PDA

View Full Version : Because I want to be disintegrated by a bear...



Leush
2007-02-11, 08:04 AM
Right, everyone keeps saying that fighters would be stronger if their feats scaled with level... Now, I had a thought, which would be a rather minimal change which may or may not be overpowered or vaguely useful. You should note that I do not use PHB II feats and do not know how it would stack with them. I have not thought it through and don't feel like doing so right now, but what if...

Weapon Focus [General]

Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit

You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon, in addition you gain an additional +1 to all attack rolls with said weapon for every five points of BAB.


Greater Weapon Focus [General]

Benefit You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on BAB with the selected weapon for every five levels.


Note: This would grant fighters an extra attack over other combatants, making them 'stant out' a little more. It would also improve their power attack.

And...

Weapon Specialization [General]


Benefit
You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit
You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon, and an additional +1 for every five fighter levels possessed.

And

Greater Weapon Specialization [General]


Benefit
You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit
You gain a +3 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon, and an additional +1 for every fiour fighter levels possessed.


Credits: This post was inspired by Yuki Akuma's sig.

Matthew
2007-02-11, 08:39 AM
I think the idea was that you take One Feat and it scales by level, removing the need for the others.

Marius
2007-02-11, 08:53 AM
But the problem of fighter it's not that they need more feats. Even if we use your feats they are only going to be able to swing their sword a couple of times per round, and that's it. They are still very weak, with no versatility and no defense against magic.

serow
2007-02-11, 10:37 AM
A feat granting Spell Resistance, maybe 10+Fighter levels, Req: Fighter 8 ?

Thomas
2007-02-11, 11:19 AM
Spell resistance is a joke. Any serious arcanist will blast through it, especially if it's as low as 10 + level.

Were-Sandwich
2007-02-11, 11:26 AM
Joke of a SR is better than no SR.

serow
2007-02-11, 11:30 AM
Very true.
But I suppose the point is that the caster has to worry about it?
And if 10+ (Prereq: Fighter 6?)is too low, make a 2nd feat in the SR chain that grants 30+ then (prereq: Fighter 8?). And the 3rd feat is immune to all mind-affecting (prereq: Fighter 12?).
Not like it'll help much, but at least it's a possible way to start.

And like Matthew said, make the feats scale.
Weapon Focus: +1 to hit every 4 fighter levels.
Weapon Spec: +2 to damage every 1 fighter level.
And up the power of the Weapon Mastery chain in the PHB2.

It's no point nerfing the casters, so let's just do it the Bo9S way, by upping the power of everyone else. I mean, in the end the fighters can still only do HP damage, while the casters still get the battlefield control and save-or-dies. So we might as well make the fighters the best at it :)

Subotei
2007-02-11, 12:08 PM
I think the idea was that you take One Feat and it scales by level, removing the need for the others.

Indeed - no need for greater weapon focus when weapon focus scales. This idea therefore gives the fighter an extra feat, which would make him hopefully more versatile.

Leush
2007-02-11, 12:18 PM
You know, I had to say this, despite having stated this: But fighters are meant to be THE mundane class.
*Foams at the mouth*
Granting SR and spell immunity to a fighter, while good for balance, makes no sense in terms of mechanics fluff (why is a guy who spends his life chopping things with a sword suddenly resistant to magic?- although I must admitt it would be cool if you could use some special ability to 'cut' through spells)... A ranger or Paladin? Yes. A fighter? No. If anything, allow him to improve his saving throws and armor class instead (perhaps an armor focus feat, an improved and greater dodge for those pesky rays, and great fortitude being on the bonus feat list), but spell resistance is for the likes of duskblades, paladins, monks and other classes which have some form of magic in them, be it divine or arcane. Ki counts as magic for the purpose of the previous sentance. If anything a fighter can always get an item of spell resistance which will mean that the caster/monster has to spend the first few rounds dispelling it.

Also, I think that your weapon spec is actually a little too powerful, unless you were intending to remove greater weapon focus, because with that a fighter will be hitting for about 400 damage a round, and that would be absurd, even for a fighter. It would quickly become the case of whoever won initiative one shots the other guy.

Matthew
2007-02-11, 12:22 PM
Heh. I am an adherent of unifying Saving Throws at +1 per Level.

Leush
2007-02-11, 12:32 PM
Intriguing? So what exactly do you do? Give them bonus of +1 to every save every level?

Matthew
2007-02-11, 12:47 PM
Yep. Fighter 1 = Base Save +1, Fighter 20 = Base Save +20.

Same for every other Base Class... also Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude and Iron Will grant +4 Bonuses for their various Save Types. It just means the Saving Throw differences between the Base Classes is entirely by Attribute Scores and Feats.

Arceliar
2007-02-11, 02:13 PM
Wasn't there JUST a discussion about this very subject on like..thursday-ish?

The problem with scaling feats instead of feat chains is that the d20 system is built on a linear range of 1-20. This works fine when stuff like base attack increases at a steady rate, but once you change the rate at which it increases (ie: 6/5 levels instead of 5/5 levels) you break that linear-slope rule that keeps any sort of balance to the game.

Your DM can always houserule things like this, but as a rule of thumb anything which causes a nonlinear progression or changes the rate of change of progression is a bad idea. Shifting everything up once (such as Weapon Focus, or the Skill Focus feats) doesn't typically break the game--at least nowhere near as easily.

*Edit: Because damage doesn't increase independently with level, the scaling weapon specialization is less likely to break the game. (Or break the game more than it already is..)

Person_Man
2007-02-11, 04:29 PM
Why do you need to change Weapon Focus and Specialization? Why not just take Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper and then invest in feats that grant extra attacks?

Quietus
2007-02-11, 04:40 PM
I don't see how a scaling base attack would break the game, if it were specifically stated that you had to limit it to one additional attack per round from it, thereby eliminating the threat of a ridiculously-high level fighter with hundreds of attacks per round.

Maybe it'd be better, however, to make it Weapon Focus : leave as is, with Greater Weapon Focus (which only comes available as a fifth level Fighter) scaling. That way, it makes it something that ONLY Fighters can do, and it creates a feat-tree, which works well for the Fighter. Do something similar with Weapon Specialization, so that in order to get scaling attack and damage, you need to blow four feats - you lock yourself into a single weapon, true, but you're DAMNED good with it.

And I do like the "cut through magic" idea.... though I have no idea how that would work. Maybe require it to be a readied action, or something performed X times per day, that when a spell is cast at you, this feat allows you to "cut through" the spell, allowing you a dispel check against the spell, you roll an attack against the DC of the spell? And then a follow-up feat that allows you to turn the spell aside?

Szatany
2007-02-11, 04:49 PM
Scaling feats? How about those:

Battlefield Superiority [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +15, any 3 weaponry feats.
Benefit: Once per encounter, you can make a full-round attack without suffering penalties on iterative attacks. For example, instead of making 4 attacks with +21/+16/+11/+6 bonuses, you make 4 attacks with +21 bonus each.

Combat Expertise [Weaponry]
Same as in PHB.

Constant Threat [Weaponry]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: The DC of all Tumble and Concentration checks enemies make within squares you threaten increases by +4 and by extra +1 for every weaponry feat you have.

Create Opportunity [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Reflexes, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Once per encounter per opponent you can make an attack of opportunity when the opponent performs full round, standard, move, immediate, or swift action that normally doesn't provoke such attacks.
If you have 9 weaponry feats, opponents who take a 5 ft. step action provoke attacks of opportunity from you.

Dismissing Strike [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, base attack bonus +12, 4 weaponry feats.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a touch attack with a magic weapon against an extraplanar creature to force it back to its proper plane if it fails a special Will save (DC = 15 + your base attack bonus +1 for every 5 weaponry feats you have - creature’s HD). If the creature fails its save, it's instantly whisked away, but there is a 20% chance of actually sending the subject to a plane other than its own.

Drill Seargant [Command, Weaponry]
See Command feats.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency [Weaponry]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1 (plus Str 13 for bastard sword or dwarven waraxe).
Benefit: Choose one exotic weapon for every weaponry feat you have. You make attack rolls with that weapon(s) normally.

Fencing [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Once per encounter you can take 10 on an attack roll.
If you have 5 weaponry feats, whenever you take 10 on an attack roll, weapon damage is maximized.
If you have 9 weaponry feats, you can take 10 once per round.

Greater Weapon Focus [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +8, Weapon Focus.
Benefit: Bonuses granted by weapon focus feat improve to +2.

Improved Critical [Weaponry]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +8, Weapon Focus.
Benefit: When using any weapon that benefits from weapon focus, your threat range is doubled.
This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
You gain +1 bonus for every weaponry feat you have on critical confirmation rolls.

Improved Disarm [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to disarm an opponent, nor does the opponent have a chance to disarm you. You also gain a +2 bonus, and extra +1 for every weaponry feat you have on the opposed attack roll you make to disarm your opponent or when an opponent attempts to disarm you.

Improved Feint [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action. You gain a +1 bonus for every 2 weaponry feats you have on those checks. Enemies suffer a -1 penalty for every 2 weaponry feats you have when feinting you in combat.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting [Agility, Weaponry]
Same as in PHB.

Interpose [Weaponry]
Prereqs: Int 13, Base attack bonus +18.
Benefit: As an immediate action, you may select 1 square that you threaten for every 2 weaponry feats you have. All squares have to be adjacent. For one round, squares affected count as being occupied contiguously for the purpose of effects and spells, and as a difficult terrain for the purpose of enemies' movement.

Lunge [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +12, any 3 weaponry feats.
Benefit: On any attack you make, you can treat any two handed weapon you wield (but not one handed weapon you wield with two hands) as if it had reach or as if it didn't.
If you have 5 weaponry feats, you can use this feat with one handed weapons.
If you have 9 weaponry feats, you can use this feat with light weapons.

Martial Excellency [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Supreme Weapon Focus.
Benefit: When you roll a natural 1 using a weapon affected by Weapon Focus, you may treat natural result as -20 instead of an automatic miss. You gain a bonus to that result equal of weaponry feats you have (but no more than +20, totalling +0).

Parry [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: If you take a full attack action and do not make last attack, or if you take full defense action, a weapon you wield grants you +1 deflection bonus, and extra +1 for every 3 weaponry feats you have, against one attack of your choice made against you until the beginning of your next turn.
If you have BAB +11 and 5 weaponry feats, you add the bonus against two attacks made in a row.
If you have BAB +16 and 9 weaponry feats, you add the bonus against three attacks made in a row.

Personal Zone [Unarmed, Weaponry]
See Unarmed feats.

Superior Weapon Finesse [Weaponry]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +10, Weapon Finesse.
Benefit: You may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls with all slashing and piercing one-handed weapons.
If you have 5 weaponry feats, shield's armor check penalty does not apply to your attack rolls with finessable weapons.

Supernatural Assault [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, base attack bonus +15, any 4 weaponry feats.
Benefit: If you wield magic weapon, you gain a number of benefits against specific threats:
You reduce your miss chance to hit an incorporeal opponent by 5% for every weaponry feat you have.
Your attacks ignore 1 point of any form of Damage Reduction for every 2 weaponry feats you have.
Damage you deal is not affected by mundane or extraordinary means of healing hit points (such as natural recovery or fast healing).
If you have 9 weaponry feats, damage you deal is not converted into nonlethal damage by regeneration.

Supreme Weapon Focus [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +16, Greater Weapon Focus.
Benefit: Bonuses granted by weapon focus feat improve to +3.

Two-Weapon Defense [Agility, Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, any other agility or weaponry feat.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC for every 3 agility and/or weaponry feats you have (in any combination).
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus doubles.

Two-Weapon Fighting [Agility, Weaponry]
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced by 1 for every agility and/or weaponry feat you have (in any combination) until they reach 0.

Warrior's Climax [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, base attack bonus +3.
Benefits: Whenever an enemy you threaten attacks your ally or casts a spell defensively on your ally (but not you), you gain an extra attack of opportunity against him. You cannot make more such attacks per round than 1 for every 2 weaponry feats you have.

Weapon Finesse [Weaponry]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
If you have 9 weaponry feats, you can add half of your Dexterity bonus to damage with weapons affected by this feat.

Weapon Focus [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Choose one weapon for every weaponry feat you have. You gain a +1 bonus on all attack and damage rolls you make using the selected weapon(s).

Weaponsmith [Weaponry]
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Craft: Weaponsmith checks, and extra +1 for every 2 weaponry feats you have. You can create magic melee weapons as if you had appropriate feats. You can substitute required spells with scrolls containing those spells (scrolls are consumed during item's creation). You can substitute caster level with your ranks in Craft: Weaponsmith skill -3.

Whirlwind Attack [Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Greater Weapon Focus.
Benefit: Once per encounter, when you perform full attack action, you can make an extra melee attack with full attack bonus against every opponent within reach you do not target with your normal attacks.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Epic Weapon Focus [Epic, Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +21, Supreme Weapon Focus.
Benefit: Bonuses granted by weapon focus feat improve by +2.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time required fighter level increases by 8 and bonus granted by +2.

Legendary Battlefield Superiority [Epic, Weaponry]
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +25, Battlefield Superiority, any other 8 weaponry feats.
Benefit: You don't suffer penalties on iterative attacks. For example, instead of making 4 attacks with +35/+30/+25/+20 bonuses, you make 4 attacks with +35 bonus each.

Starbuck_II
2007-02-11, 04:49 PM
Weapon Focus [General]

Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit

You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon, in addition you gain an additional +1 to all attack rolls with said weapon for every five points of BAB.

Seems fine as everyone can choose this.



Greater Weapon Focus [General]

Benefit You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on BAB with the selected weapon for every five levels.


Note: This would grant fighters an extra attack over other combatants, making them 'stant out' a little more. It would also improve their power attack.

This makes Fighters a good class now I'd say. Though, that means they can get +21/+16/+11/+6/+1 at level 17 giving them 5 attacks/round. Reminds me of old 2.0 Specialzation. Back than Fighters were cool.



Weapon Specialization [General]


Benefit
You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit
You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon, and an additional +1 for every five fighter levels possessed.

+7 damage at level 20?


Greater Weapon Specialization [General]


Benefit
You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Changed to...

Benefit
You gain a +3 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon, and an additional +1 for every fiour fighter levels possessed.

Does this stack or overlap with Less Specialzation? Stacking means +15 damage at levl 20 (this adds +8 alone).
If it replaces previous amount than okay.

Leush
2007-02-11, 05:24 PM
Quietus: How about this. I personally do *not* like it (although an anti-arrow version might be good), but what the hell, we've opened Pandora's box: It also needs an improved version.

Quench Applies to a single weapon. Should it be supernatural or extraodinary.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Wis +15, BAB +11
Benefits: A fighter possessing this feat may, when using the selected weapon a fighter may ready an action attempt to cut through the spell, dispelling it. It may be targetted against force effects. The dispel check is equal to (suggestions??). The ability is useable a number of times equal to his class level/ day.



Szatany: Wow. All I can say. That is a lot of feats. It would certainly be a powerboost for melee characters. Although possibly a little too much with some. Also, I like the Weaponsmith, but I think it needs some harsher prerequisites, like I dunno, Int +13, 10 ranks in craft: (arms and armor). Also I think that the enhancement bonus should be smaller than the one given by spellcasters, mainly because, as I said, I thought that fighters are meant to be mundane types (matter of opinion), and hence be less adept at supernatural stuff.

Starbuck_II: The idea was that they would stack. Now that I think about it, it does seem a bit ridiculous, but you have to agree that +4 damage at level twenty with one single weapon is a joke. It would actually be +6 and +8, but I suppose +14 may be a bit too much, but I don't know, what would you do? Maybe make them the same, +6 so it's only +12 to damage in the end. What would you say is reasonable and what over the top?

Quietus
2007-02-11, 05:48 PM
I'm thinking, if you want to make it a straight dispel check, compare either Fighter level+d20 vs caster level +11 (as a normal dispel check), or compare caster level of the Fighter's weapon+d20 against the same. I'm thinking either force them to take a Readied action (which means they can negate a spell but not attack), or make it usable a certain number of times per day, based on some mod, though I can't imagine which would be the most appropriate.

By doing that, you also open up the option of feats that give +2 bonus to cutting through spells (kind of like the Spell Penetration feats).

Leush
2007-02-11, 06:18 PM
Exactly, my idea was that it should work roughly 50% of the time against an equivalent caster, and be useable as a readied action AND have a daily limit (afterall spellcasters have a limited number of spells). But since I can't remember the dispelling rules atm, and don't really have time, I'll just stick with the criteria.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 06:36 PM
The dispel rules would pretty much work the way I described; Character level + d20 vs caster level +11. If you can equal or beat it, you win.

I'd say, make it a feat like...

Cut the Breach [Fighter]

Prerequisites : Weapon Focus in weapon used, Base Attack +11

Benefit : When targeted by a spell or spell-like ability, or when a spell or spell-like ability passes within your threatened ranged (such as the bead for Fireball, or a strike of Lightning), you may make a single attempt to dispel the effect, using 1d20+character level versus a DC of caster level + 11. You must have an action readied to perform this technique. If you pass the dispel check, the spell is countered harmlessly, and its effect ends - in the case of a spell such as Lightning Bolt, opponents struck before you Cut the Breach remain fully affected. The weapon used to perform this feat must be magical, and must be one for which you have Weapon Focus.

This feat may be used once per day for every five character levels you have, or if you are a Fighter, oncer per day per two character levels.

Special : A Fighter may select this feat as a bonus feat.




Another option would be to make it require that one feat that gives spellcasters you threaten a penalty to their Defensive Casting equal to half your level, or whatever, essentially creating a "counter-caster" feat tree.

serow
2007-02-11, 10:14 PM
Here's another crazy capstone fighter feat idea.
Spells typically should have a 50% success chance right ?

So: any spell that the fighter does not wish him/herself to be affected by has only a success chance of 50%. Flat. No save, no SR, no nothing. A flat 50% chance of success only.
Make it Prereq: Fighter 18, just in time to match up to level 9 spells. (and casters actually get 1 level of free-frags before the fighter can get this feat)
It's hardly balanced, but at least it's a quick fix to even out the playing field somewhat.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 10:28 PM
I think such a feat would be just a bit over the top. If a Fighter wants to specifically nullify magic against them, they can do something like take levels of Occult Slayer. A flat 50% chance that spells and such don't work against them would hardly be fair. Spell resistance would be bad enough.

I'd say, unless they go for a template that gives SR, or a class that does, leave it at that feat - maybe make an epic version which builds into a feat tree, one that lets them use it unlimited, and one that essentially lets them make an "attack of opportunity" against the spell to counter it? You could make some scary caster-hunting Fighters that way, and THAT would certainly help to balance the "I can make a hundred million spells that are save-or-die"-ness of Epic Spells.

Szatany
2007-02-12, 03:27 AM
Szatany: Wow. All I can say. That is a lot of feats. It would certainly be a powerboost for melee characters. Although possibly a little too much with some. Also, I like the Weaponsmith, but I think it needs some harsher prerequisites, like I dunno, Int +13, 10 ranks in craft: (arms and armor). Also I think that the enhancement bonus should be smaller than the one given by spellcasters, mainly because, as I said, I thought that fighters are meant to be mundane types (matter of opinion), and hence be less adept at supernatural stuff.

Thanks, if you like I can post other groups. Those were just weaponry feats, I also have archery, agility, command, mounted, unarmed, power, vitality, etc. feat groups.
About making magic items: remember how that dwarf made a magic weapon in (iirc) Streams of Silver book? He was a fighter, he didn't even have feats. I think an ability to make magic weapons is perfectly fine and I don't see a problem with fighter having this one early.

Whamme
2007-02-12, 04:34 AM
I think such a feat would be just a bit over the top. If a Fighter wants to specifically nullify magic against them, they can do something like take levels of Occult Slayer. A flat 50% chance that spells and such don't work against them would hardly be fair. Spell resistance would be bad enough.

I'd say, unless they go for a template that gives SR, or a class that does, leave it at that feat - maybe make an epic version which builds into a feat tree, one that lets them use it unlimited, and one that essentially lets them make an "attack of opportunity" against the spell to counter it? You could make some scary caster-hunting Fighters that way, and THAT would certainly help to balance the "I can make a hundred million spells that are save-or-die"-ness of Epic Spells.

Time Stop and Shapechange are not fair. 50% immunity is a mild speedbump.

Giving them 100% spell resistance would still leave them weak.
Giving them 100% spell resistance and the ability to instantly kill any wizard they can hit in melee? Still weak.

Now, if portable massive antimagic fields were available - or DarkSwords - Fighters might have a chance.

Kantolin
2007-02-12, 04:38 AM
Giving them 100% spell resistance and the ability to instantly kill any wizard they can hit in melee? Still weak.
Although in that case, I as a wizard would take the fighter, affectionately call him/her a weapon, and try my utmost hardest to get them to the enemy that turn. Maybe teleported above the enemies so they'd plummet onto them.

Also, if they could do this, then while they'd still lose to wizards, they'd be able to contribute against a lot of high-end monsters like Balors. Of course, then D&D is 'Who hits first?!'... well, moreso than normal.

As a general flaw to spell resistance; it doesn't deal with walls, invisibility, or quite help the mobility issue. Perhaps a mild nudge to those situations as well?

Leush
2007-02-12, 06:41 AM
The dispel rules would pretty much work the way I described; Character level + d20 vs caster level +11. If you can equal or beat it, you win.

I'd say, make it a feat like...

Cut the Breach [Fighter]

Prerequisites : Weapon Focus in weapon used, Base Attack +11

Benefit : When targeted by a spell or spell-like ability, or when a spell or spell-like ability passes within your threatened ranged (such as the bead for Fireball, or a strike of Lightning), you may make a single attempt to dispel the effect, using 1d20+character level versus a DC of caster level + 11. You must have an action readied to perform this technique. If you pass the dispel check, the spell is countered harmlessly, and its effect ends - in the case of a spell such as Lightning Bolt, opponents struck before you Cut the Breach remain fully affected. The weapon used to perform this feat must be magical, and must be one for which you have Weapon Focus.

This feat may be used once per day for every five character levels you have, or if you are a Fighter, oncer per day per two character levels.

Special : A Fighter may select this feat as a bonus feat.



I think this one is balancedish, but needs more prerequisites, mainly because to stop every fighter taking it, hence making it a class feature. Maybe some ranks in spellcraft and, and, something else to add to it.


Szatany: As I said, the magic weapons stuff is a matter of opinion and flavour. Each one to his own.
As for the feats, they would be interesting. You see, I like the idea of just having a few base classes, but a wide veriety of abilities/feats which they can take, as it would put an end to the cheesetastic number of classes in splatbooks. Since every option would, as it is be covered anyway.

Dairun Cates
2007-02-12, 12:21 PM
Granting SR and spell immunity to a fighter, while good for balance, makes no sense in terms of mechanics fluff (why is a guy who spends his life chopping things with a sword suddenly resistant to magic?- although I must admitt it would be cool if you could use some special ability to 'cut' through spells)... \

Honestly, if you think about it, it's not that crazy. Magic items are mythically created by either doing one task over and over (killing 1000 orcs for an orcsbane sword) or embuing something with raw magic power. Considering the number of spells thrown straight at a fighter, it's not impossible to believe some would grow a slight resistance to it over time after getting hit for the 1000th time.

Also, maybe instead of a 10+spell resistance and then later 30+spell resistance, you could just make it fortitude+level. Since the resistance would clearly be a physical thing built up over time. It's make sense in this case that a higher con. = a higher resistance.

Duraska
2007-02-12, 12:28 PM
Why oh why do so many people want all of the base classes to be absolutely balanced from a class A vs class B perspective? Why should a level 20 Wizard and a level 20 fighter duel on endlessly into a stalemate?! D&D was not designed to be balanced in a 1 on 1, player vs player perspective. D&D was designed for a party vs monster, or party vs party perspective.

Personally, I think classes *shouldn't* be balanced. If you are a Wizard, and you survive all the way to level 20, you deserve to be somewhat of a demi-god. You should be able to sit back and laugh while you obliterate handfuls of fighters waving their iron sticks. After all, you've paid dearly for this power.

Don't get me wrong, I love fighters, but fighters don't devote their lives to unraveling the mysteries of the universe. They instead focus on more practical things, like slaying monsters, rescuing damsels in distress, and slaying dragons with an army at their back.

If you get your character to level 20 and your chief concern is that the party wizard can kill more things than your fighter can, then I would wager that you've missed the point of the game. In our world, we are not all created equal. Different people have different advantages and disadvantages that make them better or worse equipped for certain situations. Some people are just all-around better than other people. But that doesn't mean that you're completely worthless unless you're the center of everyone's attention. You're only worthless if you insist on comparing yourself directly to the person who is better than you.

Not all classes are created equal. That's why if you're a level 20 fighter, you should stop worrying about how "weak" you are, and get out there and make friends with a high level wizard. Now, instead of spending your days comparing your power against the wizard's power, you two are teamed up and kicking some major butt together.

Just my opinion.

Thomas
2007-02-12, 12:55 PM
Why oh why do so many people want all of the base classes to be absolutely balanced from a class A vs class B perspective? Why should a level 20 Wizard and a level 20 fighter duel on endlessly into a stalemate?! D&D was not designed to be balanced in a 1 on 1, player vs player perspective. D&D was designed for a party vs monster, or party vs party perspective.

Who wants that?

The issue is that a fighter is a pointless, useless party member at mid-high levels, and a laughing stock at high levels. Wizards and clerics are infinitely more useful in all encounters.

barawn
2007-02-12, 01:27 PM
Honestly, if you think about it, it's not that crazy. Magic items are mythically created by either doing one task over and over (killing 1000 orcs for an orcsbane sword) or embuing something with raw magic power. Considering the number of spells thrown straight at a fighter, it's not impossible to believe some would grow a slight resistance to it over time after getting hit for the 1000th time.

I agree. I also think you could make the Cut the Breach feat more in keeping with the Fighter as well. Maybe something like:

Disruptive Strike [Fighter]

Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Spellcraft (any ranks), maybe BAB +10 (?)

You may make a Disruptive Strike as a swift action against a spellcaster who is attempting to cast a spell with a somatic component, providing you identify the spell (DC 15+spell level) if you have a weapon weilded which can strike the spellcaster. Treat the Disruptive Strike as a normal Attack of Opportunity, although damage dealt with a Disruptive Strike only applies to the Concentration check of the caster. Note that a Disruptive Strike does not prevent you from making a normal Attack of Opportunity against a caster in combat as well.

That's just off the top of my head quickly, so if there's anything broken about it, feel free to criticize. Basically, here's the fluff idea: "Bob, with a throwing dagger in his off-hand, out of the corner of his eye sees his enemy start making hand motions. 'I've seen this before', thinks Bob, and throws the dagger to cut off the path of the wizard's hand. His aim is true, and the wizard's hand has to recoil to avoid the dagger. He is unharmed - but the spell is ruined."

Leush
2007-02-12, 01:29 PM
Not all classes are created equal. That's why if you're a level 20 fighter, you should stop worrying about how "weak" you are, and get out there and make friends with a high level wizard. Now, instead of spending your days comparing your power against the wizard's power, you two are teamed up and kicking some major butt together.

Just my opinion.

The thing is, I really do honestly agree with your opinion that a wizard should be more powerful than a fighter. The problem comes in where at level twenty a team of two wizards is more powerful than a team of a wizard and a fighter. In most cases. For that reason I wanted to boost the fighter's power level just enough to make him useful. Even more than that, I wanted certain feats to become more useful than they are. If you think that one class should be weaker, fine, but for heaven's sake, at least say something constructive. The thread is about whether a specific change to certain feats is 'balanced', not whether or not we should bother balancing things...

Marius
2007-02-12, 01:39 PM
The problem is that a high level wizard is not a little stronger than a high level fighter. The Wizard is A LOT more powerful. And no, no class should be more powerful than the other. There's no excuse, this is a game and players don't want to run around folloing the wizard watching how he does all the work. Every class should participate equaly in the game and that's all we want.

Draz74
2007-02-12, 06:34 PM
Not all classes are created equal. That's why if you're a level 20 fighter, you should stop worrying about how "weak" you are, and get out there and make friends with a high level wizard. Now, instead of spending your days comparing your power against the wizard's power, you two are teamed up and kicking some major butt together.



From what I've seen on these Forums, a lot of people feel that a high-level Wizard should be more powerful than a high-level Fighter because of what they see in literature. They claim, "Oh, but look how much more powerful Belgarath the Sorcerer is than even the best melee combatant he works with!"

Problem is, the stories they're referencing have high-level wizards, and don't have any melee guys of comparable level. I think if there were more books about epic warriors, people wouldn't have a problem with the idea of classes being balanced with each other at high levels.

Also ... I'm not going to claim that Aragorn could beat Gandalf in a one-on-one duel. He couldn't. But he could contribute just as much to the Heroes-of-Battle-style "Campaign" that Lord of the Rings was. Classes certainly should be balanced, perhaps not for dueling, but for how much they can contribute to a high-level campaign. And by the RAW, can the Fighter contribute meaningfully to a high-level campaign? No, not usually.

Quietus
2007-02-12, 06:55 PM
I agree. I also think you could make the Cut the Breach feat more in keeping with the Fighter as well. Maybe something like:

Disruptive Strike [Fighter]

Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Spellcraft (any ranks), maybe BAB +10 (?)

You may make a Disruptive Strike as a swift action against a spellcaster who is attempting to cast a spell with a somatic component, providing you identify the spell (DC 15+spell level) if you have a weapon weilded which can strike the spellcaster. Treat the Disruptive Strike as a normal Attack of Opportunity, although damage dealt with a Disruptive Strike only applies to the Concentration check of the caster. Note that a Disruptive Strike does not prevent you from making a normal Attack of Opportunity against a caster in combat as well.

Not a bad idea, though I think that the problem with it would be that a Fighter doesn't have ranks in Spellcraft - or if they do, they're cross-class. That means that you normally have +6 to spellcraft if you're dumping points into it at level 10, which means you can only reliably identify the first-level spells that they cast. I like the idea behind it, I'm just pointing out minor issues. The spellcraft DC to identify the spell is pretty straightforward, it's just a natural limitation of the Fighter that's slowing things down here.



I think the problems with the Fighter, versus Casters, are these :

1) Mobility
2) CoD-ness
3) Save-or-die.



#1 - Mobility. This notes a couple of different problems - the Wizard's ability to teleport/dimension door/plane shift, and the simple "five foot step" trick to avoid the AoO. There isn't much that can be done about Teleport/DD/PS, as that should rightly belong strictly to the casters. However, there should be a feat that allows you to move with a caster when they move, assuming you have enough movement left in you to do so - a spellcaster moves 5 feet back, and if you haven't made a five-foot adjustment, you can do so to keep threatening him. If they full withdraw, there isn't much you can do, but you've prevented them from casting that turn. If they take a single move back then try to cast, they draw an AoO.

#2 - CoD issues. There's already a feat out there, somewhere, that makes it so someone you threaten takes a penalty on Concentration checks to cast on defense any time you threaten them.

#3 - Save or die. A Fighter has plenty of feats to burn, so you could feasibly get Iron Will to compliment your high Fort. Protection from Evil helps a great deal as well. Other spells, like Forcecage and the like, would be subject to Cut the Breach.


Doing it this way, you could build a full spellcaster-hunter feat progression for the fighter. Rather than being built to stand toe-to-toe with another melee brute, you've set yourself up to cut down spellcasters. Not only that, but I have to say, it would be a LOT of fun to watch the look on the Wizard's face when he sends a Fireball hurtling toward you, you set your stance, then lunge forward with a slashing blow, cutting through the small bead and negating the spell entirely.

Marius
2007-02-12, 07:27 PM
Also ... I'm not going to claim that Aragorn could beat Gandalf in a one-on-one duel. He couldn't. But he could contribute just as much to the Heroes-of-Battle-style "Campaign" that Lord of the Rings was. Classes certainly should be balanced, perhaps not for dueling, but for how much they can contribute to a high-level campaign. And by the RAW, can the Fighter contribute meaningfully to a high-level campaign? No, not usually.

Gandalf was a demi-god but it doesn't matter. Sauron, another demi-gog, was defeated by Isildur, a HUMAN. If you look at fantasy books there're a lot of warriors that defeated wizards.
But in the end, it doesn't matter. In the d&d fantasy world, everyone should be able to achieve an equal level of power.

barawn
2007-02-12, 07:50 PM
Not a bad idea, though I think that the problem with it would be that a Fighter doesn't have ranks in Spellcraft - or if they do, they're cross-class. That means that you normally have +6 to spellcraft if you're dumping points into it at level 10, which means you can only reliably identify the first-level spells that they cast. I like the idea behind it, I'm just pointing out minor issues. The spellcraft DC to identify the spell is pretty straightforward, it's just a natural limitation of the Fighter that's slowing things down here.

The main reason I put the Spellcraft limitation in there is so people who say "they're a fighter, they shouldn't be able to blah blah blah" can be quiet. :smallsmile:

You could tweak that, as well. Add "Any ally within speaking distance can make a similar Spellcraft check as a free action to give a +2 bonus to the person making the Disruptive Strike to identify the spell." Basically you're adding the ability to essentially Aid Another.

It's the functional equivalent of "Jim yells out: Bob! Magic Missile, left hand!"

Yes, Fighters shouldn't have ranks in Spellcraft. This is to give them a reason to. The only worry I have is it breaking horribly with multiclassing, hence the "BAB +10" bit. Maybe put more Fighter feats as prereqs instead - like, say, Combat Reflexes and Spring Attack, plus BAB +10.

Need to keep non-Fighters from picking it up.

Edit: Also, to combat the "move back 5 feet, cast" bit: add in "A five-foot step may also be taken along with a Disruptive Strike so long as the five-foot step is towards the spellcaster."

barawn
2007-02-12, 07:52 PM
Gandalf was a demi-god but it doesn't matter. Sauron, another demi-gog, was defeated by Isildur, a HUMAN. If you look at fantasy books there're a lot of warriors that defeated wizards.
But in the end, it doesn't matter. In the d&d fantasy world, everyone should be able to achieve an equal level of power.

Saruman, a pure wizard (who defeated Gandalf earlier), was defeated by a bunch of trees chucking rocks around. And they're only CR 8!

Talya
2007-02-12, 08:21 PM
Honestly, I'd suggest giving fighters (and maybe rogues) a single point at every 3rd level (3,6,9,12,15,18) to put into a saving throw of their choice. If they spread them evenly between will and reflex, they'd be fort 12, ref 9, will 9 at level 20.

I also like the idea of a feat that lets them make a 5' movement with anybody else who steps away from them as an immediate action in combat, however with the caveat that it uses up their normal movement on their turn and they can only take a standard action.

Quietus
2007-02-12, 08:46 PM
I like the addition of the 5 foot caveat, though I personally would prefer to simply make it a separate feat -

Offensive Mobility
Prerequisites : None

Benefit : When in combat, if someone performs an action that draws an attack of opportunity, you may make a five-foot adjustment toward them and take that attack. In doing so, you limit yourself the following round; You are unable to move any distance (excluding further use of this feat after your next action), though you may take another Move action, such as standing up, drawing/sheathing a weapon, readying/dropping a sheild, or other move-equivalent actions.

Zeal
2007-02-12, 09:03 PM
Saruman, a pure wizard (who defeated Gandalf earlier), was defeated by a bunch of trees chucking rocks around. And they're only CR 8!

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they had levels in Hulking Hurler.

Wehrkind
2007-02-12, 10:43 PM
Weren't there a hundred or so Treants as well? Probably had class levels too, given how anchient they were.

Vorpal Tribble could probably write some up that could fill the role nicely.

barawn
2007-02-12, 11:19 PM
Weren't there a hundred or so Treants as well? Probably had class levels too, given how anchient they were.

Vorpal Tribble could probably write some up that could fill the role nicely.

The treants are the CR 8 guys. There were 50 of them, though, good point.

Wehrkind
2007-02-13, 04:36 AM
Sorry, that is what I meant. I was a little unclear, meaning "100 of the treants, as well as their being CR8". Time for me coffee :)

Marius
2007-02-13, 05:37 AM
But Saruman actually died from a knife in his back...

kamikasei
2007-02-13, 06:13 AM
But Saruman actually died from a knife in his back...

Knife across the throat, actually.

But that's an interesting point about Tolkien wizards: although nominally immortal, the form they wore on Middle-Earth was sort of a shell, and damage could require them to abandon it. Hence Gandalf 'dying' on Zirak-zigil and going on an ethereal jaunt to Valinor and back. Saruman didn't precisely die from the knife - his spirit left his body, and was dispersed, apparently by consensus of the Valar refusing to let him return.

</pedantry>

Thomas
2007-02-13, 09:40 AM
Fallen Valar and Maiar were unable to return once "dead," in general. Sauron could bring himself back - very slowly, over millenia - because of the One Ring, which "anchored" him to the world.

nivek1234
2007-02-13, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure how good/balanced the feat would be but what about:

Name: Shrug off the spell

Prerequisites: BAB + 11, INT 15, Combat Expertise (?)

Benefit: Once per day (+ INT mod), you may use your fortitude save instead of reflex or will save for spells. You must declare the use of this skill prior to the roll.

I must admit, I like the idea of a feat that allows you to take a 5-foot step to possibly interrupt a spell via AoO.

Leush
2007-02-13, 04:26 PM
Ya know, I think's it's pretty balanced. Although the name needs work on. Also, I think abilities like that are best done like the stunning fist feat: Ie 1/day/5 levels. What do you think?

Quietus
2007-02-13, 06:59 PM
I thought there was already a feat like that? I know there's Cumbrous(sp?) Reflexes or something to that effect somewhere; Lets you use a Fort save instead of a Reflex, but fatigues you or something to that effect. Personally, I'd make it 1 point of Con damage, maybe, as using your body as a sheild against something like that would be incredibly draining.

Helgraf
2007-02-13, 11:54 PM
I really wish I knew what sort of game of D&D you're playing; frankly I haven't seen fighter builds lose steam until you hit epic levels.

You can't always control the battlefield or how the combat will come to you and fighters play a vital part in re-establishing control - or at least safety - during an ambush situation. Hell, I play in a game with 6 to 8 (depending on how many can make it) every other week, and frankly we _always_ have the worst beatings when the players of the fighters can't make it. It takes an absurd amount of resources from everyone else just to keep from getting killed in battles that would have only been equal to our adjusted CR had the fighters been present in place of, say, the scout or the sorceror. About the only class we miss more is when the Cleric or Druid can't make it; and that's only because healing is needed _no matter who is present_ each session.

Yes, other classes can try to emulate a fighter, but frankly, that requires devoting resources best used for other purposes. Divine Power/Divine Favour/Righteous Might is nice and all, but I'd rather save the slots for other spells and let the fighters take care of the business of fighting, not waste 3 rounds (or 1.5 with Quickened Spell and high enough spell slots) making myself like a fighter, during which time, the monsters have free reign to act unopposed by me. I'd much rather summon disposable monsters to soak up hits and maybe land a few of their own (Celestial Bison work well for this), taking the grief off the party and allowing wounded to fall back and be healed - or to be stabilized as needed.

And there's something to be said for Duraska's point. Having to tot about in d4s and crappy AC if I get caught offguard or dispelled means as a wizard I'd have a damn harder time living to Level 20 than my tank-armoured, hitpoints of a small country fighter friend. And frankly I do think there should be some extra payoff for that.

Now the subject of why Clerics get Miracle (Wish with less costs), and whether that's fair is another matter altogether.

Tola
2007-02-14, 01:18 AM
Saruman, a pure wizard (who defeated Gandalf earlier)

What defeat? That implies they fought, and they never did.

Skyserpent
2007-02-14, 02:49 AM
Bears with Lazers doesn't seem to be taking the bait... maybe we should mention something about Monks being overpowered, or maybe the idea that the Spiked Chain is imbalanced...

Marius
2007-02-14, 06:26 AM
I really wish I knew what sort of game of D&D you're playing; frankly I haven't seen fighter builds lose steam until you hit epic levels.

You can't always control the battlefield or how the combat will come to you and fighters play a vital part in re-establishing control - or at least safety - during an ambush situation. Hell, I play in a game with 6 to 8 (depending on how many can make it) every other week, and frankly we _always_ have the worst beatings when the players of the fighters can't make it. It takes an absurd amount of resources from everyone else just to keep from getting killed in battles that would have only been equal to our adjusted CR had the fighters been present in place of, say, the scout or the sorceror. About the only class we miss more is when the Cleric or Druid can't make it; and that's only because healing is needed _no matter who is present_ each session.

Then you are a group of players with very unoptimized builds.In an optimized group all of you should miss the wizard more than anyone else.



Yes, other classes can try to emulate a fighter, but frankly, that requires devoting resources best used for other purposes. Divine Power/Divine Favour/Righteous Might is nice and all, but I'd rather save the slots for other spells and let the fighters take care of the business of fighting, not waste 3 rounds (or 1.5 with Quickened Spell and high enough spell slots) making myself like a fighter, during which time, the monsters have free reign to act unopposed by me. I'd much rather summon disposable monsters to soak up hits and maybe land a few of their own (Celestial Bison work well for this), taking the grief off the party and allowing wounded to fall back and be healed - or to be stabilized as needed.

It's way better to kill the enemies faster than to help the other party members. And a cleric with that combo can be much better than a fighter so he can kill enemies faster than the fighter can. And he was a really good will save too so his defenses are also better than the fighters.
Also a Wildshape Druid could make any fighter cry and they would still have an animal companion (and his spells as a full caster) just in case.



And there's something to be said for Duraska's point. Having to tot about in d4s and crappy AC if I get caught offguard or dispelled means as a wizard I'd have a damn harder time living to Level 20 than my tank-armoured, hitpoints of a small country fighter friend. And frankly I do think there should be some extra payoff for that.

But they are not just a little better, they are kings and fighters are peasants. I won't write all the reasons of why the wizards rule the mid to high levels or why the fighter sucks. There're like a dozen topics about this in the last few pages. So read them and then you'll know what we are talking about.

A few links:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33623
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32619
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32575
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32533
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30204
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32425

Quietus
2007-02-14, 06:45 AM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that some people don't play to have a perfectly optimized character? That maybe it's more fun to some people to actually roleplay, and I mean that in more than just "finding a new reason that my wizard has to have X, Y, and Z spells" or "Finding a new reason that my cleric always goes into battle with these three spells active". Doesn't it ever get BORING having the same character doing the same thing over and over, instead of being creative with spells that CAN'T simply eliminate everything on the battlefield?

Marius
2007-02-14, 07:20 AM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that some people don't play to have a perfectly optimized character? That maybe it's more fun to some people to actually roleplay, and I mean that in more than just "finding a new reason that my wizard has to have X, Y, and Z spells" or "Finding a new reason that my cleric always goes into battle with these three spells active". Doesn't it ever get BORING having the same character doing the same thing over and over, instead of being creative with spells that CAN'T simply eliminate everything on the battlefield?

It's fine if they don't, my group is just like that, they don't even know how to optimize a character (I'm the DM right now but when I'm not I like playing rogues or psions, not the more powerful classes but I like them). But some people like to optimize and that's fine too. You don't have to left the roleplaying aside to optimize a character, one thing has nothing to do with the other. The game should be balanced so that you could optimize your character without making everyone else seem useless.

Raum
2007-02-14, 08:48 AM
Has it ever occurred to anyone that some people don't play to have a perfectly optimized character?Sure it has. I intentially play less than optimal characters most of the time.


That maybe it's more fun to some people to actually roleplay, and I mean that in more than just "finding a new reason that my wizard has to have X, Y, and Z spells" or "Finding a new reason that my cleric always goes into battle with these three spells active".Please, game mechanics, optimization, and role playing are three separate subjects. Optimizing your character has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you are role playing. Game mechanics and the functional capabilities of various classes have nothing to do with whether or not you decide to build an optimized character.

The argument that people don't have to optimize casters therefore fighters are ok is extremely flawed.


Doesn't it ever get BORING having the same character doing the same thing over and over, instead of being creative with spells that CAN'T simply eliminate everything on the battlefield?Sure it does, but again this has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Looking at it objectively, this argument is a knock against fighters anyway. They don't have the choice of spells.

In fact their only choice is how to hit a target. Too bad druids and clerics can hit harder. /hyperbole

Gerrtt
2007-02-14, 09:44 AM
So...do people actually play fighter all the way to 20? Most people I see posting builds for review typically only throw in a few levels to grab armor, feats, and attack bonus but seldom do you see a build that goes fighter all the way to 20. If that is the case, isn't all the 20-fighter balance discussion a moot point?

My honest opinion, leave them the way they are. If you dont want to play a class that isn't as powerful then by all means dont. I certainly wont hold a gun to your head.

Can we please stop having this discussion every 4+/-2 days?

barawn
2007-02-14, 09:59 AM
What defeat? That implies they fought, and they never did.

Sure they did. Not in the flagrant way shown in the movies, but Saruman did imprison Gandalf, who needed help to be rescued. Which I normally consider "defeating".

Misat
2007-02-14, 10:15 AM
So...do people actually play fighter all the way to 20? Most people I see posting builds for review typically only throw in a few levels to grab armor, feats, and attack bonus but seldom do you see a build that goes fighter all the way to 20. If that is the case, isn't all the 20-fighter balance discussion a moot point?

My honest opinion, leave them the way they are. If you dont want to play a class that isn't as powerful then by all means dont. I certainly wont hold a gun to your head.

Can we please stop having this discussion every 4+/-2 days?

Ahem. The acctual formula is 1d12-11 (was going to be something with d4s, but the d12s needed some exercise)

Gerrtt
2007-02-14, 11:45 AM
Ahem. The acctual formula is 1d12-11 (was going to be something with d4s, but the d12s needed some exercise)

Minimum 1 day or are you taking into account multiple versions of the same question being asked at the same time?

Person_Man
2007-02-14, 01:12 PM
I'm not sure how good/balanced the feat would be but what about:

Name: Shrug off the spell

Prerequisites: BAB + 11, INT 15, Combat Expertise (?)

Benefit: Once per day (+ INT mod), you may use your fortitude save instead of reflex or will save for spells. You must declare the use of this skill prior to the roll.

I must admit, I like the idea of a feat that allows you to take a 5-foot step to possibly interrupt a spell via AoO.

Dive for Cover from Comp Adventurer allows you two Reflex save rolls, though you fall Prone if you have to make a second one. Mathmatically, even someone with a weak Ref Save and 10 Dex should be able to pass one of them.

Insightful Reflexes from Comp Adventurer replaces your Dex bonus with your Int bonus for Reflex Saves - good for paranoid Wizards or low Dex Warblades.

Gerrtt
2007-02-14, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure how good/balanced the feat would be but what about:

Name: Shrug off the spell

Prerequisites: BAB + 11, INT 15, Combat Expertise (?)

Benefit: Once per day (+ INT mod), you may use your fortitude save instead of reflex or will save for spells. You must declare the use of this skill prior to the roll.

I must admit, I like the idea of a feat that allows you to take a 5-foot step to possibly interrupt a spell via AoO.

I dunno, I think that a persons physical composure rather than their intellect should decide how many times per day they can use their body to absorb the shock from a spell. Maybe switching it to Con 15+ and Great Fortitude would be better pre-reqs...just a thought.

nivek1234
2007-02-15, 02:57 AM
I dunno, I think that a persons physical composure rather than their intellect should decide how many times per day they can use their body to absorb the shock from a spell. Maybe switching it to Con 15+ and Great Fortitude would be better pre-reqs...just a thought.

It is a thought. I pictured it more as learning from previous experiences how to best react to spells. I don't picture a half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 6 knowing how to best react defensively to a spell being cast on him. That and making the stat requirement one in which a full BAB character usually has heavy amounts might make it a little to common/achievable for my taste.

I really like the Great Fortitude feat requirement you suggested.

Josh Inno
2007-02-15, 03:17 PM
The problem with scaling feats instead of feat chains is that the d20 system is built on a linear range of 1-20. This works fine when stuff like base attack increases at a steady rate, but once you change the rate at which it increases (ie: 6/5 levels instead of 5/5 levels) you break that linear-slope rule that keeps any sort of balance to the game.


That is actually still linear. y = a*x+b is a linear function by nature. Now true, we're only approximating it by a step function, but that's the case any time you do level based effects, and it's similar with the 3/4 progression of bards, druids, clerics, rogues and what have you.

Math. It's your friend. ^_^

Helgraf
2007-02-17, 03:58 PM
Then you are a group of players with very unoptimized builds.In an optimized group all of you should miss the wizard more than anyone else.

Mmmm, yes. My experience differs from yours over a variety of play groups with different people and different DMs, some quite killer in their tendancies, but all 20 of us players (collectively between three games) are all running very unoptimized builds. You know, I find that statement to be quite arrogant, and presumptive. I am not arguing that the wizard doesn't have a core place in the party. I am stating - from extensive experience running through these campaigns - that if the fighters aren't there, the wizard, pre-teleport, will get hosed quickly. Post teleport, the wizard isn't there to get hosed; and you can't run around with a full suite of defensive spells active 24 hours a day and still expect to contribute enough left-over spell slots for combat control or mass damage. Unless, of course, your DM is letting you get away with only one encounter a day; in that case, yeah, of course spellcasters are going to be dominant because the resource curve they're meant to be effecitive on just gave them a huge advantage in terms of being able to multiply fourfold the amount of resources they can devote to a fight.



It's way better to kill the enemies faster than to help the other party members. And a cleric with that combo can be much better than a fighter so he can kill enemies faster than the fighter can. And he was a really good will save too so his defenses are also better than the fighters.
Also a Wildshape Druid could make any fighter cry and they would still have an animal companion (and his spells as a full caster) just in case.


I've seen the arguments about the DF/DP/RM cleric being superior, and frankly, again, you're dumping three spell slots and two rounds (minimum) of actions to active the combo in each fight. By the time you're high enough level to persistantize the whole combo, you're stuck blowing out even higher level spell slots - and then, since you're size large, you need to consider the issues of squeezing rules, the fact that you make it much harder for archers and touch-attackers to hit their targets due to providing cover to more of the enemy because of the fact you take up more space, and the fact that you've just painted yourself as a big target for dispel magic, greater dispel magic, et al.

Ubercleric is overpowered not so much by pure overpower as because 7 times out of 10 the GM doesn't play his monsters as intelligent enough (at the level they can run into Ubercleric in Persistant mode) to recognize it can happen and have countermeasures ready. One well placed targetted dispel and poof - your cleric is stunningly mortal again.



But they are not just a little better, they are kings and fighters are peasants. I won't write all the reasons of why the wizards rule the mid to high levels or why the fighter sucks. There're like a dozen topics about this in the last few pages. So read them and then you'll know what we are talking about.

A few links:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33623
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32619
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32575
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32533
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30204
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32425

Beleive it or not, I've seen these arguments before.