Fighter ACFs (PEACH)

[GameSpawn]

Motivation: The problem with the fighter, as I see it, is that there isn't anything about it that makes it inherently better at fighting. Feats aren't fundamentally strong enough to offset the lake of class features, and the fighter needs a decent number of feats to close the gap with a raging barbarian, even before noting that the barbarian is more useful out of combat. I've seen people try to address this a few ways; introducing better feats, writing acfs, or just completely re-writing the fighter. I've never been completely satisfied with any that I've seen. In addition, I dislike re-writes, primarily because I dislike removing published material from my game (especially material in the core rulebook). As such, I'm creating ACFs rather than just tacking on a bunch of extra abilities.

Goal: I'm not trying to address the great class imbalances of D&D 3.5 here. I just want the fighter to be better at hitting stuff, taking hits, and generally to have some more interesting options than "taking more feats that other people can also take" (there are, of course, some options that specifically have "x levels of fighter" as a prerequisite; I think this is OK in principle, but there aren't enough that I like).

The power level I'm shooting for with these options is "good, but not so good that everyone will take it always". For example, melee expert is pretty great for a melee character, but isn't especially great for a ranged character; this is about what I'm going for.


Melee Expert:
You've sacrificed training with ranged weapons to focus on close combat.

Level: 1st, optionally: 10th

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with martial ranged weapons. Additionally, remove Point Blank Shot, Rapid Reload, and any feat that has one of those feats as a prerequisite from the list of fighter bonus feats. If you select a feat that applies to a specific weapon as a fighter bonus feat, you may not choose a ranged weapon for this feat. For example, you cannot select Weapon Focus (Longbow) as a bonus feat (you may still select this feat as one of the feats that a character of any class gains every three levels).

Gain: Whenever you make a successful attack with a melee weapon, you may add your fighter level to the damage dealt. At 10th level, you may choose to give up your fighter bonus feat for the level. If you do, this damage increases to 1.5*your fighter level.

First off, I'm not totally sure the "Lose" section reads very clearly.

I like the idea that the fighter deals more damage just for being a fighter. Their a fighter. They should be good at fighting. I'm somewhat concerned about the scaling; I want to create a motivation for taking more levels of fighter, but I'm not sure I got the scaling right. I've considered adding another jump at 20th level, or more, smaller jumps along the way. I'm trying to avoid having any jumps in damage that are too big, and also to avoid making people work with too many fractions.

As a side benefit, this makes being a two-weapon fighter more viable, which I like.


Ranged Expert:
You've sacrificed training with melee weapons to focus on ranged combat.

Level: 1st, optionally: 10th

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with martial melee weapons. Additionally, remove Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, and any feat that has one of those feats as a prerequisite from the list of fighter bonus feats. If you select a feat that applies to a specific weapon as a fighter bonus feat, you may not choose a melee weapon for this feat. For example, you cannot select Weapon Focus (Longspear) as a bonus feat (you may still select this feat as one of the feats that a character of any class gains every three levels).

Gain: Whenever you make a successful attack with a ranged weapon, you may add your fighter level to the damage dealt. At 10th level, you may choose to give up your fighter bonus feat for the level. If you do, this damage increases to 1.5*your fighter level.

This is basically the same as melee expert, making the analysis pretty much the same. That said, it's worth noting that ranged combat is fundamentally more flexible than melee combat, and powerful options available to melee characters aren't generally available to archers. I keep toying with the idea of changing the progression, but at the moment, it seems alright to me to keep things the way they are; I think the other aspects of the game balance each other out.

Reckless Rush:
You've learned to sacrifice your own safety in order to bring the fight to the enemy more quickly.

Level: 6th or any even level thereafter

Lose: If you select this alternate class feature, you do not gain your bonus feat for the level at which you select it.

Gain: You gain the pounce (ex) ability. If you use this ability to make an additional attack at the end of your charge, the penalty to AC you incur for charging lasts 1 round longer than normal. If you charge two rounds in a row, the penalties do not stack.

Every melee character wants pounce! Generally speaking, pounce is more powerful than a feat, so I felt like I should add an additional penalty. I'm not totally sure I like it though. I may drop it.

Roll with the punches:
You haven't trained with armor as much as other fighters have, but you know how to take a hit.

Level: 1st

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with heavy armor or with shields, including tower shields. Remove any feat that requires you to be proficient with heavy armor or shields from the list of fighter bonus feats. Any feat you take as a fighter bonus feat that applies to a specific type of armor cannot be used to apply to a type of heavy armor or a shield. Instead of gaining a fighter bonus feat at first level, you gain toughness as a bonus feat.

Gain:At 2rd level, you gain DR 1/-. At 5th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, this DR increases by 2 (so 3/- at 5th level, 5/- at 8th level etc.)

By 20th level, you have DR 13/-, which is pretty high. The loss from this ACF isn't too much of a hardship. You'll have to wear mithral full plate instead of adamantium, but you've got better DR anyway. Shields also scale poorly in comparison to damage, and you can always work around your lack of proficiency. In general, I worry that this option is too strong, compared to other mundane (or limited magical) characters.

Mobile Fighter:
Combat is varied. Not every fight is fought on an open field, and your training reflects that.

Level: 1st

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with all martial weapons. Pick any 2 martial weapons. You are proficient with these. Remove Exotic Weapon Proficiency from the list of fighter bonus feats.

Gain: You gain a good a reflex save (your reflex save advances as that of a rogue). You gain 4 + int modifier skill points every level instead of 2 + int modifier (and you gain 4 * (4 + int modifier) skill points at first level). Add Balance and Tumble to your list of class skills.

It always bothered me that it was so hard for Melee characters to get Balance as a class skill. Since you get proficiency with two martial weapons, the penalty here isn't too harsh, but it still limits you a little. Of course, you could just multi-class in order to pick those proficiencies back up, which means you haven't really lost much at all (most exotic weapons aren't worth it, and the chances of you needing more than one are pretty small). Of course, the more you multiclass out, the less the benefit from this ACF, so maybe it's ok.

Never run from a fight:
You might not be as tough as some fighters, but that doesn't mean you're any less brave...

Level: 1st

Lose: You lose your good fortitude save (it advances at the same rate your will save normally does).

Gain: You gain a good will save (it advances at the same rate your fortitude save normally does).

Unlike the other ACFs here, this is a pretty lateral shift, so there's not much to say about it. Still, your constitution is probably better than your wisdom, so this will help even your saves out some, if you dislike being practically immune to some attacks and a fish in a barrel against others.

Monster Expert:
When other would be fighters were learning the finer points of smithing, you were busy learning about all the monsters you'd fight.

Level: 1st

Lose: Craft is not a class skill for you.

Gain: Knowledge (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, and the Planes) are class skills for you.

It might not be the traditional fighter, but knowing your enemies is just good sense. For a straight fighter, whether this is useful or not really depends more on your play style than anything else. Of course, it also opens up some other build options for a multi-class fighter.

[ngilop]

the first 2 'ACFs' should just be something that come naturally to the fighter.

just give them fighter level to weapon damage and be done with it.

[silphael]

And that would apply to mobile fighter as well : every class should have 4+int skill points per level.

[Carl]

Pretty much what the other two said, in fact you could dump the whole lot on the fighter with no penalties whatsoever and the class would still be only a solid T4. I should also point out that nothing will make dual wield better than 2-hander so long as leap attack exists, it's just so utterly broken it's not funny.

[GameSpawn]

The main reason I prefer ACFs (or variant classes, which some of these are more similar too), is I hate starting a game/turning up to DM a game and saying, "I'd like to play with you, but here's 8 pages of stuff you have to read first". If someone who doesn't feel that way looks at this and decides to just tack all this stuff on to the base fighter, then I'm happy that they found some use for my stuff, but it's not how I prefer to run things.


Pretty much what the other two said, in fact you could dump the whole lot on the fighter with no penalties whatsoever and the class would still be only a solid T4. I should also point out that nothing will make dual wield better than 2-hander so long as leap attack exists, it's just so utterly broken it's not funny.

T4 is basically my goal. I don't want to completely revamp the fighter, or give them tons of out of combat utility, and there's no way I'm addressing the t1/t2 gap with a few pages of ACFs.

Concerning TWF vs. THF: If a standard 20th level fighter with leap attack takes a -20 penalty to hit, then they get +80 damage per attack with a two handed weapon, or +40 with a one handed weapon, meaning the dual wielder (with two one handed weapons) needs approximately twice as many attacks to get the same damage (there's other issues involved, but this is good enough for an approximation). By comparison, a 20th level fighter with melee expert and leap attack, will do +110 damage or +70 damage under the same circumstances, meaning the dual-wielder needs closer to 1.5 attacks for every attack the two-hander has in order to close the gap, which is more feasible. That said, I agree that this won't completely address the gap between 2-weapon fighting and 2-handed fighting, but it makes it smaller.

[Carl]

@GameSpawn: Leap attacks doubles power attack damage for one handed, but trebles it for two handed, so a -20 penalty becomes +120. And yes it is stupid, and broke, and idiotic, and all the rest.

[Network]

Melee Expert:
You've sacrificed training with ranged weapons to focus on close combat.

Level: 1st, optionally: 10th

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with martial ranged weapons. Additionally, remove Point Blank Shot, Rapid Reload, and any feat that has one of those feats as a prerequisite from the list of fighter bonus feats. If you select a feat that applies to a specific weapon as a fighter bonus feat, you may not choose a ranged weapon for this feat. For example, you cannot select Weapon Focus (Longbow) as a bonus feat (you may still select this feat as one of the feats that a character of any class gains every three levels).

Gain: Whenever you make a successful attack with a melee weapon, you may add your fighter level to the damage dealt. At 10th level, you may choose to give up your fighter bonus feat for the level. If you do, this damage increases to 1.5*your fighter level.

[...]

Ranged Expert:
You've sacrificed training with melee weapons to focus on ranged combat.

Level: 1st, optionally: 10th

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with martial melee weapons. Additionally, remove Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, and any feat that has one of those feats as a prerequisite from the list of fighter bonus feats. If you select a feat that applies to a specific weapon as a fighter bonus feat, you may not choose a melee weapon for this feat. For example, you cannot select Weapon Focus (Longspear) as a bonus feat (you may still select this feat as one of the feats that a character of any class gains every three levels).

Gain: Whenever you make a successful attack with a ranged weapon, you may add your fighter level to the damage dealt. At 10th level, you may choose to give up your fighter bonus feat for the level. If you do, this damage increases to 1.5*your fighter level.
These ones are actually good. Not much to comment here. They could help fill in the gap between ranged and melee combat, since ranged combat usually relies on a lot of attacks (and thus benefits more from bonus damage per attack).

Reckless Rush:
You've learned to sacrifice your own safety in order to bring the fight to the enemy more quickly.

Level: 6th or any even level thereafter

Lose: If you select this alternate class feature, you do not gain your bonus feat for the level at which you select it.

Gain: You gain the pounce (ex) ability. If you use this ability to make an additional attack at the end of your charge, the penalty to AC you incur for charging lasts 1 round longer than normal. If you charge two rounds in a row, the penalties do not stack.
I love it. Don't take it out, the fighter really needs the boost. Further the price (a feat and a lasting penalty to AC) is reasonable (not something that everyone would take, but not something to ignore), and there are ways to get away with the AC penalty entirely.

Roll with the punches:
You haven't trained with armor as much as other fighters have, but you know how to take a hit.

Level: 1st

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with heavy armor or with shields, including tower shields. Remove any feat that requires you to be proficient with heavy armor or shields from the list of fighter bonus feats. Any feat you take as a fighter bonus feat that applies to a specific type of armor cannot be used to apply to a type of heavy armor or a shield.

Gain: Your hit die becomes a d12 instead of a d10. At 2rd level, you gain DR 1/-. At 5th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, this DR increases by 2 (so 3/- at 5th level, 5/- at 8th level etc.)
A bit too much. I'd take this one every time. Further the price is almost entirely waived by multiclassing, and ranged fighters don't need armor (or shield) anyway.


Mobile Fighter:
Combat is varied. Not every fight is fought on an open field, and your training reflects that.

Level: 1st

Lose: You do not gain proficiency with all martial weapons. Pick any 2 martial weapons. You are proficient with these. Remove Exotic Weapon Proficiency from the list of fighter bonus feats.

Gain: You gain a good a reflex save (your reflex save advances as that of a rogue). You gain 4 + int modifier skill points every level instead of 2 + int modifier (and you gain 4 * (4 + int modifier) skill points at first level). Add Balance and Tumble to your list of class skills.
Too much, though not as bad as Roll with the punches. A price that is entirely waived from multiclassing in exchange of benefits that remain good indefinitely? There is a reason why the thug variant from UA is considered so good, and it requires a full bonus feat for almost the same benefit.


Never run from a fight:
You might not be as tough as some fighters, but that doesn't mean your any less brave...

Level: 1st

Lose: You lose your good fortitude save (it advances at the same rate your will save normally does).

Gain: You gain a good will save (it advances at the same rate your fortitude save normally does).
Good-ish but meh. Not much to say here.


Monster Expert:
When other would be fighters were learning the finer points of smithing, you were busy learning about all the monsters you'd fight.

Level: 1st

Lose: Craft is not a class skill for you.

Gain: Knowledge (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Religion, and the Planes) are class skills for you.
Exchanging one skill that is usually given to NPCs anyway in exchange of six other skills? That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Well, I assume we could make a fighter variant for more ''knowledgeable'' fighter types, with the Dark Knowledge class feature of the archivist in exchange for a few bonus feats here and there, but Knowledge is usually more important to PCs than Craft.

@GameSpawn: Leap attacks doubles power attack damage for one handed, but trebles it for two handed, so a -20 penalty becomes +120. And yes it is stupid, and broke, and idiotic, and all the rest.
Was the question ever asked on whether the ''treble damage'' was applied after the increase from being two-handed or whether it was intended to replace it? If the latter, I think it would be +60 damge for a -20 penalty to hit, unless you are using another way to double power attack, in which case with D&D mathematics it'd become -20 for +80. If the official answer is that they stack, could you direct me to the place where that was explained?

In other words, is the damage supposed to be calculated like Momentum Swing (a maneuver from Combat Brute), which is good but balanced, or is it supposed to be something awfully unbalanced?

[GameSpawn]

These ones are actually good. Not much to comment here. They could help fill in the gap between ranged and melee combat, since ranged combat usually relies on a lot of attacks (and thus benefits more from bonus damage per attack).

I love it. Don't take it out, the fighter really needs the boost. Further the price (a feat and a lasting penalty to AC) is reasonable (not something that everyone would take, but not something to ignore), and there are ways to get away with the AC penalty entirely.

:smallsmile:


A bit too much. I'd take this one every time. Further the price is almost entirely waived by multiclassing, and ranged fighters don't need armor (or shield) anyway.

Hmm. Maybe I could remove the HD boost, or maybe I could require that their 1st level bonus feat be toughness. That would become a useless feat fast, but not until the DR starts to kick in.


Too much, though not as bad as Roll with the punches. A price that is entirely waived from multiclassing in exchange of benefits that remain good indefinitely? There is a reason why the thug variant from UA is considered so good, and it requires a full bonus feat for almost the same benefit.

I'll have to think about this one. Maybe reduce the list of bonus feats some more. Maybe reduce the HD to d8.



Good-ish but meh. Not much to say here.


Exchanging one skill that is usually given to NPCs anyway in exchange of six other skills? That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Well, I assume we could make a fighter variant for more ''knowledgeable'' fighter types, with the Dark Knowledge class feature of the archivist in exchange for a few bonus feats here and there, but Knowledge is usually more important to PCs than Craft.

Technically, the craft skills are separate skills, just like the knowledge ones are, but I see your point. I'll think on it.


Was the question ever asked on whether the ''treble damage'' was applied after the increase from being two-handed or whether it was intended to replace it? If the latter, I think it would be +60 damge for a -20 penalty to hit, unless you are using another way to double power attack, in which case with D&D mathematics it'd become -20 for +80. If the official answer is that they stack, could you direct me to the place where that was explained?

In other words, is the damage supposed to be calculated like Momentum Swing (a maneuver from Combat Brute), which is good but balanced, or is it supposed to be something awfully unbalanced?

My interpretation, and the most common interpretation I've seen is that they stack (x2 + x3 = x4 because D&D math). That said, I don't know of any ruling beyond the feat description.

[Carl]

My interpretation, and the most common interpretation I've seen is that they stack (x2 + x3 = x4 because D&D math). That said, I don't know of any ruling beyond the feat description.

Re-read the power attack feat. Using a 2 hander doesn't multiply the bonus from the penalty, it unctions as a flat change to the amount added, though what your suggesting may have been what the feat writers intended the RAW of the PA feat doesn't actually allow it. So it's 3 * 2 damage per -1 attack.

[Network]

Hmm. Maybe I could remove the HD boost, or maybe I could require that their 1st level bonus feat be toughness. That would become a useless feat fast, but not until the DR starts to kick in.
Still too strong. Having a +10 bonus to AC from armor and DR 13/- is strictly better than having a +13 bonus to AC from armor, no matter what. Furthermore the sacrifices you make for your DR are entirely waived if you take even one level in another martial class, so you would effectively get a +13 bonus to AC from armor and DR 11/-. My suggestion is that you rewrite Roll with the punches from the ground up so it doesn't overshadow the barbarian, as far as damage reduction is concerned. And make it actually cost bonus feats, not being a free (or cheap) thing for multiclassers.

As for toughness, your assumption may prove to be wrong if someone homebrews actually good feats that have it as a prerequisite. Which I did. And will probably do again.

I'll have to think about this one. Maybe reduce the list of bonus feats some more. Maybe reduce the HD to d8.
This one is also ''free'' to multiclassers. Copy the thug variant (you can find it here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug)), and replace the additional class skills with Balance, Escape Artist and Tumble. Find something that is roughly equivalent to good reflex saves and add it as a price. The current price of ''you are proficient with less weapons'' should be removed, IMHO.

Re-read the power attack feat. Using a 2 hander doesn't multiply the bonus from the penalty, it unctions as a flat change to the amount added, though what your suggesting may have been what the feat writers intended the RAW of the PA feat doesn't actually allow it. So it's 3 * 2 damage per -1 attack.
After a quick google check it turns out that there are three interpretations as to how Leap Attack is supposed to apply in regard to two-handed weapons:
-Either the triple damage from Leap Attack replaces the double damage from Power Attack, so the bonus damage is equal to penalty * 3.
-Either the triple damage and double damage stack, but follow the D&D rule for multiplication, so the bonus damage is equal to penalty * 4.
-Either they do stack, but are intended to ignore the D&D rule for multiplication, so the bonus damage is equal to penalty * 6.

Under the first two interpretations, wielding a two-handed weapon is not much better than dual-wielding in regard to damage dealt/übercharger builds (except maybe in regard to feat investment). Under the third, the two-handed weapon is strictly better. Of course the errata for Leap Attack hasn't clarified that, but apparently WotC intended to make an errata to the errata, which would get rid of the third sentence (the one about tripling), so the third interpretation is probably not RAI.

Curiously, the errata for the Frenzied Berserker has the same wording as the errata for Leap Attack, with explicit reference that +100% damage from power attack means penalty * 4 when wielding with two hands. This is not the most logical explanation, but my conclusion is that the second interpretation is RAI, and the other two are due to poor wording of the feat.

[Carl]

After a quick google check it turns out that there are three interpretations as to how Leap Attack is supposed to apply in regard to two-handed weapons:
-Either the triple damage from Leap Attack replaces the double damage from Power Attack, so the bonus damage is equal to penalty * 3.
-Either the triple damage and double damage stack, but follow the D&D rule for multiplication, so the bonus damage is equal to penalty * 4.
-Either they do stack, but are intended to ignore the D&D rule for multiplication, so the bonus damage is equal to penalty * 6.

Under the first two interpretations, wielding a two-handed weapon is not much better than dual-wielding in regard to damage dealt/übercharger builds (except maybe in regard to feat investment). Under the third, the two-handed weapon is strictly better. Of course the errata for Leap Attack hasn't clarified that, but apparently WotC intended to make an errata to the errata, which would get rid of the third sentence (the one about tripling), so the third interpretation is probably not RAI.

Curiously, the errata for the Frenzied Berserker has the same wording as the errata for Leap Attack, with explicit reference that +100% damage from power attack means penalty * 4 when wielding with two hands. This is not the most logical explanation, but my conclusion is that the second interpretation is RAI, and the other two are due to poor wording of the feat.


Oh i'd agree it's supposed to be a 4 x multiplier, (total), for 2-handed attacks and if i was a DM and was actually willing to allow leap attack that's what i'd house rule it as.

But the way PA is written 2 handed weapons don't get double the damage boost of 1 handed. They get a straight change to 2 point. It's a replacement of the 1-handed damage modifier rather than a multiplier of it. So anything that multiplies the damage uses a base of 2 damage for it's math.



Still too strong. Having a +10 bonus to AC from armor and DR 13/- is strictly better than having a +13 bonus to AC from armor, no matter what. Furthermore the sacrifices you make for your DR are entirely waived if you take even one level in another martial class, so you would effectively get a +13 bonus to AC from armor and DR 11/-. My suggestion is that you rewrite Roll with the punches from the ground up so it doesn't overshadow the barbarian, as far as damage reduction is concerned. And make it actually cost bonus feats, not being a free (or cheap) thing for multiclassers.

As for toughness, your assumption may prove to be wrong if someone homebrews actually good feats that have it as a prerequisite. Which I did. And will probably do again.

I'm sorry but *facpalm*. Yes it's easy to multi-class away. So what. The fact that they overshadow the Barbarian and you can multi-class out is kind of irrelevant. The Barbarian's own DR is awful to the point of useless. Any amount of DR worth giving anything up to get IS going to overshadow the barbarian horribly. You simply cannot create a balanced ACF for a fighter that isn't completely and utterly better than anything the fighter allready gets and doesn't have a high chance of pissing all over one or more existing classes because so many classes are objectively awful.

Don't get me wrong, as i allready pointed out the highly variable damage of Monsters can make even modest amounts of DR grant nigh invulnerability, but that's a monster design issue to be fixed by the DM, (for example you could with appropriate monster types hand out some of the treasure allotment to the Monster as Magic items), or avoided by avoiding the problem monsters.

Not that +10AC and a bunch of DR togetehr is totally balanced mind, but the DR alone i'd have no issues with myself just because even that isn't going to push the fighter out of T4 so unless it's an all/mostly T5 game it isn't risking breaking anything.

[GameSpawn]

Oh i'd agree it's supposed to be a 4 x multiplier, (total), for 2-handed attacks and if i was a DM and was actually willing to allow leap attack that's what i'd house rule it as.

But the way PA is written 2 handed weapons don't get double the damage boost of 1 handed. They get a straight change to 2 point. It's a replacement of the 1-handed damage modifier rather than a multiplier of it. So anything that multiplies the damage uses a base of 2 damage for it's math.

Ok, so I looked up the Errata for leap attack, which says,


If you cover at least 10 feet of horizontal distance with
your jump, and you end your jump in a square from
which you threaten your target, you deal +100% the
normal bonus damage from your use of the Power
Attack feat.

So I think that makes it pretty clear that you deal the extra damage x2 (x4 your penalty). More fundamentally, whether the bonus damage is x6 or x4, my argument that Melee Expert brings TWF and THF closer together still holds. If the bonus damage is x6, we get +120 damage and +40 damage vs. +150 damage vs. +70 damage. Either way, the number of extra attacks the TWFer needs to make up the gap is reduced.


Still too strong. Having a +10 bonus to AC from armor and DR 13/- is strictly better than having a +13 bonus to AC from armor, no matter what. Furthermore the sacrifices you make for your DR are entirely waived if you take even one level in another martial class, so you would effectively get a +13 bonus to AC from armor and DR 11/-. My suggestion is that you rewrite Roll with the punches from the ground up so it doesn't overshadow the barbarian, as far as damage reduction is concerned. And make it actually cost bonus feats, not being a free (or cheap) thing for multiclassers.

As for toughness, your assumption may prove to be wrong if someone homebrews actually good feats that have it as a prerequisite. Which I did. And will probably do again.


I'm sorry but *facpalm*. Yes it's easy to multi-class away. So what. The fact that they overshadow the Barbarian and you can multi-class out is kind of irrelevant. The Barbarian's own DR is awful to the point of useless. Any amount of DR worth giving anything up to get IS going to overshadow the barbarian horribly. You simply cannot create a balanced ACF for a fighter that isn't completely and utterly better than anything the fighter allready gets and doesn't have a high chance of pissing all over one or more existing classes because so many classes are objectively awful.

Don't get me wrong, as i allready pointed out the highly variable damage of Monsters can make even modest amounts of DR grant nigh invulnerability, but that's a monster design issue to be fixed by the DM, (for example you could with appropriate monster types hand out some of the treasure allotment to the Monster as Magic items), or avoided by avoiding the problem monsters.

Not that +10AC and a bunch of DR togetehr is totally balanced mind, but the DR alone i'd have no issues with myself just because even that isn't going to push the fighter out of T4 so unless it's an all/mostly T5 game it isn't risking breaking anything.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with people working around the penalties. That's basically just optimization 101. My problem is if I create an ACF so powerful that I can't imagine a build in which people wouldn't take it. I think if I force the first bonus feat to be toughness, I achieve that; yes, the penalty is light, but it's still real, and if they multi-class to overcome the rest of the penalties, then more power to them. The only way homebrew that uses toughness as a prerequisite change this is if that homebrew is so powerful I can't imagine anyone not taking it, which is a problem with that homebrew, not this one.

I'll think some more about Mobile Fighter.

[Carl]

That's basically just optimization 101. My problem is if I create an ACF so powerful that I can't imagine a build in which people wouldn't take it.

The problem is if your goal with these is to provide ACF's that make the fighter better you can't avoid this happening. It's an intrinsic fact of making the fighter better that the ACF's will automatically be vastly superior to the base fighter making the ACF's automatic in the process.

[GameSpawn]

The problem is if your goal with these is to provide ACF's that make the fighter better you can't avoid this happening. It's an intrinsic fact of making the fighter better that the ACF's will automatically be vastly superior to the base fighter making the ACF's automatic in the process.

I don't mind creating ones that are clearly better for specific builds. I think melee expert worked out fairly well for this; it's great for melee builds, and terrible for ranged ones. It hurts the fighter's versatility some, but makes them better at their one thing.

For Roll with the Punches, I'm trying to hit the line with DR where it's noticeable, but not overpowering, and where the penalty is noticeable, but bearable.

[Carl]

The problem is even the first two are going to be automatic in the sense that someone will decide if they want to go melee or ranged then auto pick the one they want because it's so good not having it would be silly. They may not be both auto picks at the same time or with every build, but any fighter wort his salt is going to have one of them at the least.

Also there's zero way to balance the DR vs monsters. At 20 for example the bottom end is a Balor with 20 average damage per swing, whilst the top end is a 55 average Tarasque. With Various others falling somewhere in between.