PDA

View Full Version : Scaling Fighter Feats: Know Any Good Ones? Any Advice for Making Them?



wayfare
2013-12-23, 05:39 PM
Hey All:

Just wondering if anybody has a list of good homebrewed Scaling fighter feats? The kind that get better with level or BA. I am thinking of doing a project involving these kinds of feats, and I could use good examples or any suggestions people might have for making some!

Thanks for taking a look!

ngilop
2013-12-23, 06:47 PM
Frank and K have feats for their Tome of War stuff

Belial has his own Quadratic Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310516)

I have my own scaling fighter feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268577)

Amechra has her own as well, but dang if i cannot find them POW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14309736&postcount=3) found them yaay i went up a level in search-fu master!!!

those are IMO ( maybe a bit partial in regards to my own) the best scaling feats ive come across in GiTP.

johnbragg
2013-12-23, 06:51 PM
My concern with scaling feats is the weird power-jumps when you start them at high level.

Let's imagine the feat Awesome Armor Class, which boosts AC by BAB. Barbarian 12 takes the feat, and his AC jumps by 12?

I think the game design is that scaling is accomplished by paying the feat tax for Improved XXX, Greater XXX, Perfect XXX every 4-6 levels.

Seerow
2013-12-23, 06:54 PM
My concern with scaling feats is the weird power-jumps when you start them at high level.

Let's imagine the feat Awesome Armor Class, which boosts AC by BAB. Barbarian 12 takes the feat, and his AC jumps by 12?


Let's imagine the Wizard decides to pick up the spell "Polymorph". Wizard takes the spell, and suddenly his AC jumps by 20-30, AND he gains a bunch of other stuff? And he did this 3 levels earlier than the barbarian?

Nerf Barbarians. No mundanes are allowed to get level appropriate bonuses with their resources.

Blood_caller
2013-12-23, 06:54 PM
Here is my favorite D&D 3,+ which have alot of scaling feats.

And its not just base attack the feats scale on some scales with HD, some with skill ranks in a specific skill, some with caster level and offcourse some with base attack.

Scaling Feat list on dnd-wiki.org (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/3.5e_Scaling_Feats)

IamL
2013-12-23, 07:12 PM
Let's imagine the Wizard decides to pick up the spell "Polymorph". Wizard takes the spell, and suddenly his AC jumps by 20-30, AND he gains a bunch of other stuff? And he did this 3 levels earlier than the barbarian?

Nerf Barbarians. No mundanes are allowed to get level appropriate bonuses with their resources.

That moment I wish these forums had a "Like" button...

johnbragg
2013-12-23, 07:28 PM
Let's imagine the Wizard decides to pick up the spell "Polymorph". Wizard takes the spell, and suddenly his AC jumps by 20-30, AND he gains a bunch of other stuff?

And most of us say "That's overpowered."


And he did this 3 levels earlier than the barbarian?

Nerf Barbarians. No mundanes are allowed to get level appropriate bonuses with their resources.

Well, there's mundanes vs casters, and fighters vs other mundanes. Feat taxes are the only comparative advantage fighters have.

Conceivably, giving the Fighter bonus feats every level, and creating a few feat chains worth paying a feat tax for could lift the Fighter out of Tier 5.

But following that path keeps the Tier 4 fighting classes stuck in Tier 4, still watching the casters dominate the game.

ngilop
2013-12-23, 07:40 PM
Uhm.. so the fighter cannot have nice things because caster already get nice things and fighter get bonus feats?


that makes no sense to me.


but then again there is no way a mundane class is ever going to be able to do such things as GATE, or shapechange, or planeshift, or animate dead or anything like that.

( note I do have time stop as a feat for mundanes)


SO trying to balance mundanes up to the levels where they rewrite the rules of the universe is beyond poinltess to me, because then you don;t have casters and mundane you have casters and casters posing as mundanes but really they are casting spells.

im fine wth mundanes being in the 'tier' 3 to 'tier'4 range and as long as the player is not a jerk, casters being in the 'tier' 1 and 'tier' 2 slots don't break the game open.

Just to Browse
2013-12-23, 07:58 PM
The Races of War (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Warriors_with_Style#The_Failure_of_Feats) section called The Failure of Feats is what ngilop mentioned.

Seerow
2013-12-23, 07:59 PM
And most of us say "That's overpowered."

Replace Polymorph with any of a dozen other spells. The Wizard doesn't have to spend 10 spells to get a 10d6 fireball. If he takes Fireball at level 10, it starts at 10d6.




Well, there's mundanes vs casters, and fighters vs other mundanes. Feat taxes are the only comparative advantage fighters have.

...what.

No. That is the sort of thinking that gets us all of the atrocious martial prestige classes out there ("We need to design this for the fighter, so let's make it require 5 feats that nobody in their right mind would ever take!").

If you made every feat worthwhile, the Fighter's competitive advantage is having more level appropriate abilities. Think of it this way, if every feat translated to a spell cast by a Wizard 2 levels lower than you, but at will, a 20th level Fighter would have 18 9th level spells, while everyone else only has 6. The raw power of having those 11 extra very powerful abilities makes it worthwhile.


The problem is when you spend 3-4 of your 11 bonus feats on utter crap to get a single ability that is appropriate for the earliest level you can get it. A fighter has 5 feats by level 4, so a feat chain balanced around taking 5 feats is going to be balanced for the power level of a 4th level character. Now at level 20 your 18 feats translate into 4 tricks that a 4th level character might like to have.

Unless you have scaling feats, following the design you advocate, your options are make various feat chains with different BAB requisites (in which case now your fighter has 1 high level trick, two mid level tricks, and 1 low level trick), or go the route 3.5 did and just make a bunch of feat chains anyone can take and the fighter has around 4 low level tricks. If he's lucky these tricks might synergize into something more useful than the sum of the parts, but most likely not.







Now all of that said, I don't think anything that affects the RNG actually needs to scale. +1 to hit or AC feats are bogus and should be +3 or so at minimum just to be noticeable, but they don't need to scale between first level and 20th to remain useful as long as the rest of the RNG stays somewhat together (it doesn't in 3.5, but that's a whole different issue). But any sort of combat tricks you invest in should remain relevant as you level (ie someone who takes Improved Bullrush should get the non-PA shock trooper benefits for free. Should get Knockback for free. Should probably get something akin to the Brutal Surge magic enhancement and dungeoncrasher. etc); any damage bonuses you get should scale to be a similar return on your investment at all levels, same for damage reduction, fast healing, mobility... basically anything that's not directly affecting the RNG should be scaling.



At least assuming you want feats to do anything along those lines. In D&D 3.5 it's obvious that yes, yes you do want feats to do those things. Mainly because you've been given a class where those feats are the only thing the character gets, and there's precedent for those kinds of abilities, even if the gimped form feats give them in is crap.

In my spare time, I've been cobbling together my own system on and off, and decided feats in that incarnation just weren't worth it. Characters have access to abilities through their class that let them do cool new stuff that is level appropriate. So you want to spring attack? Your class should have access to an ability to let you do that. There is no universal feat list to pull active abilities off of. Stuff like Wizard metamagic becomes either class features or extra spells (So for example Maximize might be a spell that requires a 3rd level spell slot, letting you burn a slot on it to maximize your next spell cast). So feats in their 3.5 incarnation simply aren't needed.

There's still room for a minor customization subsystem for stuff like lightning reflexes, skill focus, etc (all those things that are considered crap feats because they provide tiny bonuses, but aren't meaningful like Power Attack/Shock Trooper or Dragonfire Inspiration and other such powerful feats), but removing the name "feat" from those (as well as the normal progression) I think is necessary to avoid the baggage that comes with it.

Tell someone they get a feat every 3 levels, they're going to expect awesome stuff even if there's no reason to (see: 4e feats). Give someone a "talent" every 2 levels, and people are going to assume they're feats, and expect the same thing, even if there's no other similarity (see: several other systems. I think one of the star wars d20 ones qualifies). So the trick is sneaking in the minor bonuses in such a way that people are happy to get them and not just upset that they didn't get what they always felt feats should be

ngilop
2013-12-23, 08:52 PM
in regards to seerow's tangent Thats what it was in pre-3rd ed, they had for example a 3rd level spell that increases teh duration of your next spell or extends the range etc.
while combat expertise, power attack, srping attack were availe to any and everybody, and fighters got weapon focsu line ( and better)

why they made them feats really made no sense to me, other thna the whoel F THE FIGHTER casters only get d4 HP and no full BaB so they need everything and the kicthen sink for a balanced compromise.

I think you hit a great point Seerow, feats are teh equiv of 0-2nd level spells, the sad part is.. zero level spells are negligabel to the point of being completely ignored at higher levels, for me letting the fighter get feats that can be the equivalent of higher level spells ( i let fighters get a haste effect, a freedom of movement effect and other such feats.)

To me if a fighter can at 20th level perform an action due to a feat thats the equivalent of a 6th level spell, im allright with that.

Seerow
2013-12-23, 09:22 PM
in regards to seerow's tangent Thats what it was in pre-3rd ed, they had for example a 3rd level spell that increases teh duration of your next spell or extends the range etc.
while combat expertise, power attack, srping attack were availe to any and everybody, and fighters got weapon focsu line ( and better)

why they made them feats really made no sense to me, other thna the whoel F THE FIGHTER casters only get d4 HP and no full BaB so they need everything and the kicthen sink for a balanced compromise.

Well I wasn't going for "Everyone can do everything". Basically think Tome of Battle but with a different core resource mechanic, and a broader scope of capability. Just like ToB offers Cleave in the form of a low level maneuver, I'd expect things like Spring Attack to be low level maneuvers as well. Weapon Specialization and the like would likely fall under a stance-type ability (ie passive always on maneuver that you can choose).

Actually, you know what. Just call the maneuvers feats. Now people who wanted fighters with lots of feats are happy. People who want fighters with level appropriate abilities are happy. The only people who get pissed off are those who were in love with the idea of feats being for everyone, rather than just martial classes. And I'm okay with that.


I think you hit a great point Seerow, feats are teh equiv of 0-2nd level spells, the sad part is.. zero level spells are negligabel to the point of being completely ignored at higher levels, for me letting the fighter get feats that can be the equivalent of higher level spells ( i let fighters get a haste effect, a freedom of movement effect and other such feats.)

Even those are 3rd-4th level spells.

It's a start, and generally better than the pile of crap Fighters get in 3.5, but it's still sitting around the same level as a Paladin with that feat to turn all of their spells into swift actions + better casting ACF (so low-mid tier 4). That's around where the Fighter should be at level 10-11. You want the Fighter to keep up all the way, he should be looking at abilities mimicking 6th-7th level spells at minimum, even if the ability makes absolutely no sense in the context of the real world.


To me if a fighter can at 20th level perform an action due to a feat thats the equivalent of a 6th level spell, im allright with that.

Yeah. The issue is convincing people that it's okay for a Fighter to have the equivalent of an Antimagic Field, Contingency, True Seeing, or Symbol of Fear, Move Earth, or even the dismal Chain Lightning (most of which could be pretty easily fluffed to Mundane equivalents). Much less convincing them to accept the equivalent of Create Undead, Flesh to Stone, Programmed Image,
Legend Lore, Planar Binding, Shadow Walk, or Guards and Wards.

ngilop
2013-12-23, 09:43 PM
well i do not mean exact copys of 6th level spells for instance i have in my latest fighter project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318268)True seeing for a fighter that at leats 1 GiTPer thinks is nice.

again i do not mean give the fighter 6th level spells as feats, I mean feats that are the equivalent of what youd imagine a 6th level spell is capable of.

I know that msyelf i go against that thoguht and gave fighters the ability to be do time stop as a swift action and thats a what..13th level spell? ( i forget teh cost for quicken)

though Fighters do get a specific legend lore like ability LOL.

Again im supportiave of Wcasters being able to say ' no' to the rules of the universe, to an extent. raising dead, planar binding, those kind of things

i dislike the fact that there are spells that do for example the rogues job.. but less of an investure of personal resources and much MUCH more of a sure thing.

Amechra
2013-12-23, 10:43 PM
Amechra has her own as well, but dang if i cannot find them POW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14309736&postcount=3) found them yaay i went up a level in search-fu master!!!

Last time I checked, I was male...

Seerow
2013-12-23, 10:58 PM
Last time I checked, I was male...

Easy mistake to make, between the ambiguous avatar, name ending in an a (typically feminine), and lack of indicator showing under your name. Just saying.

Amechra
2013-12-23, 11:09 PM
I know. Just thought I'd mention (and no, I'm not going to make my gender easier to ascertain. Where's the fun in that?)

Also, another form of scaling that should be looked at is... don't have a term for it. But basically, scale based on the number of feats you've got of a given type.

For an example, look up Aberrant feats.

Seerow
2013-12-23, 11:14 PM
I know. Just thought I'd mention (and no, I'm not going to make my gender easier to ascertain. Where's the fun in that?)

Also, another form of scaling that should be looked at is... don't have a term for it. But basically, scale based on the number of feats you've got of a given type.

For an example, look up Aberrant feats.

I think that Combat Focus feats work the same way (they have one effect at first, then get a greater effect with X number of them), as well as luck feats (each feat gives extra uses of luck, in addition to the new usage for your luck pool).

These have the potential to be cool, but still run into the problem of not going far enough, and as a result usually falling behind even regular feats. I'm pretty sure I've seen fighter feat fixes dependent on how many fighter feats you already have, but I couldn't give the name for any of them (they all start to run together after the first 5 or 6 years).

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-23, 11:39 PM
I've remade every single core feat in the SRD, plus a fair bit of the Epic ones to be usable at earlier levels. They don't scale with level, though, they scale with other feats. See the link in my signature.

Of course, more opinions on whether they count as "good" are welcome. :smalltongue:

ngilop
2013-12-24, 12:32 AM
Last time I checked, I was male...

My apologies. if I do not know the gender of said person im referring to I go with what the avatar is. as to me that is what the peson wants to be ientified as.. lse whyw ould that be theri face to the world?

so I see a female avatar i refer to a person a a female.

Amechra
2013-12-24, 01:56 AM
My avatar is female? Buh?

ngilop
2013-12-24, 04:07 AM
yes.. your avatar has long hair, which is typically feminine

is pink and black both feminine colors. pink denotes female babies and black is Yin the color of femininity and darkness.

water your avater is summoning seems to be made from darkness

the way the legs come from the torso, it very indicative of a female's hip bones

the design on the torso is a chalice, again a symbol of femininity

Ashtagon
2013-12-24, 04:18 AM
Whatif...


We keep the current Feat -> Improved Feat -> Greater Feat -> Perfect Feat paradigm
The first three feats provide a sliding amount of bonus.
The fourth feat provides a bonus that scales with level/BAB/skill/caster level, as appropriate.


That way, the feat tax keeps the non-martials out of the cool stuff at Perfect Feat, but the Perfect Feat scales appropriately, giving the fighter the cool stuff he needs to be competitive at high levels.

Xerlith
2013-12-24, 06:04 AM
Whatif...


We keep the current Feat -> Improved Feat -> Greater Feat -> Perfect Feat paradigm
The first three feats provide a sliding amount of bonus.
The fourth feat provides a bonus that scales with level/BAB/skill/caster level, as appropriate.


That way, the feat tax keeps the non-martials out of the cool stuff at Perfect Feat, but the Perfect Feat scales appropriately, giving the fighter the cool stuff he needs to be competitive at high levels.

Still too weak. Why the feat chain? As it was said before, wizards don't need to take, say, alter self -> polymorph -> PAO -> Shapechange.
I get why you think improvement of feats should be done. But if it must be kept (and sometimes I think it's not that bad of an idea if we want some consistency -but do we?), it'd be best kept as Feat -> Perfect(ed) Feat. Both scalling. Or the second one scalling. Or the first one scalling and the second one giving more options. It's a complex problem.

Domriso
2013-12-24, 06:15 AM
I always preferred the idea that no feats require other feats as prerequisites, and instead they have a five-tier scaling. Usually something like "Skill Ranks 0, 5, 10, 15, 20," so anyone can benefit somehow, but having a more skills unlock more abilities.

Xerlith
2013-12-24, 06:23 AM
There was actually a "feats as skills" homebrew around here. IIRC it was based on a premise that you get a second skillpoint pool, a "feat point pool" to invest into your feats. More or less like that.

EDIT: I've got a homebrew that rewrites almost all relevant core combat feats, but it's based around the premise of making those feats give more options from the beginning + scalling numerical bonuses.

Xerlith
2013-12-24, 07:09 AM
Well, I meant something like that:


Dodge
Prerequisite: Dex 13+
Benefit: You gain a dodge bonus to your AC equal to 1+ 1/5 your Character level.
Additionaly, once per round per point of your Dexterity modifier you may add your base Reflex save as a dodge bonus to your AC against any attack as a free action. If it misses, you may take a 5ft step as an immediate action.



A scalling numerical bonus + some options. It's powerful, but*.


*only if we compare it to the weaksauce core feats.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-24, 08:54 AM
You could also base the scaling on Psionic Body, like I did: each feat is of specified type(s), and supports other feats of related type(s) by giving them both bigger numbers and new functions.

Tying the progression to number and type of feats also has the side-effect of making the scaling more useful to the Fighter as written. It also creates an easier-to-understand optimization framework. Having a hard time choosing what feat to pick for this level? Worry not, just pick a feat of type that is shared by most of your previous feats, that way all of them become more powerful.

Xerlith
2013-12-24, 09:05 AM
You could also base the scaling on Psionic Body, like I did: each feat is of specified type(s), and supports other feats of related type(s) by giving them both bigger numbers and new functions.

Tying the progression to number and type of feats also has the side-effect of making the scaling more useful to the Fighter as written. It also creates an easier-to-understand optimization framework. Having a hard time choosing what feat to pick for this level? Worry not, just pick a feat of type that is shared by most of your previous feats, that way all of them become more powerful.

As much as the idea is quite good, it still feels a bit like it's shoehorning characters into something alike to feat chains - and having taken a look at your feats I feel too many of them give just scalling numerical bonuses, with too small number of them offering new in-combat options.
For me it's either to give much more new options right off the bat, then gradually enhance them to stay relevant or, if going the scaling-off-X route, give the options without needing further investition.
I know it's actually hard to invent something else they might be doing - At least I had this problem when creating my reworked feats.

Overall, it seems that first we must come to a consensus what a feat means - something we "just can do", and to do something else, even if similar, we must take anoter feat, or something we're "gradually getting better at and exploring new possibilities", thus opening the feats that gradually give out more options. It comes down to a design choice of course.

And having said that, I never actually got to post mine on the Homebrew forums. I guess I'll do that soon.

Frozen_Feet
2013-12-24, 10:03 AM
A feat is a freely-picked class feature. That is the original intent, it's right there in the SRD if you pay attention to it. This is the reason why many of my reworked feats give away many so-called class features. (Such as Psychic Strike and Defending stance)

Xerlith, you are right that many of my feats give scaling numbers as part of their scaling functionality. I've been trying to broaden the effects they give the further I've gotten. Though I'll note some abilities are "hidden in the numbers"; skill checks, especially Epic skill checks, allow you to do more things if you jsut can reach high enough numbers. Those are assumed to be part of the standard play in my fix.

Amechra
2013-12-24, 11:50 AM
yes.. your avatar has long hair, which is typically feminine

is pink and black both feminine colors. pink denotes female babies and black is Yin the color of femininity and darkness.

water your avater is summoning seems to be made from darkness

the way the legs come from the torso, it very indicative of a female's hip bones

the design on the torso is a chalice, again a symbol of femininity

That's a guy, mate (http://guilty-gear.wikia.com/wiki/Eddie). The pink is the skin-tone that the avatar maker decided to use. Also, tertiary gender signifiers are fluid anyway. I do like how you brought bastardized Chinese philosophy and the artistic style of the avatarist into the mix; since that is not actually at all pertinent (gender norms aren't universal, you know)... yeah.

But anyway, enough threadcrapping; we should move this into PMs if we want to continue this.

GunbladeKnight
2013-12-25, 01:56 AM
I dislike feat chains myself, especially when they become feat taxes. Two-Weapon fighting? I would have only one feat that allows the character to make an off-hand attack for each main-hand attack they have at no penalty (Cause even then it would still be weaker than two-handers).

Dodge? Give them a dodge bonus to AC (2-4 or scaling), and allow them to designate a target and double their DEX mod against them (up to armor max).

Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes? They get a bonus (+3 or scaling), and can make a reroll before they know whether they succeed or not, but must keep the second roll.

Toughness? HP per level. Greater Toughness? Scaling damage reduction (Let's face it, casters can get better DR than even barbarians at much lower levels).

Great Cleave? Rolled into cleave.

I would also get rid of feat taxes and class abilities that allow you to do something your skill check should allow you to do anyways, such as Track and Trapfinding. I would also get rid of the requirements of skill tricks and allow you to do them if you can make the checks.

SiuiS
2013-12-25, 02:41 AM
My concern with scaling feats is the weird power-jumps when you start them at high level.

Let's imagine the feat Awesome Armor Class, which boosts AC by BAB. Barbarian 12 takes the feat, and his AC jumps by 12?

I think the game design is that scaling is accomplished by paying the feat tax for Improved XXX, Greater XXX, Perfect XXX every 4-6 levels.

That's actually not an efficient system.

A feat is "I trained to do a specific thing". So a barbarian takes Awesome armor Class and gains +12 AC after spending ten days In The mountains being assaulted by the native fauna, he comes back with reflexes trained to punch away incoming attacks and is also more flexible because of yoga.

That's not weird at all. It's exactly what we expect from the training montage that comes with "I gain a level".


If you are married to feat chains, you need two things.
1) the bonuses from the early feats should improved based on how many in the chain you have
2) each additional feat should allow a qualitatively different ability.

Weapon focus gives a bonus to attack, which increases by 2 for every weapon focus feat you have. Improved weapon focus lets you do something with your focused weapon that cannot be done without it; say the weapon counts as a natural weapon for you and and gains the weapon focus bonus on critical confirmation rolls. Greater weapon focus lets you use your weapon as if it were your limb, the fighter version of eating peas with a knife; you can grab someone, pinch someone, hold a baby, climb a wall, swim, cast a spell, with weapon in hand as if you were unarmed.

Stuff like that. Those are terrible examples, but each successive feat should be "greater bonus" and also "entirely new capability", otherwise the fighter who takes improved feat is a chump compared to the fighter who starts a whole new feat chain and gets an ability.

Just to Browse
2013-12-25, 08:37 AM
On-topic Questions:

So do feats emulate spells and scale, or do they emulate spells? For example, is my feat at level 3 this:


Blind Fight
You can see any objects or beings that are invisible or concealed within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, hiding, concealed, and ethereal creatures.

The feat does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility. It does not reveal illusions or enable you to see through opaque objects.


Or is it this:


Blind Fight
This feat scales to your base attack bonus:

BAB +1: When you roll miss chance due to concealment, you may roll twice and take the better result.
BAB +5: You can see any objects or beings that are invisible or concealed within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, hiding, concealed, and ethereal creatures.
BAB +10: You gain blindsense out to 60 feet.
BAB +15: You gain blindsight out to 30 feet.



Or should it be OK fighter feats to vary? If so, what restrictions get put on that?

What do you think the is the optimum scaling speed for a feat that grants abilities? One per 5 levels, perhaps more?

Should you do this for all feats?

Should the scaling be the same on all feats? If so, how do you deal with the enormous power spikes? If not, how do you deal with the irregular power spikes?

ngilop
2013-12-25, 12:42 PM
the example you provide I think really doesn't help.

Caster can still benefit from every upgrade, and I don't think caster really need anything at all to help them out.

instead of provided the upgrades at every 5th BaB, have them come online at every additional Itinerative attack ( so +1, +6, +11, +16) that way the poor hard core shafted full BaB classes actually get some love over the classes that get spells.


But I think some feats should work off of skill ranks as well so Rogues get some love as well.

and Im not really seeing any power spikes.

Just to Browse
2013-12-25, 03:37 PM
Casters benefit way slower though. I'm OK with a wizard getting to see invisible creatures at will at level 20; I don't think that's really giving them much of a leg up in the world.

The power spike is when you take 3 feats from fighter, 2 feats from levels, and 1 feat from human, and then when you gain your iterative attack at level 6 you get 6 special abilities from your feats.

ngilop
2013-12-25, 04:54 PM
and somehow getting abilities from your feats is still weaker than 6th level spells?


and its not NEW abilities, its continuations of old ability.

Like how a Wizards takes burning hands its not that by 5th level burning hands gets 5 abilities it just scales up with the wizard.

Thats what these feast are doing its not 'hey now you have new ability' its letting feats scale, like every spell in the world does, both in spell level and by caster level


Somehow letting the fighter just do the latter ( scale by level) is completely overpowered? but Casters can go around being all geometric with their abilities but the poor fighter even getting linear scaling is too powerful?

WHy can't Mundane have nice things? You already let caster change the world at a whim,, why cna't blind fight give blindsense at BaB +11? how is that so much more powerful that wizards getting see invisible at will?

lesser_minion
2013-12-25, 05:15 PM
Here are some (completely made-up) examples of what should be entirely reasonable feats:

Combat Expertise

Prerequisite: Int 13+, Base Attack Bonus +1 or greater

Benefit: At the start of your turn, you may choose to gain the equivalent of cover until the start of your next turn. If you do so, you also suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls and effective level until the start of your next turn.

If you use the benefit of this feat while you already have cover, you receive superior cover. If you use the benefit of this feat while you already have superior cover, you also receive a 50% miss chance, similar to the effects of total concealment.

Special: A fighter may take Combat Expertise as one of her bonus feats.

Spring Attack

Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Base Attack Bonus +1 or greater

Benefit: If you threaten a character, then whenever you move out of their threatened area into a space that you have not yet visited this round, you may make an attack against them instead of provoking an attack of opportunity.

Attacks made in this way follow the same rules as attacks made as part of a full attack action: however, you may not use any of your other actions (besides those used to move) to make attacks on a turn where you claim the benefit of this feat, nor may you use the benefit of this feat on a turn where you have already done so. This does not prevent you from making attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Moving out of a hostile character's threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity from them.

Special: A fighter may take Spring Attack as one of his bonus feats.

If feats are doing what they should be doing, which is taking game mechanics that should be important, chewing them up, and spitting them out in an unrecognisable mess, then they often don't need any explicit scaling.

SiuiS
2013-12-26, 02:48 AM
That spring attack is fantastic. I will have to remember to trick you into feat conversations in the future to learn your ways.

lesser_minion
2013-12-26, 08:26 AM
That spring attack is fantastic. I will have to remember to trick you into feat conversations in the future to learn your ways.

In case you're wondering, the appeal of the combat expertise feat I just posted is that cover is an absolute defence against attacks of opportunity -- you can use it to safely cast spells, perform disarms and trips, and so on.


Dodge

Prerequisites: base attack bonus +4 or greater, Dexterity 13+

Benefit: For every 100 feet of distance between you and an opponent, you receive a +1 bonus to AC and a +1 bonus to reflex saves against that opponent. You cannot fail reflex saves against effects created by an opponent who is at least 600 feet away, nor can such an opponent succeed on attacks against you.

You may also nominate one opponent who you wish to concentrate on avoiding. You are considered to be 200 feet further away from that opponent when assessing the consequences of range for any targeted attack, spell, spell-equivalent, or special ability they employ, as well as for the purposes of this feat.

None of the benefits of this feat apply while you are flat-footed or against opponents you are not aware of.

Special: A fighter may select Dodge as one of her fighter bonus feats.

Note: Inspired by the line "It's funny how some distance makes everything seem small" from Let it Go

Mounted Combat

Prerequisites: Ride skill (4 ranks or greater), BAB +1 or greater

Benefit: While you are conscious, aware of attackers, and mounted, your skill at horsemanship allows you to protect either yourself or your mount from harm. The creature so protected cannot be targeted by attacks or other hostile effects, and is never considered to be within the area of any hostile effect.

Once per round, an opponent may make a Bluff, Ride, or Spellcraft check to defeat your protection. This is opposed by your 'Take 15' ride check result, and an opponent who also has this feat receives a +5 bonus. If the opponent wins this opposed check, the protection granted by this feat is not applicable against their attacks and the effects they create until the start of her next turn. The benefit of this feat never prevents opponents from attempting to pull you from your mount using the Trip attack.

In addition to this, your mount's movement never prevents you from making full melee attacks.

Special: A fighter may select Mounted Combat as one of her fighter bonus feats.

Note: I'm going to credit Frank and K for inspiring this one.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-26, 09:29 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No amount of fixing just the fighter, or even just the mundane classes, is enough. You have to, at the same time, fix the casters.

D&D needs broad, sweeping changes across the board.

On Scaling Feats
They're a good place to start, though. For the past year I've been running Red Hand of Doom with the fixes linked in my signature below, which included making nearly every feat scale. Unfortunately this playtest reveals that the scaling in them was too large, like allowing Spring Attack to let you move up to twice your base speed, or being too free with giving out free/additional 5-ft. steps. And the monk class is too damn good.

Still, that's what playtesting is for.


WHy can't Mundane have nice things? You already let caster change the world at a whim,, why cna't blind fight give blindsense at BaB +11? how is that so much more powerful that wizards getting see invisible at will?

Part of the problem is that by high level, wizards are in fact, for all intents and purposes, gods. They can bring people back to life or create new life, slay them with a glance, create planes of existence, achieve immortality...the list goes on.

20th-level full casters are too powerful. Mundanes can't compete because what can you possibly give someone with no magic, that equals the kind of deific things that full casters can achieve? Many of which involve duplicating the kinds of things that mundanes can do?

By 20th level, a fighter should be able to sunder castles, nevermind swords. He should be able to wrestle the Tarrasque, leap tall buildings in a single bound, swing his sword and scatter entire armies. And if you build it right, the 20th-level fighter already can...but, the wizard can do all that too, plus he can do it while safely hidden on his own private demiplane that he created.

So, like I said, you need to not just give mundanes nice things. You need to take nice things from casters at the same time.

lesser_minion
2013-12-26, 09:53 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No amount of fixing just the fighter, or even just the mundane classes, is enough. You have to, at the same time, fix the casters.

D&D needs broad, sweeping changes across the board.

What makes you think that we won't ever do anything about casters and casting?

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-26, 09:56 AM
You should never read a fix to one thing as if it's the only thing that will change.

Um...I really should, actually. Because without seeing what's been changed about the wizard, etc., then I can't know whether or not the above is a successful fix. I also can't know what power level we're shooting for; do we want to bring the mundanes up to Tier-1, or are we broadly satisfied with where they are, or what?

Like, for example, the Blind-Fight feat up there is clearly better than regular Blind-Fight and is now worth taking in the current play environment. But it still pales in comparison to equivalent-level spells.

lesser_minion
2013-12-26, 10:00 AM
Um...I really should, actually. Because without seeing what's been changed about the wizard, etc., then I can't know whether or not the above is a successful fix. I also can't know what power level we're shooting for; do we want to bring the mundanes up to Tier-1, or are we broadly satisfied with where they are, or what?

Things have to start somewhere. Once the fighter and other nonmagical characters are fun, interesting, and entertaining to play, we'll know what to shoot for with the casters.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-26, 10:09 AM
Things have to start somewhere. Once the fighter and other nonmagical characters are fun, interesting, and entertaining to play, we'll know what to shoot for with the casters.

Okay, but again, how far do you want to take that? What's the relative power level you're shooting for? Should mundanes eventually become shounen manga type heroes, like Dragonball Z, who can shatter planets with their fists and use their ki to teleport across the planes and galaxy?

lesser_minion
2013-12-26, 10:19 AM
Okay, but again, how far do you want to take that? What's the relative power level you're shooting for? Should mundanes eventually become shounen manga type heroes, like Dragonball Z, who can shatter planets with their fists and use their ki to teleport across the planes and galaxy?

Have a cop-out answer: "I'll know inappropriate when I see it."

I don't expect to ever see an ability doing either of those things that would actually be acceptable, but that doesn't mean that it could never happen. It depends on the precise implementation.

wayfare
2013-12-26, 05:22 PM
Okay, but again, how far do you want to take that? What's the relative power level you're shooting for? Should mundanes eventually become shounen manga type heroes, like Dragonball Z, who can shatter planets with their fists and use their ki to teleport across the planes and galaxy?

Depends on what the game is aiming for. Some games really love that kind of thing. Other games don't.

I am developing content for games that sort of blend 4e mechanical simplicity with 3.5 flavor and scaling. I've really stopped developing stuff over 10th level...and that's totally ok for my game. Somebody else might want a game where the balancing point is a high-op wizard. That's ok for their game.

My 3.5 homebrew typically balances around T4 or low T3. WotC gave us the tools to make casters that Balance around that range -- particularly if you limit yourself to the first 10 levels of the game.

That said, there are things you can do in 3.5 that some people might object to. Eldritch blast, for example, is not OP by the standards of the game, but a lot of players I have played with feel like the ability to circumvent the AC system (not technically true, etc, etc, systems mastery, handwave) is broken. Similarly, some people feel the same way about damage multipliers for power attack. Heck, Sneak Attack feels unfair and its the definition of a "balanced" feature for 3.5 (a matter of perspective -- my group came in on AD&D 2e).

Ultimately, I think you have to look at what you want to include and then decide what changes have to be made. You can play a pretty fun and reasonably balanced game running pure mundanes, halfcasters, and initiators (I live here). You can have a balanced and fun game with fullcasters, as long as everybody is on the same page. Not every book, or every class is required for every campaign.

Just to Browse
2013-12-27, 04:11 AM
ngilop, I have no idea what your post means in relation to mine. I don't even know how to clarify appropriately because your response seems so out-of-whack.

The point is: fighters get scaling feats with level-appropriate abilities because BAB scales and the feat scales to their BAB. Wizards get scaling feats with not-level-appropriate abilities because their BAB scales half as fast. So now wizards have not been given amazing options, but fighters still have.

wayfare
2013-12-27, 11:04 AM
ngilop, I have no idea what your post means in relation to mine. I don't even know how to clarify appropriately because your response seems so out-of-whack.

The point is: fighters get scaling feats with level-appropriate abilities because BAB scales and the feat scales to their BAB. Wizards get scaling feats with not-level-appropriate abilities because their BAB scales half as fast. So now wizards have not been given amazing options, but fighters still have.

To your earlier post: It really depends on the abilities granted fighters. Dimensional Punching? Maybe a problem. Free move and full attack, less so.

You can give everyone scaling feats, but thats likely just icing on the cake in the face of the few hundred spells Wizards get. Wizards don't really need the feat support (and they have the best feat support aside from bards), because they can make new class features for themselves.

In 3.5 as it stands, you really need to give mundanes something that magic classes dont have, because magic does essentially everything.

johnbragg
2013-12-27, 12:30 PM
Have a cop-out answer: "I'll know inappropriate when I see it."

I don't expect to ever see an ability doing either of those things that would actually be acceptable, but that doesn't mean that it could never happen. It depends on the precise implementation.

"Either of those things" = planet-shattering punch and ki teleportation across galaxies/planes.

I think that if you fluff the setting right, and fluff Rogues just right, then high-level Rogues can get abilities like Passwall.

Magic is the shaping of matter by the mind. (Or more delicately, the shaping of other minds by the mind.). Every living being uses magic to some degree--the master swordsman focuses his will through his sword, the master smith through his hammer. The master rogue focuses his will through using subtletly, working through gentle persuasion of objects.

A lock can be cajoled and persuaded to open. A gate can be persuaded that you are really as large as you seem to be and can squeeze through. The world can be persuaded that you aren't actually there, briefly creating a pocket demiplane outside the Prime Material Plane. And a wall can be persuaded that you are actually a ghost and can pass through without hindrance.

lesser_minion
2013-12-27, 02:04 PM
"Either of those things" = planet-shattering punch and ki teleportation across galaxies/planes.

It's not exclusively about the fluff, nor is it about the fluff in the sense you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether or not the guy blowing up planets is wearing a pointy hat, what does matter is that the ability to blow up a planet is done in such a way that it adds to the game as a whole.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-27, 06:25 PM
It's not exclusively about the fluff, nor is it about the fluff in the sense you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether or not the guy blowing up planets is wearing a pointy hat, what does matter is that the ability to blow up a planet is done in such a way that it adds to the game as a whole.

I'd add, however, that what also matters is that IF that guy blowing up a planet is wearing a pointy hat, then the guy in plate mail carrying a broadsword should have an option open to him of similar scale, that does not require him to take off his armor and put on wizard robes and a pointy hat himself (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Multiclass_Characters), nor fake having done so really well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm).

Just to Browse
2013-12-28, 12:46 AM
I think an important thing to clear up is that when designing a useful fighter, you don't need to give them exclusive stuff. You certainly could, but a competitive fighter just needs to do competitive things, regardless of whether other classes could do the same.

If the fighter gets the equivalent of a passive buff spell every level, he'd be doing less than what an equal-level DMM persist cleric could pull off, but that's OK because if the fighter is contributing well enough to the adventure, then we've succeeded in making him balanced.

Part of the reason fighter fixes drive me crazy is because people always include brand new mechanics or new sources of bonuses and so on, when there are literally millions of individual ideas and mechanics on the internet and in print that you could recycle almost word-for-word.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-28, 02:24 AM
Part of the reason fighter fixes drive me crazy is because people always include brand new mechanics or new sources of bonuses and so on, when there are literally millions of individual ideas and mechanics on the internet and in print that you could recycle almost word-for-word.

For the record, my fighter fixes tend to basically gestalt every fighter variant I can find. Pathfinder, PHBII, Zhentarium, Dungeon Crasher, etc. I even go to relatively obscure stuff; my current version has stuff from Diablo II: Diablerie in it.

lesser_minion
2013-12-28, 10:11 AM
I'd add, however, that what also matters is that IF that guy blowing up a planet is wearing a pointy hat, then the guy in plate mail carrying a broadsword should have an option open to him of similar scale, that does not require him to take off his armor and put on wizard robes and a pointy hat himself (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/SRD:Multiclass_Characters), nor fake having done so really well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm).

Actually, I don't think so. The fighter is not about being (conceptually) as powerful as certain other character classes, it's about having the training and awareness such that he doesn't need to be.

Seerow
2013-12-28, 10:28 AM
Actually, I don't think so. The fighter is not about being (conceptually) as powerful as certain other character classes, it's about having the training and awareness such that he doesn't need to be.

Yeah man. I love putting all that effort into training and awareness to be less powerful than anyone else.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-28, 10:35 AM
Actually, I don't think so. The fighter is not about being (conceptually) as powerful as certain other character classes, it's about having the training and awareness such that he doesn't need to be.

That's nice, but at 20th level, when fighting the tarrasque, or when needing to raid Nessus to kick Asmodeus' butt, or whatever, the fighter should be able to contribute equally to each other member in his adventuring party.

lesser_minion
2013-12-28, 12:15 PM
That's nice, but at 20th level, when fighting the tarrasque, or when needing to raid Nessus to kick Asmodeus' butt, or whatever, the fighter should be able to contribute equally to each other member in his adventuring party.

Uh, yes? The question is how he does that, not whether or not he can do it at all.


Yeah man. I love putting all that effort into training and awareness to be less powerful than anyone else.

I must have missed the part in the classic David vs. Goliath story where it turned out that David was just as strong and tough as Goliath.

In any event, your character can still be David when they're fending off the arrows of a hundred thousand soldiers, and they can still be David when they're cutting down every last one of those soldiers without suffering so much as a scratch.

And we already have plenty of Goliath classes -- the barbarian, wizard, and cleric, for a start. Precisely why should the fighter be among them?

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-28, 12:52 PM
I must have missed the part in the classic David vs. Goliath story where it turned out that David was just as strong and tough as Goliath.

He wasn't as strong as Goliath, but he still had something he could do that allowed him to play on equal or greater footing with Goliath. Also, having God on his side probably didn't hurt, either.

This also isn't a really good comparison because in this metaphor, it seems to me that it's more likely that Goliath is the fighter (what with all the detail that Samuel 17-4 to 17-7 go into about his arms and armor), and David, the wizard (cleric, whatever), given that despite all the WBL that Goliath blew into his weapons and armor, freakin' David the Cleric comes along and just casts magic stone.

That is what it feels like to be a 20th level fighter. You put all this time and effort and energy into becoming the fightiest fighter that ever fought, lugging around arms and armor worth more than the GDP of Thay, and then some ass with a sling comes along and totally invalidates you with a 1st-level spell.

lesser_minion
2013-12-28, 01:21 PM
He wasn't as strong as Goliath, but he still had something he could do that allowed him to play on equal or greater footing with Goliath.

Yes. The point you were supposed to be taking away from me bringing it up was "raw strength or power isn't everything".


Also, having God on his side probably didn't hurt, either. This also isn't a really good comparison because in this metaphor, it seems to me that it's more likely that Goliath is the fighter (what with all the detail that Samuel 17-4 to 17-7 go into about his arms and armor)

You are taking the comparison to David and Goliath way more literally than I intended.

The duke who throws a thousand soldiers at a problem? Goliath.

The sorcerer who throws his strongest spell at a problem? Goliath.

The tough guy who shrugs off that spell? Also Goliath.

The guy who cuts down those thousand soldiers, taking not a scratch in the process; dodges round the sorcerer's spells; and kills the tough guy with a perfectly placed dagger to the eye? That's a David.

Just to Browse
2013-12-28, 02:00 PM
So your ideal fighter fix is one where the fighter avoids getting hit instead of toughing it out and hits once when others would hit a bunch of times?

That really feels more like a rogue/assassin class, but I can see where you're going.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-28, 03:57 PM
Yes. The point you were supposed to be taking away from me bringing it up was "raw strength or power isn't everything".

But with the fighter, it should be. The fighter isn't a nimble assassin or a monk that dodges arrows. He's the guy in plate mail armor with sword and shield who's fighting a dragon by himself and winning by being able to hit the dragon harder and in the right places than the dragon can hit him. The dragon is landing plenty of blows himself and tossing the fighter around like a rag-doll, but the fighter keeps getting back up and going back to work.


The guy who cuts down those thousand soldiers, taking not a scratch in the process; dodges round the sorcerer's spells; and kills the tough guy with a perfectly placed dagger to the eye? That's a David.

And it's a warrior, but it's not the Fighter. What you're describing is actually what the Monk or rogue is conceptually supposed to be.

lesser_minion
2013-12-29, 09:27 AM
And it's a warrior, but it's not the Fighter. What you're describing is actually what the Monk or rogue is conceptually supposed to be.

Not at all. We have a strong tough guy who shrugs things off -- that's the barbarian. We have a sneaky guy who fights dishonourably -- that's the rogue. We have a martial artist who incorporates mystical elements and religious beliefs into his fighting style -- the monk and the paladin do that.

The fighter can be none of these things, because none of them leaves space for a unique design.

What is unique, given the above classes, is a character who relies on skill at arms, coupled with knowledge of what her enemies might do; and a keen tactical mind that allows her to act and react in any environment. Someone who tries to be honourable, but knows not to expect the world to respect her for it.


So your ideal fighter fix is one where the fighter avoids getting hit instead of toughing it out and hits once when others would hit a bunch of times?

For a different analogy, you could say that the fighter and the rogue excel at playing the hands that they're dealt, while the barbarian, paladin, and wizard all cheat for better cards.

Rogue Shadows
2013-12-29, 11:31 AM
Not at all. We have a strong tough guy who shrugs things off -- that's the barbarian.

I feel you're looking at this the wrong way. We already had a strong tough guy who shrugs things off - the fighter. Then the barbarian came along and started cramping the fighter's style. But the fighter was here first, and the fighter shouldn't have to move out of his niche just to make room for a class that can't even read without investing skill points.

The barbarian's schtick isn't supposed to be toughness, it's supposed to be its rage making it fly off the handle and attack foes until their dead. Obviously the requirement that you can't stop fighting until you've slain even enemies that have surrendered and are begging for mercy is unfun, which is why it was dropped when we moved from 2nd to 3rd edition*; nevertheless that doesn't mean that the barbarian should be allowed to step on the fighter's toes.

The fighter should be the fightiest fighting man that ever fought. Anything level-appropriate that fights it on even terms, be it an illithid, a dragon, or a barbarian, ranger, paladin, or monk, should die without something to tip the scales in their favor, such as the fighter being evil (for a paladin) or the ranger's favored enemy, or the environment favoring the monk. If it's not going to be the best out-and-out combat class, then what is the point of having it be called the fighter?

In the case of the barbarian, it's okay if it can overpower the fighter while raging, but only while raging, and only because while raging it's hitting harder, not because it's taking hits any better. Even then the fighter should leave the barbarian in a condition at the end of the fight that he can't take on the weakest kobold without getting some time to heal up.

No, the real balance for the barbarian should be out-of-combat utility. A fighter shouldn't strive to be anything more than Tier-4, specifically in its expression of being able to do one thing really well, possibly even better than a Tier-3 equivalent can do that thing, but has dubious use outside of that one thing. In this case, the fighter should be the unquestioned master of equal-footing combat.

-------------------------
*Actually, properly speaking: the 3rd edition Barbarian is basically a combination of two 2nd edition fighter kits, the Barbarian kit and the Berserker kit. The Barbarian kit basically amounted to some weapon and nonweapon proficiency changes to the basic fighter and what amounted to a class bonus or penalty to social interactions, as appropriate, for being all tough and brooding - or in other words, it contributes very little except its name. The berserker kit, meanwhile, is where the rage ability comes from. A berseker that was going berserk would not stop fighting until all enemies were dead or gone.