have to go looking back through threads looking. You may to a degree have a point there. But even without quicken combat could be frightfully fast, and i'm not honestly sure it would fix the disparity, what with many spells having huge AOE's, melee classess missing, needing full round instead of standard actions,. e.t.c.. Besides even a squishe should be lasting longer than 5 rounds IMO, (it's a statistics related thing ok). Though it would be nice if the disparity could be closed i agree.

5. Thanks for that :). My memory wasn't so shot then. I also aren't saying the average D&D party aren't special. But it's very diffrent to a party like the fellowship. They've got a King to be, (and the most powerful since the lines of Numenour failed long ago), Another Powerful though lesser Numourean and next in line to be Steward. An Elven Princeling. A very prominent Dwarf, (prince isn't quite the right term here but his linage is not exactly minor), and 4 hobbit's who's actions and deeds speak far louder than words. Thier special even by the standards of a D&D party. They'd probably all be epic levels bar the hobbits at the outset, (never mind the journey's end), if you converted them to D&D. I do get the point to a degree though and i'm not saying going bedecked shouldn't be an option either actually. Both should be valid though to a degree.

[Yitzi]

2. Nice idea. This actually works better IMO. That's the biggest problem with KISS, you sometimes need a bit of outside perspective for that hit of inspiration. Still needs some care and thought putting into it to ensure people don't find sneaky ways of bypassing or reducing it or it's benefits., but very nice.

How about:
1. Saves tend to be fairly high, as we've discussed earlier in this thread.
2. There are no true save-or-die spells. Instead, "save-or-die" spells are "Fort negates; on a failed save, take a small amount of CON drain (alternatively: negative levels) and immediately roll another save for the same effects."
3. You can boost save DCs with rituals, which have casting times around a minute.

So a "save-or-die" normally will apply a small penalty (if it does anything) and then stop, but if you cast a ritual then you've got a good chance of sending your target all the way to "dead". Of course, minute-long casting times mean that you need some way of keeping the enemy away from you while you cast...speaking of which, one of the things the fighter really needs is a way to be an effective meatshield.


3. I'm not sure i especially like the dynamic described in the last sentence and I'm not going to dispute the second. My point is in a system where every save is at least good the average failure rate across all saves is so low that regardless of what save is targeted the result is normally a passed save. he save system becomes de-valued and a bit of an annoying add on mechanic because it so rarely does anything unexpected. A more wildly varied system makes it worth having to some degree. It's not perfect now either. but it is better, (in the specific respect being discussed here, obviously in balance terms with quick casting SOD'd it's a huge issue).

In a system where every save is at least what now counts as a good save, you won't have that issue, as what now counts as a good save still generally has 50% or higher failure rate. Obviously if every save for every character in every situation is 20% or lower failure rate then it's not worth using the system, but I don't think anyone is advocating that.


But even without quicken combat could be frightfully fast, and i'm not honestly sure it would fix the disparity, what with many spells having huge AOE's, melee classess missing, needing full round instead of standard actions,. e.t.c..

Yes, removing quicken alone probably wouldn't be enough...but it would make the comparison a lot closer, and the need to do more than remove quicken isn't going to be proved by comparing to something that has quicken.


Besides even a squishe should be lasting longer than 5 rounds IMO, (it's a statistics related thing ok).

I'm not sure if I'd agree with your exact number, but it definitely should be longer. I think the way to do that is to boost defense as compared to offense.

[Carl]

In a system where every save is at least what now counts as a good save, you won't have that issue, as what now counts as a good save still generally has 50% or higher failure rate. Obviously if every save for every character in every situation is 20% or lower failure rate then it's not worth using the system, but I don't think anyone is advocating that.

Dice was talking about a 40% failure rate as a minimum on a bad save. That's dangerously close to that area given how good that makes a good save.


Yes, removing quicken alone probably wouldn't be enough...but it would make the comparison a lot closer, and the need to do more than remove quicken isn't going to be proved by comparing to something that has quicken.

Given that quicken has an actual downside and limiting factor i don't see it as something that should be just thrown overboard though. Plus again statistics start to come in to a degree. Also, Monsters in melee often deal equivalent or greater damage per attack to high level spells. Generally unless the environment is very target rich or they use quicken spellcasters can't keep up in raw melee damage with monsters. The problem is martial classes don't really keep up with anything but each other. This is an equipment problem mostly IMO, (and a little is BAB related), but given i feel there's a semblance, (not perfect but not teribad either), of balance between spellcasters and monsters in raw blasty potential, i see it as acceptable to boost martial damage and focus on getting HP's somewhere in line.

I'd also point out it's rather trivial to get con modifiers sufficient to match or exceed any hit die upto D8. And D10 and D12 matching or exceeding are doable if difficult, (though a barbarians rage makes D12 rather easy to make negligible). Which is another problem.


I'm not sure if I'd agree with your exact number, but it definitely should be longer. I think the way to do that is to boost defense as compared to offense.

I agree AC needs to scale better and it's part of the problem. But i also see HP scaling to deal with things as important as well. Especially because a single lucky strike could be rather devastating with current values. Potentially even encounter deciding and that's not a good thing to have.

Anyway getting very tiered, past time i got a nap.

[Yitzi]

Dice was talking about a 40% failure rate as a minimum on a bad save. That's dangerously close to that area given how good that makes a good save.

Not really. If every save is a 20% failure rate that's a problem, but if only good saves are then that's less of an issue; after all, casters are known for high versatility, so they should be able to mainly target poor saves, and 40% is a lot more interesting.


Also, Monsters in melee often deal equivalent or greater damage per attack to high level spells. Generally unless the environment is very target rich or they use quicken spellcasters can't keep up in raw melee damage with monsters.

If your casters are in melee, you've got problems anyway. If fighters are defensively boosted to the point where monster damage against fighters is decreased substantially (and fighters get the ability to meatshield well), then it'll be a lot easier to keep up with the monsters.


The problem is martial classes don't really keep up with anything but each other. This is an equipment problem mostly IMO, (and a little is BAB related), but given i feel there's a semblance, (not perfect but not teribad either), of balance between spellcasters and monsters in raw blasty potential, i see it as acceptable to boost martial damage and focus on getting HP's somewhere in line.

Whereas I see that as promoting shorter encounters (which you said you didn't want IIRC) and rocket tag. Boosting fighters defensively instead, and nerfing casters offensively, will balance both offense/defense for longer encounters, as well as various classes against each other and against monsters.


I'd also point out it's rather trivial to get con modifiers sufficient to match or exceed any hit die upto D8. And D10 and D12 matching or exceeding are doable if difficult, (though a barbarians rage makes D12 rather easy to make negligible). Which is another problem.

I favor the idea of having benefit from CON be proportional to hit die size. So you might have something like d4 gets +CON, d6 or d8 gets +1.5XCON, and d10 or d12 gets +2XCON.


I agree AC needs to scale better and it's part of the problem. But i also see HP scaling to deal with things as important as well. Especially because a single lucky strike could be rather devastating with current values. Potentially even encounter deciding and that's not a good thing to have.

Again, letting fighters and barbarians (who are really the ones who should be tanking) get +2XCON will increase their HP substantially. Another idea that could help avoid "single lucky strike KOs" is an armor-as-DR variant.

[lesser_minion]

As a general rule, the reason a sword might go from from +1 flaming(+1d6 fire damage) to +2 flaming(+2d6 fire damage) when the wielder goes up a level is that the wielder is becoming better at taking advantage of the sword's properties. The sword doesn't actually change at all, and it will still be a +1 flaming(+1d6 fire damage) sword in the hands of a lower-level character.

As for save-or-lose (please exercise due pedantry: these expressions were never intended to be used non-literally), the real issue is the double-standard more than anything else. The entire purpose of hit points in games is to ensure that one mistake or bit of bad luck won't kill a character outright. Why is this the guiding philosophy when dealing with a guy trying to cut you in half with a sword but not when he's casting spells, exactly?

Of course, another interesting double standard is that it's OK for the wizard to actually need the fighter to tank for him against melee threats, but it's not OK for there to be threats that the fighter actually needs the wizard's help to deal with.

[Ziegander]

Guys, sorry I've been absent from this thread but I have a stressful real life that I have to deal with for too many hours of the day. I do want to get back to this discussion (I have no idea what we're talking about at the moment so I have a lot of review to do), but I don't know when. Maybe Saturday I can concentrate some real time on it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

@Carl: Since I've missed out on a bit of back-and-forth between you and Yitzi about this, I'm going to respond generally rather than quoting directly:Regarding bonuses: We may be talking at cross-purposes here. From your initial reply to my last post, it looks like you think I want to get rid of all bonuses and make sure that there are no feats/spells/etc. that grant them. That's not the case at all. I just think that many of the fiddly little bonuses in 3e could be ditched without a problem because they're unnecessary math, and of the remaining bonuses that are worth having, some of them should be larger bonuses that are more noticeable and some of them should be replaced with non-numerical abilities instead.

A lot of those bonuses you hadn't heard of before really aren't necessary: do we really need traits (which are on the SRD, by the way) to determine that our characters are Polite, and does politeness imply a Diplomacy bonus? Shouldn't a domain granted power be more interesting than +X to a check? And so forth.


Regarding bonus types: You said stacking should be limited "Ideally by insisting every bonus be one of several types and then providing only a limited number of valid options," which is precisely what I suggested--and not what core delivers; five bonus types are limited, 10+ are not, even if half of the 18 core types are used mostly (but not entirely) for AC. And you're incorrect when you say that we don't know what base numbers people have for various stats, as in fact having minimum and maximum level-based competencies for various things is the whole benefit of a class-and-level system over a point-based system.

It's a good thing that the designers can take into account that characters will have between 0 and 23 ranks in something at 20th level, that they'll have +6 to +12 base saves, that they'll have +10 to +20 BAB, and so on. Multiclassing can break those assumptions, to give people between +0 and +40 base saves for instance, and that's a flaw in the 3e multiclassing system, a quite severe one. From a system perspective, while you don't want the rigid math treadmill of 4e, you do want to have fairly well-known and relatively constrained base numbers by level; from a fighter perspective, the wider the range of possible modifiers you have, the less the fighter benefits from having a high bonus. If the best attack bonus you can get at 20th level is +50, and only if you have full BAB, having full BAB is more valuable, but it's less valuable if stacking four +5 buff spells will get you an attack bonus double the fighter's.


Regarding SoDs: Your argument assumes that the only options are 3e rocket tag SoDs and 4e nerfed-into-nonexistence SoDs. There are two factors to be considered: first, as Yitzi noted above, the main benefit of SoDs is not spamming them in the hopes the BBEG will roll a 1, but for removing lower-level creatures that are threatening but not meant to be a primary challenge, the same way that AoE blasting spells can be good against a BBEG and his sidekick but is best for clearing minions. In AD&D when SoDs weren't reliable against even-level opposition at high levles, SoDs were used to say "I don't have time to deal with this speedbump" as part of a larger battle.

Second, high-level play is not just defined by math, but by options. Resistances, immunities, counters, interrupts, and similar give combat a tactical depth. 3e is a bit excessive in the degree of immunity stacking it requires to face high-level casters, but some degree of that is a good thing. No tactic should work every single time, and appropriate counters to powerful effects should exist. It's the same reason scorching ray requires a touch attack but disintegrate has a touch attack and a Fort save: more powerful effect, more layers of defense. If you decide to go fight a necromancer without making preparations to defend yourself against necromancy, you should run into trouble.


Regarding HP: The point of the cone of cold example was to show that low saves are a problem even when you take SoDs out of the picture. Probability means that if you have to make a lot of saves, and you have a relatively high failure rate and no mitigation, eventually you'll succumb to whatever it is, even if it's just 5d6 damage AoEs at 20th level. And HP inflation is a problem in 3e, not deflation; martial damage needs to be boosted (and magic damage to a lesser extent) to keep up, we don't need more HP. Martial hit rates aren't a major problem currently, as BAB outpaces AC by design as you level (hence the attack penalties with iterative attacks).


Regarding scaling weapons: There's a reason my example was a flaming sword rather than a flaming anarchic dragon-bane sword. If you thought by "scaling" I meant "add a bunch of random abilities" I can see why you'd dislike that.

And I still don't see why you think scaling weapons doesn't work fluff-wise. Aragorn can block a ghostly blow with Anduril. Random Gondorian Peasant #64 can't. Aragorn isn't a spellcaster, nor is the ghost touch ability a byproduct of being reforged from Narsil, nor does he use any incantantions or runes or herbs or whatever else to activate the ability--and no amount of those from someone else will let them use Anduril to full effect, either. The sword is better because he has a special bloodline, and the same could occur if he had a particularly strong faith or fighting spirit, because exposure to ambient magic from hacking into Nazgul and uruk hai enchanted the blade, or because of a host of other reasons.

Right out of the very template of fantasy fiction, we have a weapon that has fancy ability X for a mid-level PC and nothing for a low-level NPC. If Anduril's name ("Flame of the West") were taken more literally and it were a flaming sword, Random Gondorian would be able to use the sword like a torch and Aragorn would be able to burn Nazgul and Felbeasts in one hit, because he's higher level and Just That Good.


Regarding combat length: Beware the "expected combat length" trap. Some people like high-level games where everything turns on the initiative roll, I run very high-power games that can last over 10 rounds, and 3e handles both with equal facility. The system needs to be able to handle curbstomp battles where minions die quickly, boss battles that unfold dramatically, attrition slogs through lots of enemies, and similar. 4e aimed for 5-6 round combats, and look how that turned out: "simple" combats take forever, combats that go past the expected length are a drag, and being able to calibrate to the expected combat length makes designers lazy and always design to that length, making the system inflexible.

It also varies by playstyle: I'm one of those who believe that if you walk right up to a dragon, in its lair, when it saw you coming, without you making any preparations, it's perfectly fair if you become a bloodstain on the ground in the surprise round because good tactics should be rewarded and bad tactics should have consequences. There are some who would prefer that even waltzing up to a dragon unprepared will let you live 2-3 rounds. If the system can handle combats of any length, houserules and gentleman's agreements can accomplish the latter, but it's difficult to make a fixed-combat-length system accommodate other styles (unless it's as shallow a system as 4e, in which case basic multiplication can fix things in a jiffy).


Regarding the Fellowship's power: From a Fellowship-to-D&D-translation perspective, they'd all be mid-level at best; LotR is a low-magic world, they're all firmly grounded in reality, and the only one with any high-level abilities at all would be Gandalf in his full angelic glory. Political power and cool parents don't make you high level. D&D parties come up with crazy schemes that speak louder than words on a regular basis, and in AD&D pretty much every character became a noble (and a powerful one at that) around "name level" (9-10), so they're really nothing special.


Regarding overall approach, I'll quote something for a change:

All that said i think we've got some fundamental differences in approach here. Your clearly more interested in eliminating the whole concept of bought magic items as a game mechanic and don't really care what affect that will have on roleplayer's or lore people. Equally I have a preference for the simplest most basic mechanics that i cna figure out that will do the job for me, you prefer more complicated and showy mechanics. I don't think where going to reconcile those varied viewpoints so if you prefer we could just agree to disagree.

You could not possibly be more wrong about my goals. I am not concerned more with mechanics over flavor, nor am I in favor of complexity for the sake of complexity; in fact, it's just the opposite. I want to remove the concept of buying magic items being necessary from the game, so whether you want to play Aragorn or Gandalf with their one or two signature items, Batman or Perseus with their grab-bag of stuff, or Conan with his item independence, you can get along just as well at high levels. I want to remove the concept of "wealthy/expensive = high level" from the game, so that characters can be paupers without dying to even-level opposition or ridiculously rich dragon-hunters without breaking the game, and they can spend money on building castles or feeding the poor or wearing a really cool hat without falling behind other players in power--and, for that matter, so the economy makes more sense instead of having adventurers being able to buy countries at high levels. Characters should be able to buy exactly the sword they want, but they should not be able to buy a better sword than the rest of the party (or than the game can handle) because they saved up more gold for it; characters should be able to have some diversity in their fighting style by buying 5 different items, but they should not be able to have a counter for everything by buying 50 different items.

I want to streamline and simplify the number and types of bonuses so that people who want to just make a basic fighter or rogue without hunting for all the bonuses that some people have never heard of can do that without being penalized for it or overshadowed by people who do want to do that, so that the fighter's class feature of "having better numbers" actually means something and when you do get more numbers it's something noticeable and not "Yawn, another +1," and so that we avoid the constant design trap of giving casters options and noncasters more numbers. Characters should be different from their party-mates based on their choices, but those choices should be interesting and flavorful (which pointless bonuses are not); characters should function based on simple, intuitive mechanics, and the less math their players have to do with situational or unnecessary bonuses, the better.

I'm willing to agree to disagree on all of this, or take it to PMs like we did last time, but I do not appreciate the Stormwind Fallacy-style accusations that I care about power and showing off more than internal consistency and roleplaying.

@Ziegander: Sorry for hijacking your thread a bit with the side debates.

[Wardog]

Just chiming in to say that the stones instead of pounds idea is brilliant. But magic items scaling by character level? I'm not really sure about that. Why does it happen? If the only explanation you can come up with that you aren't pulling from your ass is, "because game balance," then I call foul. It would be fine for some items, but it just doesn't make any sense to me that a hero finds a flaming sword and as he becomes more heroic the flaming sword becomes more on fire. :smallconfused:

A sword is a warriors soul. The flames are a manifestation of his heroic fighting spirit.

[TuggyNE]

A sword is a warriors soul. The flames are a manifestation of his heroic fighting spirit.

So some people have ice-cold fighting spirits, others have bitterly corrosive, and other yet are scintillatingly sparking? And they can change if they get different swords?

Also, what about a keen/mutilating/vorpal progression, how would you justify that?

It doesn't seem like that explanation scales well beyond just flaming (if that).

[Yitzi]

Of course, another interesting double standard is that it's OK for the wizard to actually need the fighter to tank for him against melee threats, but it's not OK for there to be threats that the fighter actually needs the wizard's help to deal with.

As far as I'm concerned, both are good things; interdependency is how you make a good party dynamic. Other people want to have neither, so when you combine what each dislikes about the current system, you get the double standard you describe.


Regarding bonuses: We may be talking at cross-purposes here. From your initial reply to my last post, it looks like you think I want to get rid of all bonuses and make sure that there are no feats/spells/etc. that grant them. That's not the case at all. I just think that many of the fiddly little bonuses in 3e could be ditched without a problem because they're unnecessary math, and of the remaining bonuses that are worth having, some of them should be larger bonuses that are more noticeable and some of them should be replaced with non-numerical abilities instead.

I think the resulting game would be less fun to optimize (unlike many balance fixes which would actually make it more fun to optimize), but more fun to play.


A lot of those bonuses you hadn't heard of before really aren't necessary: do we really need traits (which are on the SRD, by the way) to determine that our characters are Polite, and does politeness imply a Diplomacy bonus? Shouldn't a domain granted power be more interesting than +X to a check? And so forth.

One idea I came up with for skills is as follows:
-At certain thresholds of skill ranks, you get extra abilities related to that skill. Think along the lines of the "balance without losing DEX bonus to AC", but much more than just a few skills at +5, and often including skill-trick like abilities.
-You can only spend one skillpoint on each skill per level; this replaces the normal cap. (So if you have more ranks than your level, you can continue increasing the skill at one rank per level.)
-Certain feats/class abilities that used to just give +X on the check now give bonus ranks.

Thus, Skill Focus doesn't just give you an extra 15% chance of success; it moves you 3 levels closer to being able to use the skill in a new way.


Regarding bonus types: You said stacking should be limited "Ideally by insisting every bonus be one of several types and then providing only a limited number of valid options," which is precisely what I suggested--and not what core delivers; five bonus types are limited, 10+ are not, even if half of the 18 core types are used mostly (but not entirely) for AC.

Yes, that's somewhere that Core could be improved.


And you're incorrect when you say that we don't know what base numbers people have for various stats, as in fact having minimum and maximum level-based competencies for various things is the whole benefit of a class-and-level system over a point-based system.

Well, we know a range, not an exact number.


Multiclassing can break those assumptions, to give people between +0 and +40 base saves for instance, and that's a flaw in the 3e multiclassing system, a quite severe one.

Fairly easy to fix, though, by some sort of "partial points" system.


but it's less valuable if stacking four +5 buff spells will get you an attack bonus double the fighter's.

Yeah, stacking buff spells is a major bad-thing.


Second, high-level play is not just defined by math, but by options. Resistances, immunities, counters, interrupts, and similar give combat a tactical depth. 3e is a bit excessive in the degree of immunity stacking it requires to face high-level casters, but some degree of that is a good thing. No tactic should work every single time, and appropriate counters to powerful effects should exist.

I still think that probabilistic defenses tend to be more versatile and interesting than absolute ones, most of the time.


If you decide to go fight a necromancer without making preparations to defend yourself against necromancy, you should run into trouble.

I'd say that unless using a "combat triangle" sort system (probably "monks beat wizards beat fighters beat monks"), 90% of fighters should be able to make those preparations without needing support or extra investment, though, as "fight" and "defend" are in the class job description.


Martial hit rates aren't a major problem currently, as BAB outpaces AC by design as you level (hence the attack penalties with iterative attacks).

Unless you stack AC bonuses.


Regarding combat length: Beware the "expected combat length" trap. Some people like high-level games where everything turns on the initiative roll, I run very high-power games that can last over 10 rounds, and 3e handles both with equal facility. The system needs to be able to handle curbstomp battles where minions die quickly, boss battles that unfold dramatically, attrition slogs through lots of enemies, and similar. 4e aimed for 5-6 round combats, and look how that turned out: "simple" combats take forever, combats that go past the expected length are a drag, and being able to calibrate to the expected combat length makes designers lazy and always design to that length, making the system inflexible.

It also varies by playstyle: I'm one of those who believe that if you walk right up to a dragon, in its lair, when it saw you coming, without you making any preparations, it's perfectly fair if you become a bloodstain on the ground in the surprise round because good tactics should be rewarded and bad tactics should have consequences. There are some who would prefer that even waltzing up to a dragon unprepared will let you live 2-3 rounds. If the system can handle combats of any length, houserules and gentleman's agreements can accomplish the latter, but it's difficult to make a fixed-combat-length system accommodate other styles (unless it's as shallow a system as 4e, in which case basic multiplication can fix things in a jiffy).

I think this makes sense.



and, for that matter, so the economy makes more sense instead of having adventurers being able to buy countries at high levels.

Well, at high levels they should be able to buy countries as part of the price of saving the world again...just not with normal money.

[Carl]

@Yitzi:

1. Dice made some comments about his save thing below so i think i can adress all that in one go there.

2. Your not getting it. Monsters aren't matching lv20 spells on a full attack. Their matching or exceeding it on every attack, and from not exactly low levels either. Unless your willing to boost AC so high only 1 average attack out of a full attack will hit and add on DR10 minimum as a basic class feature of all mid to high level martial types you are not going to bring it down in line. Thats a lot of changes to add as basic features, (you'd have to do it via armour or it's never going to be workable TBH). The Alternative is to gon in and nerf every spell and monster. Or to boost martial class damage outputs and reform the HP system to a more valid system. I prefer the latter as it's the simplest in my mind, at least in principle.

3. Again, we aren't concerned with just fighters vs casters duel, we've got to worry about the monsters. Giving fighters better defences involves AC's half again as good as now minimum and DR 10 by the mid teens on everyone. What i'm proposing won't result in shorter encounters, but it also won;t involve rendering most of a full attack a waste or handing out DR as a standard feature.

4. Did you even pay attention to what you quoted:smallconfused:, the problem right now is that everyone, barbarians are getting too much HP from con not too little. Con contribution needs a nerf, (through a better HD mechanism rather than direct nerfs IMO), not a buff.

5. I are they need more HP, but making Con a bigger contribute just makes having HD completely redundant. Just remove HD if your going to do that.


@Dice:

1. I'm not saying that every bonus should be small but low level feats and low level class features must be of small magnitude. And if you don';t want them to become useless later on, (and thus have people see them as bad), they have to stack, even if their high level effect is limited. his is especially true with low level feats because people will just avoid them.

This is also why racial and domain bonuses are small. They cannot be powerful and balanced. So they're not powerful.


2. The problem is you proposed an incredibly restrictive system that lumps certain things together that shouldn't be. If I'm strong, have a super sharp weapon, and a class skill based around physical prowess i should get all 3, not be told pick one.

I'd also point out, (again), that of core's bonuses Deflection, Insight, Luck, Sacred, and Profane go virtually unused. You could consolidate them with little issue. Competence seems to exist for bards and Skill magic items only. Morale is for buffbot spells. Nearly everything else is Enhancement.

The system is chocking because although buffbots and bards can help you scale beyond your base capabilities, equipment does very little for you because it's all enhancement. So you get one +5 bonus, which may not even amount to much depending on base capabilities because the effect doesn't even scale with base equipment. At low levels a +1 is perfectly fine. At middish levels +5 is fine, by upper and max levels +5 is worthless. If magic stacked separately from mundane craftsmanship though and a scaling was in effect for item base power i see the scaling of equipment as largely solved.

For me it's about "does the system allow enough stacking to cover every base that needs to be covered". our initial system came off as way too restrictive on this kind of thing.

3. I don't have a problem with SoD's as low level clearers. That's how they should be IMHO. But the answer to making them such shouldn't be, "near on level almost always saves". It should be "only does damage against targets of greater than X HD regardless of save". I.e. it functions as a slightly weaker than normal blasty spell against on-level and a SoD against stuff you want it to be a low level clearer on. You don't need to inflate saves needlessly. Your 40% minimum implies a save so high on anyone with above minimum, (i.e. average or better), might as well not roll most of the time.

4. ll whut. Lets try an example hey. Frost Giant 18+1D20 attack rll for average 21 damage on CR9 with power attack. A fighter with a +6 con modifier would just break 100 HP's, still 5 hits average to kill. If you'd got a +6 Dex modifier and Mithril Chain and a +5 natural armour you could get him down to a 50% on his first attack and a 25% on his second. But your not going to have +5 Natural armour or a +6 Dex modifier, even +6 Con is stretching it at this level. In practise he'll probably be hitting with around 75% of his first, and 50% with his second. You die in 4 rounds if he doesn't roll above average or crit.

And you wan to make tha faster. Are you insane. 8 attack rolls is barely enough to keep RNG being the dominating factor. I'd want double that ideally. This is GW's problem, (and my biggest reason for considering most of their work bad hacks, not a comment against you, I'm unsure if you've considered that side of things), they are terrible at statistics to the pint RNG is over dominant too often. Sometimes it works out and it's fun in spite of that, (i'm looking at you Blood Bowl), but that's because those systems are very simple and have a whole slew of built in features that let you minimise the RNG to a degree. (Incidentally that's another reason i like simple systems, less places for a string of good rolls or bad rolls to interact in extreme ways).

RNG should of course be part of things. It's the spice that makes things go around, but it shouldn't dominate the outcome regularly, that's just frustrating for the player.

5. Sigh i realy anted to avoid an LOTR argument but here goes.

A) It's Anduril not Narsil that Aragorn has.

B) it's possible it's in a piece of extra material i haven't read but there's nothing i've read in the bits besides LOTR tha i do have that says it won't work fully for anyone But Aragorn, (i'm also not sure ghost touch is accurate but eh subjective). There is a piece in Fellowship where Galadriel gifts him a scabbard that means only he can draw it safely though.

C) Even if that is true that's not a scaling effect. That's an effect that will only work for the true owner. A much more common idea in fantasy. A scaling effect would it be providing a lesser form of ghost touch to a low level character and the full ghost touch to Aragorn.

Your example as given is not off a scaling effect it's that simple.

6. What i'm talking about is more a minimum acceptable length. Encounters just shouldn't be going on less than that for RNG reasons. Variances like you describe are for the monster manual and the DM to sort out by working together. If they want RNG decided encounters fine. Let the DM come up with something appropriate from the Monster Manual combined wit some cool fight mechanics. But we shouldn't be forcing that on everyone, and the current system is already dangerously close to this for martial vs monsters.

What we need to do is establish an average above that minimum though, that way variance either way is possible, it's much easier to move from a mid point to the extremes than from one extreme to the other.

7. I was talking about the fellowship in the context of a D&D campaign set in the LOTR world. By the standards of their world their Epic level. And if you honestly think bloodline dosen't matter in LOTR your deluded in the extreme. Aragorn provides the best examples with his first encounter with Emor, his mental Duel with Sauron, and his performance at the houses of healing. Though both The knights of Dol Armoth and Fammir provide further examples vs the ringwraiths terror effect during the run-up to the siege of minas tirith and the siege itself. The mightiest warriors and leaders of men are inevitably the greatest lords, and those who succeed them are inevitably lesser versions in their younger years. Hell we know from Frodo and the Morgul blade, or Bilbo, Frodo, and Gollum and the one ring that there's a certain kind of power in hobbits as well.

That's the whole point of much of the history of middile earth. It's not about force of arms or fancy trinkets but the power within each person and how they harness it. And they achieve often quite magical feats with it. It's just because it's not showy we forget that what they're doing is more than a mere mortal should be capable of.

7. Can't be done. Some settings, (especially high magic ones), have magic items all over the shop. Expecting those to not require players to keep improving their items is daft, it fails to fit the setting. And low magic ones probably shouldn't have a lot of the more showy stuff in them to start with. That's something for the DM and the players to sort out for themselves. What does need addressing is things like specific magic effects being built into items being a requirement. And that's mostly down to abusive spells. I'd also like to see a proper re-forging system so you can recycle stuff. Reforging older equipment is a very common theme, and very realistic too to some degree. Right now other than selling what you've got at a shop and putting it towards whatever you've no choice but to pay full price each time.

EDIT Didn't see Zitzi's last post as forum was down while i was writing so couldn;t check. But i think i covered most points so.

[Seerow]

1. I'm not saying that every bonus should be small but low level feats and low level class features must be of small magnitude. And if you don';t want them to become useless later on, (and thus have people see them as bad), they have to stack, even if their high level effect is limited. his is especially true with low level feats because people will just avoid them.

This is also why racial and domain bonuses are small. They cannot be powerful and balanced. So they're not powerful.

This thinking is fundamentally flawed. Bonuses on a d20 roll (ie to-hit bonuses, AC, Saves, Save DCs, Caster Level, SR, Skills, etc) are just as good at level 1 as level 20. A if a +3 bonus is balanced at level 20, it's also balanced at level 1. If a +1 bonus is worthless and not worth giving out at level 20, chances are it's worthless and not worth giving out at level 1.



2. The problem is you proposed an incredibly restrictive system that lumps certain things together that shouldn't be. If I'm strong, have a super sharp weapon, and a class skill based around physical prowess i should get all 3, not be told pick one.

Um all 3 of those things would stack with the consolidation PoD was suggesting. So... strawman?


The system is chocking because although buffbots and bards can help you scale beyond your base capabilities, equipment does very little for you because it's all enhancement. So you get one +5 bonus, which may not even amount to much depending on base capabilities because the effect doesn't even scale with base equipment. At low levels a +1 is perfectly fine. At middish levels +5 is fine, by upper and max levels +5 is worthless. If magic stacked separately from mundane craftsmanship though and a scaling was in effect for item base power i see the scaling of equipment as largely solved.

For me it's about "does the system allow enough stacking to cover every base that needs to be covered". our initial system came off as way too restrictive on this kind of thing.

See above re: bonuses at low and high levels. If you have your base numbers tuned correctly (ie the numbers from attributes and skill, the things all players should be scaling in automatically as they level) other bonuses can be more moderate and limited and still be balanced. You shouldn't need +20 to your AC from stacking buffs and magic gear, because your AC should already be in the right range from your skill and mundane gear. Anything else is gravy, and at that point getting an extra +20 is actually broken.


3. I don't have a problem with SoD's as low level clearers. That's how they should be IMHO. But the answer to making them such shouldn't be, "near on level almost always saves". It should be "only does damage against targets of greater than X HD regardless of save". I.e. it functions as a slightly weaker than normal blasty spell against on-level and a SoD against stuff you want it to be a low level clearer on. You don't need to inflate saves needlessly. Your 40% minimum implies a save so high on anyone with above minimum, (i.e. average or better), might as well not roll most of the time.

How many people are going to not have a bad save though? Remember, casters pick and choose which defense they want to hit. 40% isn't an unreasonable success rate for powerful debilitating effects.

Alternatively, I'll reference the system I brought up earlier, where you have a threshold, and all spells have to oppose that. Going that route means that if the target is higher level (has a better threshold) then even if the save is made there is a secondary defense against it to protect higher level characters, so you don't need saves quite as high to deal with it.


4. ll whut. Lets try an example hey. Frost Giant 18+1D20 attack rll for average 21 damage on CR9 with power attack. A fighter with a +6 con modifier would just break 100 HP's, still 5 hits average to kill. If you'd got a +6 Dex modifier and Mithril Chain and a +5 natural armour you could get him down to a 50% on his first attack and a 25% on his second. But your not going to have +5 Natural armour or a +6 Dex modifier, even +6 Con is stretching it at this level. In practise he'll probably be hitting with around 75% of his first, and 50% with his second. You die in 4 rounds if he doesn't roll above average or crit. *snip*

4 rounds sounds about right. Remember the big complaint with 4e is that combat lasts too long, and its tuned for roughly 6 combat rounds. 3-4 rounds of combat is pretty much where you want to be.

Honestly the bigger issue is that the giant may be able to take out the Fighter in 4 rounds, but the Giant probably isn't going to last 2 rounds against a full party of level 9s, despite his CR.



7. I was talking about the fellowship in the context of a D&D campaign set in the LOTR world. By the standards of their world their Epic level.

That doesn't mean that the characters are epic level though. In the context of a D&D campaign, they are level 5-7. It just so happens that in the LotR world, anything past level 3 epic.

[Carl]

1. No it's not./ If you have non-stacking you need a +6 or +8 or more bonus at higher levels to replicate the effect of the current several stack's. You can't hand out bonuses of that size a low levels because the floor is lower. a +8 bous t 1 BA is a hell of a lot more valuable, especially in light of the fact that in core minimum BAB is low teens and max is just barely over 30 without attack penalties.


2. He lumped all physical together. Those are physical.

3. Skill and mundane can only take you so far. Yo can't have skill scaling without limit, it's unrealistic. In other words your going to need all those equipment bonusus to keep up becuase your skill won;t let you go any furthar.

4. The point is he's saying 40% as a minimum. Most of the time where probably talking 30% or less, at that stage just drop saves alltogther and drop all spell effects so they function as if the target had passed the save. there's no point to a save system if it is mostly pointless dice rolling.

5. To be blunt a system sorted in 4 rounds is one where RNG matters more than player skill unless you build a setup for your character that minimises RNG. A system that does that is bad and frankly if asking you to make a couple of dozen attack rolls per encounter is too much for you then i can point you to plenty of good computer games that won;t require any hard work at all.

6. Seriouslly. go ge the books instead of whatching movies.

You low level mostly unamed captains might be 1-2 level adventurers. Your named lesser types might be 5-7. Your notable Captains and lesser leaders like the Knights of Dol Armoth, the Dundeiun ad the ilk would probably be 10 to the low teens. Then you've got the great captains and lesser kings like said Lord of the Knights or many of the Horse Marshels, or the like that would be into the mid teens. Then you've got the great and notables. and their kin. Boromir Denthor, Faramir, Gimli, Legolas, Theoden, Probably Eyowen and Emor would go here, and would be at around 20 or more, (you could i guess on that make an argument for some of the fellowship to be slightly under epics). Then you've got individuals like Aragorn, Gandalf, Sauron, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, et.c. who ae in varying epic levels.

There's a distinct and major difference in martial prowess, leadership skills, and wisdom between each of those tiers. You need the full 20 levels and more to represent that in D&D with martial types.

[Seerow]

1. No it's not./ If you have non-stacking you need a +6 or +8 or more bonus at higher levels to replicate the effect of the current several stack's. You can't hand out bonuses of that size a low levels because the floor is lower. a +8 bous t 1 BA is a hell of a lot more valuable, especially in light of the fact that in core minimum BAB is low teens and max is just barely over 30 without attack penalties.

This doesn't even make sense. A +X bonus on the RNG means exactly the same regardless of level.

If at low level the baseline is a +5, you're assumed to have a 60% success rate, and you get a +1, you've shifted that success rate to 65%.

At high level, your baseline is up to +35, the assumed success rate is still 60%, so a +1 bonus takes you to 65%. The +1 bonus meant the same amount.

The only time low bonuses become negligible is in a system like 3.5 where the expected values are not set well, and you have values ranging a wide spectrum within a single level, which usually comes about as a result of the very large bonuses you are talking about. You are causing the problem that you want solved.


2. He lumped all physical together. Those are physical.

Uh, where did he say that? Because this is what I saw:


There are now four bonus types. Bonuses from your biology and permanent magic (racial bonuses, stat bonuses, natural dodge bonuses, wishes, etc.) are now all inherent bonuses. Bonuses from training or knowledge (such as class-based bonuses, divination bonuses, etc.) are insight bonuses. Bonuses from equipment are now equipment bonuses (shields grant cover now, and natural armor counts as armor). Bonuses from magic that don't fit into the above three categories are now all enhancement bonuses. Untyped circumstance bonuses still exist, but in general stacking is reined in.

He later clarified that he intended for actual skill/training (ie BAB/skill ranks) to be separate from Insight. He never mentioned attributes, but I assumed it was a given that attribute bonuses stack with everything (if I am incorrect in this assumption please correct me PoD). So you have super strong, equipment, and skill all stacking separately.

I have no idea where you are getting that they would all overlap.


3. Skill and mundane can only take you so far. Yo can't have skill scaling without limit, it's unrealistic. In other words your going to need all those equipment bonusus to keep up becuase your skill won;t let you go any furthar.

D&D isn't realistic. Anyway, are you saying that BAB and Skill ranks are unrealistic because they allow a big bonus? Are you saying it would be unreasonable to see characters get higher stats automatically as they level rather than come from magic items?



5. To be blunt a system sorted in 4 rounds is one where RNG matters more than player skill unless you build a setup for your character that minimises RNG. A system that does that is bad and frankly if asking you to make a couple of dozen attack rolls per encounter is too much for you then i can point you to plenty of good computer games that won;t require any hard work at all.

I'm just pointing out a very real and common complaint with another system. Trying to make the average combat last even longer is going to draw even more complaints.


6. Seriouslly. go ge the books instead of whatching movies.

You low level mostly unamed captains might be 1-2 level adventurers. Your named lesser types might be 5-7. Your notable Captains and lesser leaders like the Knights of Dol Armoth, the Dundeiun ad the ilk would probably be 10 to the low teens. Then you've got the great captains and lesser kings like said Lord of the Knights or many of the Horse Marshels, or the like that would be into the mid teens. Then you've got the great and notables. and their kin. Boromir Denthor, Faramir, Gimli, Legolas, Theoden, Probably Eyowen and Emor would go here, and would be at around 20 or more, (you could i guess on that make an argument for some of the fellowship to be slightly under epics). Then you've got individuals like Aragorn, Gandalf, Sauron, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, et.c. who ae in varying epic levels.

There's a distinct and major difference in martial prowess, leadership skills, and wisdom between each of those tiers. You need the full 20 levels and more to represent that in D&D with martial types.

1) Cute that you assume I've only watched the movies because I don't buy into your idea that LotR characters would be epic level in D&D.

2) You don't need the full 20 levels to represent them. Everything the characters actually -do- is represented by a low-mid level D&D character. Seriously take the most skilled and powerful characters from LotR and throw them up against a level 10 D&D Wizard, and they die in a horrible and magnificent way. High level D&D characters are far beyond anything that gets accomplished in the LotR series.

[Yitzi]

2. Your not getting it. Monsters aren't matching lv20 spells on a full attack. Their matching or exceeding it on every attack, and from not exactly low levels either. Unless your willing to boost AC so high only 1 average attack out of a full attack will hit and add on DR10 minimum as a basic class feature of all mid to high level martial types you are not going to bring it down in line.

Firstly, I don't really see that; even a Tarrasque's attack (assuming not a full attack) is comparable to the damage a level 20 Delayed Blast Fireball (not exactly considered one of the strongest spells) does on a successful save. So I'm not sure what you're talking about (as in straight damage the Tarrasque is pretty much the best there is before epic CRs), unless you're looking at monster SLAs (which would be automatically nerfed with spells).

And even so, modifying monsters could also be an option if necessary.


The Alternative is to gon in and nerf every spell and monster.

Which is probably necessary anyway, though not every monster needs nerfing (some are balanced, and non-Core can be simply discarded if they're too hard), and among spells a few general nerfs of various types will cover most of them.


Or to boost martial class damage outputs and reform the HP system to a more valid system. I prefer the latter as it's the simplest in my mind, at least in principle.

That depends on how it's done. Personally, I think that the best approach will involve some of each category.


3. Again, we aren't concerned with just fighters vs casters duel, we've got to worry about the monsters. Giving fighters better defences involves AC's half again as good as now minimum

Hardly; if fighters' non-touch ACs were 10 points lower than they can now be pumped by stacking bonuses, and their touch ACs were comparable to that, that would be plenty.


and DR 10 by the mid teens on everyone.

Doable with armor, but probably not necessary, as monsters really don't do that much damage per hit.


What i'm proposing won't result in shorter encounters, but it also won;t involve rendering most of a full attack a waste or handing out DR as a standard feature.

It will, however, make things into a more attrition-based battle with both sides taking hits often, which is not how I envision happening when a master swordsman fights a house-sized (but perhaps not all that bright) monster.


4. Did you even pay attention to what you quoted:smallconfused:, the problem right now is that everyone, barbarians are getting too much HP from con not too little.

How's that? A barbarian needs 24 CON to double his HP from CON contribution, whereas a wizard only needs 16 for the same proportional benefit.


5. I are they need more HP, but making Con a bigger contribute just makes having HD completely redundant. Just remove HD if your going to do that.

If your HD also determines the amount that CON contributes, then it's not redundant at all; on the contrary, my proposal would increase the (proportional) discrepancy between a wizard's hit points and a fighter's at the same CON.


Your 40% minimum implies a save so high on anyone with above minimum, (i.e. average or better), might as well not roll most of the time.

Again, you're assuming that a target's good save would be targeted more than very rarely. But why would you do that, if you're a caster (hence versatility)?

[Carl]

@Seerow:

1. Okay several points here now i've lined up a few more brain cells.

You also can't have fixed base. Sorry. Different monsters are different. Deal with it. a similar thing applies to classes. No one's going to scale the same in every area and that's going to mean some need big bonuses to hurt whilst other could be hurt badly with minimal scaling.

The latter point means a +5% isn't worth the same against any two monsters or classes. when you miss chance is 90% a 5% bonus doubles the number of hit. But when it's 50% it's only a slight reduction. It might mean the same raw number change but it's value is distinctly different, and what's needed to make a useful difference. Dice is right, a modifier that makes no meaningful difference is non-ideal. They're just unavoidable to a degree.

2.Okay i've no idea what i was thinking of, must have been something else someone else wrote that's a bit fairer though not perfect IMO.

3. I didn't say some scaling with level is unrealistic. But what your suggesting would trivialise equipment and skills at higher levels because you'd have such well scaled damage and AC and attack that a meagre +5 attack, +5 damage, and +X (1-10) AC wouldn't amount to a whole lot in real terms because the base would be so high that you'd be hitting a modest number of attacks for moderate damage and only being hit by a majority of attacks even stark naked with a rusty sword.

You might not win a fight like that but it won't leave you nearly totally helpless as not having good equipment to match your skill should. There's a difference between reasonable scaling and unreasonable in my book. And not having to have good updated equipment.

4. The key here is keeping the book-keeping down and minimising the number of stages so the fewest dice possibble to meet the statstics side of things are involved. Straight bonusus to things help here because it's basic math you can achive the same effect as extra dice with less rolling.

5. Most people who make that kind of comment have never read them. You might want to refresh yourself if you haven't read them in a while.

6. I'd point out that numerous individuals where clearly capable of making their saves vs the ringwraiths fear affects, and the hobbits showed similar vs the Morgul blade, (well frodo there), and the one ring. Aragorn displayed several non-mundane moments too, and lets not get into the silmarillion and some of the elves there. I'd also point out that your comment is strictly true vs any martial class in D&D without a ton of specific items, regardless of level, 10th level wizards can fly and wind wall long enough and have enough damage spells to just blast characters away, saves be dammed if they're built right and bedecked. Tghough is suspect he couldn't cast spells in practise there :smalltongue:.

And all that still doesn't change a level 5-7 fellowship being impossible as it dosen't provide them with enough or a martial edge of the lesser captains and leaders of men below them, and the lesser below them and so on and so forth. You need a minimum of 20 levels for that range of power because a couple of levels aren't that huge if your not bedecked in magic stuff.

@Yitzi:

1. I was going to say try a Storm Giant, or a Frost Giant Jarl, (CR13 and 17), or a Pit Fiend, they're both pulling mid 30's or better per blow.A balor provides a version with less damage per attack but more attacks. But...

PESUDO EDIT:Oh Wait. Gah it's ok you can slap me now, wrote tha and then realised my maths suck. I really shouldn't post just before bed or after i get up. Ok thats a fairer point. But they still pack very high attack rolls and high damage and their total output potentiol is still way above the 70 of an average 20D6 spell. An Empowered could work but thats still only barely a hundred which is within reach for some of those. It's niot quite as bad as i made out, (gah need sleep). And yes i'm royally kicking myself now for putting foot in mouth, enjoy a chuckle :smallsigh:.



Which is probably necessary anyway, though not every monster needs nerfing (some are balanced, and non-Core can be simply discarded if they're too hard), and among spells a few general nerfs of various types will cover most of them.

2. I'm not saying some re-balancing would be bad. Just that i think there some semblance of balance between spellcasters and mosters right now and bringing martial upto that first is better than trying to bring 2 others down, less ways for things to go wrong, in theory.

3.I'd agree btw that some degree of all will be required, but the starting point should be martial class boosting imo.

4. 10 points lower? You didn't miss type did you. Honestly they need more not less. hey scale up to the low 20's and then just stop right now without class features whilst monsters continue to scale into the 30's and higher. with current AC's any NPC with class levels over the 10 BAB range can come awfully close to matching that AC on average atack rolls with just minor magic and ability score modifiers. I agree touch AC needs to be higher though.
In fact this whole imbalance between Martial Clss AC and Martial class BAB is why i think they need equipment buffs, and the monster base damage is why i think they need equipment damage buffs.

5. The main problem is that at 35 damage per hit even a +6 con modifier fighter will only last a few rounds, (7 his against an average 20 fighter). That's not a lot, 10DR would be needed to make a real difference and i'm hesitant about adding such a powerful, and obviously meant to be semi rare , mechaic to equipment so readily.

6. Think of it as inflicting deep flesh wounds, their debilitating, but not fatal, enough of them though can wear the opponent down for a finishing attack to end the fight. After all almost nothing can survive even one serious injury and keep fighting, at least amongst the conventional opponents.

I agree it's not ideal though on that score. It's a balancing act.

7. My point is it encourages people to focus on maximising con score, it's already outrageously potent.

8. Yeah but you could juat have HP = Con score, (not modifier), 8 X amount, (Say 0.5 for D5, 1 for D6, 1.5 for D8, 2 for D10, and 2.5 for D12). Works just as well and no messy HD, except that it makes con a must boost stats on a hideous level.

9. The point is a 40% minimum implies a higher average. SO that means a weak save is probably only barely below that 20% and a strong save is a near auto pass. Thats close to the point we agree'd was getting wasteful of having a save system.

ok i have to sleep before i write anything more, getting really blotchy concentration wise, failed 2 check in quick succession there.

[Seerow]

You also can't have fixed base. Sorry. Different monsters are different. Deal with it. a similar thing applies to classes. No one's going to scale the same in every area and that's going to mean some need big bonuses to hurt whilst other could be hurt badly with minimal scaling.

Fixed? No. But you can have an average. Indeed, for the system to be coherent in the least, you need to have an expected average.

3.5's major failing is that you could have a level 20 character whose AC ranged anywhere from 10 to over 100, depending on investments. This is a weakness of the system, not a strength. Having that huge of a variation is not inevitable. The result of having such a system is having a ton of enemies who are impossible to interact with at one extreme or the other. And it's that sort of stupidness that has WotC focused on their stupid bounded accuracy idea.


3. I didn't say some scaling with level is unrealistic. But what your suggesting would trivialise equipment and skills at higher levels because you'd have such well scaled damage and AC and attack that a meagre +5 attack, +5 damage, and +X (1-10) AC wouldn't amount to a whole lot in real terms because the base would be so high that you'd be hitting a modest number of attacks for moderate damage and only being hit by a majority of attacks even stark naked with a rusty sword.


If you have +25-35 to attack coming from skill + stats+mundane gear, and 35-45 AC coming from skill+stats+mundane gear, you don't need every bonus to be +8 to be worthwhile. A +3-4 bonus on either side makes a significant difference in the RNG. On the other hand a +10 bonus will bring you completely out of the RNG for anyone who doesn't have a similar bonus on the other side, which is bad. Because that's where you start getting into assumed magic items and treadmill issues where it really isn't needed.


4. The key here is keeping the book-keeping down and minimising the number of stages so the fewest dice possibble to meet the statstics side of things are involved. Straight bonusus to things help here because it's basic math you can achive the same effect as extra dice with less rolling.


I don't even know what you're trying to say here. It seems like you're trying to say you should have a bunch of big bonuses to reduce variation so character power and player skill mean more than RNG. What I don't get is why this results in you thinking 8+ round combats is a good idea.


5. Most people who make that kind of comment have never read them. You might want to refresh yourself if you haven't read them in a while.

6. I'd point out that numerous individuals where clearly capable of making their saves vs the ringwraiths fear affects, and the hobbits showed similar vs the Morgul blade, (well frodo there), and the one ring. Aragorn displayed several non-mundane moments too, and lets not get into the silmarillion and some of the elves there. I'd also point out that your comment is strictly true vs any martial class in D&D without a ton of specific items, regardless of level, 10th level wizards can fly and wind wall long enough and have enough damage spells to just blast characters away, saves be dammed if they're built right and bedecked. Tghough is suspect he couldn't cast spells in practise there .

Resisting a fear effect isn't an inherent sign of very high level. It could be something as simple as race/bloodline providing a bonus to such effects. It could be that the fear effect only affects enemies of 3hd and below, or only grants saves to those above that hd limit (many spell effects have similar requirements).

You're right that casters dominate non-casters in D&D. The point of this thread is how to make that not true. But the caster shows the power level that a high level character should be at in a D&D campaign. And LotR doesn't match that. If LotR was a high level D&D campaign the armies of orcs wouldn't be a threat that anyone was legitimately worried about.



And all that still doesn't change a level 5-7 fellowship being impossible as it dosen't provide them with enough or a martial edge of the lesser captains and leaders of men below them, and the lesser below them and so on and so forth. You need a minimum of 20 levels for that range of power because a couple of levels aren't that huge if your not bedecked in magic stuff.


It gives plenty of room for edge. You're trying to assume there's several levels of difference between each, rather than just one. Or possibly even none. It's entirely plausible that the people who weren't in the party were almost all NPC classes. Which means simply having a couple of levels in an actual class provides a significant edge.

[lesser_minion]

The latter point means a +5% isn't worth the same against any two monsters or classes. when you miss chance is 90% a 5% bonus doubles the number of hit. But when it's 50% it's only a slight reduction. It might mean the same raw number change but it's value is distinctly different, and what's needed to make a useful difference. Dice is right, a modifier that makes no meaningful difference is non-ideal. They're just unavoidable to a degree.

No. The only reasonable way to interpret a +1 bonus to a particular check is "on one in every 20 of these checks I make, I succeed where I'd have failed otherwise".

The value of a +1 bonus does increase in the case of AC and attack rolls, but that's because there are more attacks flying around at higher levels.

It isn't factually wrong to say that when you need a 20 to hit, a +1 to hit effectively doubles your damage output. But it's bad statistics. Doubling your damage output sounds massive, but if you're hitting on a 20, it's very unlikely that your damage output is anything besides laughable. Twice laughable is still laughable.

The same applies to AC. If your opponent needs a 19 - 20 to hit you, a +1 to AC doubles your effective hit points. ZOMG overpowered, right? No. If your opponent needs a 19 - 20 to hit you, your number of hit points is almost certainly going to be "more than enough", and twice "more than enough" is still "more than enough".

Don't confuse how people with an agenda present statistics with how statistics should actually be presented.

[Ziegander]

Don't confuse how people with an agenda present statistics with how statistics should actually be presented.

Quote of the day.

[TuggyNE]

Don't confuse how people with an agenda present statistics with how statistics should actually be presented.

I think I'm gonna stuff this in my quotebox! :smallcool:

[Carl]

Don't confuse how people with an agenda present statistics with how statistics should actually be presented.

I presented them properly. If you can't work out for yourself what an extreme like that means you shouldn't be discussing statistics. *shrug*. I actually expect you to use your brain thanking you.

The point is a small bonus is more valuable the closer you are to one extreme or the other. Only if your already needing an extreme result will it be a significant bonus. The more you move away from a 10 the more valuable a +1 becomes. If you stick close to a base 10 as your suggesting it's going to be that much less valuable to the point where a +1 may not mater sufficiently to be worth keeping, only by stacking a few of them together can you get a significant difference.


@Seerow:

1. Except as i already pointed out, even slight variances from an average produce significant effects, especially as you get away from a couple of point difference. Your going to need a very limited range on all stats to do that, (so you can avoid the more extreme ends of he scale), and that may not be enough to create a wide range of varying capability monsters at each level.

2. You completely missed the point. If we take an average of 10 on to hit for both sides. Removing armour reduces increases the incoming hit rate from 50% to between 45% and 10%, depending on dex and base armour. That's between 11% and a 500% increase in damage. With the scalars making 250% or lower multiplier commoner, and for non-heavy armour users that's going to work out towards the better end of the scale. A similar thing applies on attack rolls. If a base chance of 50% a loss of a +5 still only cuts your hit chances in half. Scaling damae would be even worse i should think.

Lke i said your not going to win. But given your still hitting one in four attacks and, (unless you've got a really abysmal dex), evading a few attacks and still doing modest damage. Instead of being a helpless target your actually still at least vaguely competent. In fact if they have a high enough Dex modifier it's even worse because the intake in damage increase might only be 25% or so.

Like i said it trivialises the equipment because it's not an equal part contributer to your capabilities. It's a fairly modest conributer, and depending on dex modifier, may not even be relevant as far as armour goes. Damage also doesn't sound like it would be too relevant. The only really harsh negative then would be the hit rate loss. And thats all with just stripping him instead of downgrading to lesser quality equipment which would have a much less harsh effect.

The point is a character should not, (monk like classes aside obviously), feel like they're still at least semi effective at higher levels once you strip away all that magical equipment. Having to acquire high powered equipment should feel like it actually matters, instead of being a nice extra.

3. Sigh, you wade in on a statistics thing then show you don't understand it.

Every time you roll a die the result is totally random. But across an indefinitely large sample size you will theoretically see the actual roll average out. The smaller the number of rolls in any one group the greater the statistical deviation from that average will be. For a TT game like D&D you want some randomness and my experience with GW leads me to believe 8 rolls is the minimum desirable. a dozen plus is much better. Wizards can only force 2 saves a round as they max 2 spells a round so they need 4 rounds to hit that. Higher level martial types aren't so bad, across a half a dozen rounds they can throw down 24 attack roll if they're making full attacks.

[eftexar]

Trivializing magic equipment? Why should a class need magic equipment to do it's job? Why is that a mundane is forced to rely on magic created by magic users, but none of the magic users actually need them themselves?
The current D&D equipment system leads to a Christmas tree of repetitive items instead of unique artifacts. So the equipment is already trivialized and rather annoying in fact.
Making class independent of items does exactly the opposite of what you say. In fact doing so means that you can provide items with back stories and even intelligent items. It enriches game play.
Besides, think about it. If you fail at your job 50% of the time your boss is going to fire you because, lets face it, you stink. Likewise if a mundane can't even fight in antimagic then it would be easier to go hire a wizard to figure out how to circumvent antimagic instead.

And while your mathematics are sound you are seemingly using them to support too much randomness. D&D is not gambling and while there should be an element of randomness, it shouldn't be completely random.
Funnily enough, even though your mathematics are very sound, you are applying them in an abstract way. D&D is built with a system of checks and balances that you aren't factoring in. And even if you are, spellcaster's have truestrike which is a what % in damage increase by your logic?
A well rounded character should succeed four-fifths of the time on what they are supposed to be good at, maybe half at a few things they don't excel at but don't quite stink at either, and less with all others. Fantasy is built with characters like this. Gimli didn't need a magic weapon to take down freakin mammoths, how about Conan or Hercules, and even Link was rather awesome even when he didn't use magic.

[Carl]

Trivializing magic equipment? Why should a class need magic equipment to do it's job? Why is that a mundane is forced to rely on magic created by magic users, but none of the magic users actually need them themselves?

When i say magic equipment i'm also lumping things like superbly well crafted mundane items in with them.

The point is mr big dumb fighter, (j/k okay), should have to get equipment appropriate to his personal power. He shouldn't be able to take on a dragon with no armour and a rusty sword and still be vaguely effective. But a system that scales you mostly off level and only marginally off equipment allows precisely that.

Also my point with randomness is we don't want the extremes to be common on a per encounter basis. Statistical divination dictates you need to keep the dice rolling above a certain point so as to do that. But not so high random is irrelevant. It's a balance and a 4 round combat is dangerously close to one extreme.

[Seerow]

When i say magic equipment i'm also lumping things like superbly well crafted mundane items in with them.

The point is mr big dumb fighter, (j/k okay), should have to get equipment appropriate to his personal power. He shouldn't be able to take on a dragon with no armour and a rusty sword and still be vaguely effective. But a system that scales you mostly off level and only marginally off equipment allows precisely that.

Why shouldn't he?

No, seriously. Give one reason why a high level fighter should need a christmas tree of magic items to take down a dragon. Wizards certainly don't need any such handicap.

[Carl]

Why shouldn't he?

Common sense. End of argument.

Also i'm pretty sure i and many others have stated wizards should need equipment just as much as martial classes.

[Greenish]

Give one reason why a high level fighter should need a christmas tree of magic items to take down a dragon.Because realistically, you'd need magic items to kill dragons, and D&D is all about realism.

[Seerow]

Common sense. End of argument.

Also i'm pretty sure i and many others have stated wizards should need equipment just as much as martial classes.

So if your opinion is actually that mundanes should need to be decked out in a full suite of magic items to be remotely effective at their level... why are you bothering to post in this thread?

[Flickerdart]

I must object against the suggestion that Hercules is a 16th+ level character. With the exception of the 9-headed hydra, everything he fought was in the CR3-4 range. The only actually impressive things he did were diverting a river and holding up the sky, one of which can be done with lots of Profession (Miner) checks and the other is not really quantifiable.

[Carl]

There a differance between having to walk around in a suit of +5 masterwork armour with a +5 masterwork sword, (with maybe enchantments), And needing that plus 50 different extra doohicys with various "active effects" just to keep up rather poorly with a magic user.

The first is a reasonable level to handle willing suspension of disbelief, (yes i got the sarcasm greenish, it's just that certain established no weapons and armour types, (hello monk class), aside it's hard to accept on a believability level).

The latter is the stupidity and brokeness we have now.

[Greenish]

Took you right out of the story when Bard killed Smaug without a +5 composite longbow of Dragonslaying, did it?

[eftexar]

And we all know how it went when our fair maiden overcame the Witch King's DR/♀ and struck him with her "I am no man" +10d6. He overcame her assault with Baffling Defense and then his Felbeast grew it's head back because she didn't use a magical weapon. No..., that isn't how it went?

edit: Point taken Flickerdart. I was really just throwing out some examples. But my point with some of the others, especially Gimli, still stands.

[Carl]

Took you right out of the story when Bard killed Smaug without a +5 composite longbow of Dragonslaying, did it?

He still had an extremly good bow and he refferances the arrow as special. it's certainly not magical but it's absolutely a highly crafted weapon by the standards of the era not the bow equivalent of the rusty sword. Not to mention he required exact knowledge of Smaug's weakpoint and the right opportunity to use it. It's the equivelent of rolling a natural 20.

The Witch king example is just as bad. Merry's blade is explicitly noted to have undone the Witch kings protections. He was actually protected till merry hit him with a dispelling sword trip attack that left him open to a coup de grace.

There's also the additional complication that it's the case with great lords, (often those with elvish blood, but Beron is an excellent example of someone who isn't from numenor who fits the point, and all hobbits appear to have something too), that they're rather different to normal men to the point of being innately beyond the mundane.

Which comes back round to the whole point of martial classes that are innately magical in D&D terms. Frankly i'm fed up of going in circles.

[Ziegander]

Anyway, moving past the "little bonuses + superior equipment vs large bonuses + relevant abilities" argument, at least for the time being, I want to now do an interest check. In this thread we have explored TWO possible solutions. I am currently exploring the second solution which was to rewrite the fighter (specifically in this case, the Warblade) to varying degrees of success. I'm liking it very much so far as it lets me use A LOT of the material I've written but left unused in the past and puts everything together into one cohesive whole. It has a satisfyingly wide berth of power level and can be optimized in many different directions.

Would anyone be interested to read about my exploration into the first possible solution? I am considering posting a thread, or more likely a series of threads over the course of the coming months, in which I "Rewrite Reality," so to speak. I would first break the d20SRD up into parts, analyze them, take inventory of broken and/or problem areas, and then propose changes and solutions. Eventually I would put it all back together and create a hopefully better revised and/or new game. I ask if anyone would be interested because I have tried starting such threads before with little if any community interest in the project. If nobody else is interested I will quickly lose interest and the project will fade into obscurity.

[Carl]

I'd be glad to listen, i may or may not agree, but different points of view are still interesting because there's rarely anything i disagree with totally.

[nonsi]

Anyway, moving past the "little bonuses + superior equipment vs large bonuses + relevant abilities" argument, at least for the time being, I want to now do an interest check. In this thread we have explored TWO possible solutions. I am currently exploring the second solution which was to rewrite the fighter (specifically in this case, the Warblade) to varying degrees of success. I'm liking it very much so far as it lets me use A LOT of the material I've written but left unused in the past and puts everything together into one cohesive whole. It has a satisfyingly wide berth of power level and can be optimized in many different directions.

Would anyone be interested to read about my exploration into the first possible solution? I am considering posting a thread, or more likely a series of threads over the course of the coming months, in which I "Rewrite Reality," so to speak. I would first break the d20SRD up into parts, analyze them, take inventory of broken and/or problem areas, and then propose changes and solutions. Eventually I would put it all back together and create a hopefully better revised and/or new game. I ask if anyone would be interested because I have tried starting such threads before with little if any community interest in the project. If nobody else is interested I will quickly lose interest and the project will fade into obscurity.

Count me interested.
My time is a bit pressing lately, but I'll try to keep up, and if I find anything of value to contribute, I'll share my thoughts.
In the meantime, feel free to pillage my codex and my sig of anything you find appropriate - as is or just for inspiration.

[Morty]

I would be interested in following this sort of thing. I don't really play 3rd edition D&D anymore, but I have some ideas. Mind you, my ideas for making 3rd editoon D&D a better game are probably more extreme than those of others.

[Just to Browse]

I would be more than willing to participate in a "Rewrite Reality" project. I love complaining about the SRD. The biggest problem I'd see is not in finding broken stuff, but how to fix it. You could get a lot of dissenting opinions on whether fear should be the only stacking category or what conditions are equivalent or whether armor should go to AC or DR, etc.