PDA

View Full Version : The Amazing Fighter???



Takamari
2007-05-27, 11:12 AM
Alright, so we all know that in the world of D&D and power level, the fighter ranks fairly low. I wouldn't say it is the weakest class, but it is down there. So, how do we fix this problem? I have heard so many people complain about the power three, and while they are powerful, it wouldn't be so bad if the melee classes got some love. The ToB made a good attempt at balance. However, magic should still beat all, it is magic after all.

Again, how do we make the fighter a better class to play? Well, we don't. The fighter is fine how it is. Now don't go crazy yet, let me explain my logic before you judge. With the exception of giving the fighter a good will save, the problem doesn't lie with the class itself. The fighter has a full base attack and a d10 hit points with a bonus feat every even level. That, in term of mechanics, is AWESOME.

As I see it, the problem is with the feat selection. Every other class gets new abilities. The wizard and cleric get new spells, so that balances all out. The druid is just dirty, new spells and an ability almost every level...*shudder*. In any case, the fighter only gets feats. Well, if the feats were better, the fighter would be better.

I can see putting a feat out for fighters that straight gives them spell resistance equal to 10-15+hit dice to a maximum of 35 or so. Make it require something like Iron Will and spellcraft 5 ranks. Other feats that make the fighter comprable to the wizard and cleric. Feats that emulate spells and spell like abilities: at 9th level the fighter can pick up a feat that lets him cast Righteous Might a number of times per day equal to his Wis/Int modifier, or gain fast healing.

I'm very tired and don't know if I'm making sense, but I hope everyone can see my point. Specifically for the fighter, the feats make the man. To make the fighter more than a 2 level dip, give feats that make the fighter better at things other than combat.

Please don't refer me to other posts on this topic. I just wanted to see what people think of this idea and I have read quite a few of those other posts/articles.

Thanks

Shas aia Toriia
2007-05-27, 11:26 AM
Those feats are already in the ELH. Besides, SR is cheap for PC's if they get it all the time; that's why it isn't in the PH. Spells can do this, but only for a short time.

Fast healing? That is epic, just for 3, with hefty requirements.

Besides, ToB actually does a great job balancing melee and casters.

Miraqariftsky
2007-05-27, 11:30 AM
If class marketability is to be raised, what about just one or three features? Say, what about bonuses connected to shields? +some AC while using shields and no penalties while shield bashing? That's my opinion at the moment. Goodnight.

Poppatomus
2007-05-27, 11:35 AM
I think it's a reasonable idea, but I disagree with your diagnosis of the problem. You're right to point out that the fighter is somewhat underpowered in the sense that there is no feat equivalent of "wish," but there are some pretty incredible feats out there already, and the other advantages of the class are supposed to make up for that.

More importantly, those issues of imbalance really only become ridiculous at high levels. At mid and low levels the issue isn't so much the power imbalance between, say an unlimited number of power attacks a day vs. 3 fireballs, as it is the versatility of caster, who might go with three fireballs one day, three mind control spells the next, etc...

Imo, if you want to fix fighters they need to be able to more readily switch feats or substitute them as the need arises. I tried building a PrC around this once (the daoist) but I don't have the rules smarts to get it done.

Indon
2007-05-27, 11:39 AM
You are not the only person to contemplate improving feats.

Personally, I'm of the camp that feats should scale with level; Iron Will, for instance, I think should raise a poor will save progression to a good one, or grant +2, whichever is higher.

SR as a whole is circumventible mostly with specific, rather cheesy tactics; NPC's are much less likely to make extensive use of such things than PC's, so SR is generally pretty robust.

Feats that give SLA's, while a bit extraordinary for the generally not-supernatural nature of feats (most feats which are supernatural in nature are supplimentary of other supernatural abilities, or carry heavy requirements), really don't strike me as too crazy, when created carefully.

Matthew
2007-05-27, 11:40 AM
Fighters need to be able to learn 'Spells', otherwise known as Techniques, freely and without limit. Then employ them at a similar rate as Spell Casters (Sorceres probably, as these would need to be spontaneous). That was pretty much the diagnosis of Tome of Battle and it came close to an answer, but instead of fixing Fighters it created new Base Classes.

There was quite a good Home Brew about Monks learning secret Techniques.

Takamari
2007-05-27, 11:46 AM
Hmmm. I have not read the ELH in quite some time. I was just thinking of ideas. A friend of mine showed me a fighter varient he found on the boards. It was a nice blend of the marshal and the fighter along with giving the fighter several abilities based on HD, such as bonus damage on all attacks, etc.

I agree that the balance issues are in the later game. I don't think that it is completely unreasonable to have a pre-epic feat that gives fast healing. A ninth level cleric gets Vigor, Greater; thats fast healing 4 for two minutes.

I guess my idea is trying to beef the fighter against all those straight screw the figher spells. They get horrible will saves, even with Iron Will, however, Steadfast Determination helps with that some. Unless specifically built to save against it, a fighter will almost always fail vs the wizards dominate/hold monster. I want to see fighters be able to make the wizard and cleric think twice before trying to take them on. I dont' expect to ever see a fighter beat the well prepared power three class, but I would like to see them have a fighting chance.

Oh, I do agree that the ToB has made a huge improvement. When someone says they want to play a "fighter" I refer them to the ToB.

BardicDuelist
2007-05-27, 11:50 AM
I (in an interest of keeping base classes to a minimum) just let the fighter take the Martial Study, etc. feats with no limit on the number of times it can be taken and at a level for level basis (equal to martial adepts). This, I thought, allowed for a more versitile fighter class with cool feats, but kept the flavor of swordsage, crusader, and warblade out (in my world I thought they didn't fit).
I did give him 4 skill points too.

A fighter with time stop (the equivalent maneuver) is rather balanced. :smallwink:

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-27, 11:53 AM
The fighter is weak when spellcasters are selfish, the fighter is strong when the DM is lazy.

Takamari
2007-05-27, 12:04 PM
I agree Closet!!! I so agree. I love combat clerics and batman wizards. I find them much more versitile. Some of the most fun I've had has been the buffer wizard and/or cleric. Why cast bulls strength on myself when I can make the fighter/paladin/barbarian that much better. As a cleric of 9th lvl, I can easily give my fighter 13 temp hit points, +3 to attack rolls, +2 to saves (+3 vs fear), +3 to damage and an extra attack, with three spells. I'm sorry, I give that to all of my party. Probabily better than me casting Divine Power, Righteous Might, and Divine Favor.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-27, 12:31 PM
Spell resistance feats are a bad idea for the fighter in my opinion because they're too supernatural and don't really help. Being a fighter is about being skilled with a sword, not having spells. A fighter with supernatural abilities would be a multiclass or prestige classed fighter, the fighter should exist as a mundane class you can fall back to if you get sick of the supernatural.

This is one of the problems with Tome of Battle, but luckily there's enough non-supernatural stuff in that book to give players some choice.


I agree Closet!!! I so agree. I love combat clerics and batman wizards. I find them much more versitile. Some of the most fun I've had has been the buffer wizard and/or cleric. Why cast bulls strength on myself when I can make the fighter/paladin/barbarian that much better. As a cleric of 9th lvl, I can easily give my fighter 13 temp hit points, +3 to attack rolls, +2 to saves (+3 vs fear), +3 to damage and an extra attack, with three spells. I'm sorry, I give that to all of my party. Probabily better than me casting Divine Power, Righteous Might, and Divine Favor.

As Uncle Ben is reported to have said; "with great power comes great responsibility", the Wizard is powerful but he's also responsible for his allies, just as a rogue could use a balance check to walk over a trap without triggering it when he should use a disable device check so his allies can walk over it.

V's action in 427 were more effective than a Cloudkill would have been.

the_tick_rules
2007-05-27, 12:42 PM
One option is to realize the classes are designed to work together. I've said it before but there's a reason every single D&D player is not a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or druid. A fighter with a spell storing greatsword with truestrike in it, leap attack (changes 2 to 1 ratio to 3 to 1), invisibility, and a maxed out power attack could kill a wizard in a single blow while his wizard ally spell duels it out with other wizard.

Piccamo
2007-05-27, 12:46 PM
And buffing them takes more time in which you could be doing it better yourself.

Talya
2007-05-27, 12:48 PM
In the same spirit as the fighter class itself, the best way to balance the fighter is to introduce a lot of fairly long "feat trees," with the feats getting exponentially more effective as you go down the tree.

For instance, there is one feat tree already in the game, but it's poorly designed: Weapon Focus/Specialization.

So what if Weapon Focus/Spec stayed the same, but Improved weapon focus/specialization got really nasty: extra attack (on either standard action or full attack) with your chosen weapon, +5 to damage, etc..and continued to some penultimate feat that was only available at 14th level or higher or something similar. Rather than giving them a hodge-podge of unrelated and largely unsynergistic feats, make them add up to a final, impressive goal.

RMS Oceanic
2007-05-27, 01:02 PM
Talya has a good point: As far as I know, there are only four feats that actively require Fighter Levels: (Greater) Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Supremacy, with Specialization being (sometimes) the only one worth taking, and Weapon Mastery rendering advancing beyond Fighter 4 relatively pointless unless you want everything. I think there should be some more (effective) fighter-only feats that make the class attractive.

Poppatomus
2007-05-27, 01:09 PM
In the same spirit as the fighter class itself, the best way to balance the fighter is to introduce a lot of fairly long "feat trees," with the feats getting exponentially more effective as you go down the tree.

For instance, there is one feat tree already in the game, but it's poorly designed: Weapon Focus/Specialization.

So what if Weapon Focus/Spec stayed the same, but Improved weapon focus/specialization got really nasty: extra attack (on either standard action or full attack) with your chosen weapon, +5 to damage, etc..and continued to some penultimate feat that was only available at 14th level or higher or something similar. Rather than giving them a hodge-podge of unrelated and largely unsynergistic feats, make them add up to a final, impressive goal.

I don't remember specifically, but that kind of exists in some of the books. The asian themed book has a number of more monk oriented feats that build on eachother, and there are the stacking +hp feats that eventually become pretty formidable. To me the problem remains, as I mentioned above, not that these options don't exist but that they require teh permanent exclusion of other options.

Take Spring attack. I spend 6 levels of fighter getting to spring attack through bonus feats. It's not that spring attack, for a melee fighter, isn't necessarily as good as an average 3rd level spell, it's more that over those same six levels the caster gets a half dozen spells per day, and many times that in spells they can use on any given day (especially if they are a cleric.) Fighters should be batmen more than wizards, it's this mechanic of set feats that prevents that from being the case.

Even if your fix were implemented, and it would improve the class don't get me wrong, it would only exacerbate this problem. now you'd have characters basically needing to decide at level 1 exactly which kind of feat progression is going to be most useful for any given encounter at, say, level 16. Even specialized casters only specialize by school, not by particular spell.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-27, 01:09 PM
And buffing them takes more time in which you could be doing it better yourself.

You can cast buffs before the battle.

TheThan
2007-05-27, 01:14 PM
I believe that any warrior worth his salt would stay alert to his surroundings. So I would give them spot and listen as class skills, besides that making sense, they’re two skills that are almost required for adventuring. I also believe that heal should be on their class skill list too. Since most warriors would learn some basic healing techniques so they can patch up themselves or their fellows after a fight.

So add heal, listen and spot, and maybe pump their skills up to 4+int a level would go quite a ways in fixing the fighter class. There are lots of fighter feats out there, unfortunately most of them aren’t core. But with liberal use of PHB II, Complete warrior, complete adventurer (and probably complete champion), I think you can build a fair fighter for high level games.

Remember the fighter doesn’t have to beat a wizard a higher levels, it just has to be useful.

However I agree that the fighter needs some better feat trees to use.

Sir Giacomo
2007-05-27, 01:34 PM
Hi Takamari,

I completely agree with you. The fighter is OK as it is, no improvement needed. Since you explicitly asked for it, I shall not post a link to an archer fighter build I once did (lvl 20) to illustrate it can contribute to a high-level party against the most fearsome monsters.:smallbiggrin:

@ClosetSkeleton: the fighter never thrives besides his fellow pc spellcasters if the DM is lazy. Because spellcasting and their opposing tactics and drawbacks of spellcasting classes take the DM more work than non-casting abilities, feats and tactics.

- Giacomo

Takamari
2007-05-27, 01:48 PM
The_Tick_Rules shares my thoughts. The classes were designed to work together. A well played villian with an average intelligence knows that he has to neutralize the wizard and the cleric first. Having a fighter and rogue there to draw attention is helpful.

I really agree witht the better feat trees. The fighter needs to have the same ability as the warblade; to change the focus of his weapon specific feats with little effort. Fighters are supposed to be weapon masters.

As to the spell resistance/fast healing type feats I brought up. I look at that more as the fighter is just hardy vs magic and extra healthy. Though I agree that fast healing may be a bit much. Maybe damage reduction similar to the barbarian.

@The Than: agreed, the fighter doesnt' need to beat the wizard or cleric, as long as he is useful. Besides, if my group has a fighter and the cleric is constantly going "combat mode", I throw that player out of my group. We are supposed to be having fun and that player just crapped on the player running the fighter.

greenknight
2007-05-27, 05:18 PM
The problem with the Fighter isn't combat so much, because Fighters can be very good at combat at any level (Sir Giacomo's Fighter build demonstrates that quite well). The real problem with Fighters is that they can't really contribute much out of combat. At higher levels, you have other classes like the Cleric and Druid who can manage physical combat just as well as a Fighter can, and do a lot of other stuff out of combat as well. If you load up your Fighter with magical items, you might be able to achieve some of the stuff the casters can, but generally speaking you won't do it as well as a caster and they can adapt to different situations better just by changing their spell loadout.

Lord Tataraus
2007-05-27, 05:43 PM
I just needed to put in my opinion about the fighter. First of all the fighter lacks one extremely, and commonly overlooked attribute that every other class has over the fighter: flavor. The fighter is boring, they get no special abilities or tricks, they are your average soldier, nothing special. You can say I will fix fighter by giving these feats or whatever, but the fighter is still boring and, at least in my group, no one would play it with all of the other, cooler classes out there, especially ToB. To me, fighter does not exist just like samurai (the class) both have been replaced by ToB. The fighter is dead, may it rest in peace and not come back as an undead or something.

Matthew
2007-06-05, 09:27 PM
Couldn't agree less. Fighters are just about my favourite Class precisely because they don't get straight jacketed into a particular set of mechanics. That said, they cannot compete with Spell Casters for interesting things to do past Level X.

PerasThorngage
2007-06-06, 12:32 AM
Howdy All,

I am actually standing on the opposite of most of you on your stance of "just give the fighter better feats". I use a variant of fax celestis' fighter from the homebrew forums, and am actually rather happy with it. The variant gives the fighter some extra skills, some usefulness to the party outside of combat, and makes them more effective in combat. These are all issues that I believe needed to be addressed with the fighter.

Now personally I partially do agree with the statement about just adopting swordsage and warblade into the game, and waving goodbye to the fighter.

But being that this thread addressed the issues of the fighter, I have only a couple things to say.

In my games I did a couple things
1. Improved the base fighter class by giving more skill points, interesting class abilities, better will saves, and better combat performance.
2. Provided new feat chains and interesting feats for combat oriented characters.
3. Hampered slightly the power three, giving bonuses to all on save vs suck/die spells. And making changes to some of the CoDzilla favs.

Now agree or not with these choices, they seem to be working so far, and I'll continue to play test them and see how it goes.

I apologize if this was hard to read, as I know I'm not the best writer.

Just a few thoughts from the friendly neighborhood DM.

Orzel
2007-06-06, 01:51 AM
I'm for better feats but against actually doing it in 3.5. I prefer my fighter to have more feats and stack the bonuses like a madman.My image of the fighter is a guy who kows the art of combat and can stack 4+ feats together to excel in an aspect of combat.

I tend to give the class more skill points (few to no new class skills though), the ability to ignore STR, DEX, CON, and BAB requirements on feats, and a cohort. This makes them into a guy with way too many high level feats and the master of cross class skill. A harder, accurate, yet stupid rogue.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 02:05 AM
What fighters need isn't more power, exactly, but more ability to use it. The main problems the fighter suffers at higher levels is his susceptibility to anything requiring a will save and his lack of mobility.

This is partly why archers tend to get off a bit easier at high levels. They don't need mobility to get full attacks. However, your poor swordswinger had trouble getting up to the monsters and then getting off his full attacks. Part of what makes the ToB fighters more powerful is that they rely far less on full attacks to do their tricks (and have a number of other tricks that increase mobility). The problem here is giving them something that lets them reach flying or particularly quick monsters without resorting to tricks that distract from the central archetype.

However, with that terribly low will save, they can be taken out by nearly any spellcaster or monster with strong mental abilities. They can't fight if they're paralyzed, dazed, or dead. Other classes have weak saves too, but generally better ways of shoring them up. Give fighters a better chance to make these saves, and they'll have a lot more staying power in late game.

Giving them out-of-combat utility in the form of skills is also good, since it gives them something to do besides carry everyone else's things when they're traveling, but a fighter fix must of necessity first focus on his combat prowess. After all, if he can't fight, then he's clearly not a good fighter.

Sir Giacomo
2007-06-06, 04:32 AM
The problem with the Fighter isn't combat so much, because Fighters can be very good at combat at any level (Sir Giacomo's Fighter build demonstrates that quite well). The real problem with Fighters is that they can't really contribute much out of combat. At higher levels, you have other classes like the Cleric and Druid who can manage physical combat just as well as a Fighter can, and do a lot of other stuff out of combat as well. If you load up your Fighter with magical items, you might be able to achieve some of the stuff the casters can, but generally speaking you won't do it as well as a caster and they can adapt to different situations better just by changing their spell loadout.

greenknight makes some valid points here. Overall at levels 1-20 the fighting strength of the fighter at low levels may be enough to balance it out, but that is hardly consolation for those who wish to play in the, say, 11-20 levels.

What stuff could a fighter do outside of combat?
Here are some suggestions, based on what the fighter can do in the core rules that few other classes can do. Do not take it as a basis for whether it is enough to balance the fighter vs other classes as well, simply as suggestions of what to do outside combat.

High&low levels
Social interaction.
- Here, the only skill is intimidate. That, however, can be quite useful sometimes (remember that many monsters, for instance the powerful elementals, have weak will saves!), and only 1 round of interaction is needed (for intimidate, the rules do not specify what interaction, but it can be safely interpreted as including defensive combat as well). Can be boosted with a feat (and circlet of persuasion, also useful for UMD) if necessary. Animal Handling could also help, but likely there will be a wilderness-related character in the group, or a rogue/bard who can jump in with enough skill points).
- concerning feats, leadership at high levels may be a good choice, if the campaign gives room for it. Cohorts and such can provide many avenues of social interactions, contacts, access to spellcasting and cheaper magic items (item creation) etc. Note that all classes can take the leadership feat, but the fighter 1) has most feats to spare for something that may not be relevant all the time and 2) gets like other non-casting classes much higher marginal utility from having a caster cohort than casters and 3) is among the classes not receiving a leadership penalty for already having a paladin's mount, animal companion or familiar.

Communication & travel
- ride is a class skill. The fighter may also train the animal to do tricks with handle animal (so he is basically only behind druid, ranger and paladin in that respect).
- Like all classes, of course the fighter has access to cheap travel-boosting items (like a figurine of bronze griffon etc.)
- as an archer, with the far shot feat and a range-enhancing item, he can shoot an arrow with a message one kilometre far. Nice also in high-level play where it is sometimes difficult to communicate vs magic barriers.

Exploration/dungeoneering
- skills here are among the best for low-level survival: jump, swim, climb (but skill points maybe a bit meagre to cover the basics; however the physical stats like STR should be OK for the fighter as well)
- feats might offer some stuff that other classes will not have the spare feats and/or class ability to do without magic (which at low levels gets depleted faster): run, endurance etc. But it is not that great.

Research:
Nil :smallsmile: However, a fighter could max a craft skill to make masterwork items in his downtime, like all classes. Since he can get skill focus feat more easily for that skill maxing, he may be the best in that respect (apart from the casters who may get item creation feats - but they could use the masterwork stuff of the fighter as basis to enchant). At low levels, masterwork items could be quite useful (+1 to hit weapons, less penalty armour, masterwork lockpicks etc.).

- Giacomo

TimeWizard
2007-06-06, 11:48 AM
The ToB made a good attempt at balance. However, magic should still beat all, it is magic after all.
E.M.

You've completely nailed the thing I hate most in any kind of fantasy, ever. Because powerful wizards are a conveinent plot device, the whole thing snowballed into "Magic beats Melee, every damn time" which is really, really frustrating.

I would be indebted to someone who could adaquetly explain why this should continue with more reasoning then "because it's magic".

Droodle
2007-06-06, 12:03 PM
E.M.

You've completely nailed the thing I hate most in any kind of fantasy, ever. Because powerful wizards are a conveinent plot device, the whole thing snowballed into "Magic beats Melee, every damn time" which is really, really frustrating.

I would be indebted to someone who could adaquetly explain why this should continue with more reasoning then "because it's magic".I would argue that the only reason magic should "beat all" is that wizards have several means to extend their lives, leveling up as they age (and are positively affected by aging) almost indefinitely while warriors just get old (and are negatively affected by aging) and die. In other words, Uber-powerful wizards should be high level epic characters who just happened to live long enough to become that powerful......something that a warrior wouldn't have the resources to accomplish. 20th level magic shouldn't trump 20th level melee.

In my opinion, Gandalf was Uber-powerful because he was really, really old and, for whatever reason, aging did not negatively affect his combat skills....not because he was a wizard.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-06, 12:11 PM
You've completely nailed the thing I hate most in any kind of fantasy, ever. Because powerful wizards are a conveinent plot device, the whole thing snowballed into "Magic beats Melee, every damn time" which is really, really frustrating.

I would be indebted to someone who could adaquetly explain why this should continue with more reasoning then "because it's magic".Oh yeah, I agree this is quite annoying. But I think it flows somewhat naturally from a lot of the base assumptions of fantasy.

Magic requires years of special training, while any peasant can swing a sword. At level 20, a wizard can stop time, summon elemental beasts to fight for him, or kill instantly with a word. The fighter can hit people really well, and possibly trip them or execute a really powerful charge. Oooh. Despite the fact that he's spent just as long studying the martial arts as the wizard has his spells. In the olden days, this was somewhat addressed by the wizard needing more XP to level, but now it's just a power gap.

Fighter abilities must be mundane This somewhat follow from the first point. It's easy to imagine that a character who can throw magic missiles at level 1 could do really amazing things by level 20. But there's an assumption that the fighter's progression can only be to get better at purely physical attacks. This is why ToB is a really great alternate approach: really advanced study in the martial arts lets you do things that aren't remotely plausible in the real world, like attacking so fast it sets things on fire.

Wizards are scientists, fighters are not. If magic is vulnerable to melee, it's "realistic" that wizards would spend time researching spells to protect against that. And they have. Phantom Steed, Mage Armor, Fly, etc can save the caster from being grappled or full-attacked at close range. Meanwhile, the fighters have apparently been hiding behind a rock practicing the same old moves while the wizards teched up. In a world where enemies can fly, cast spells, and teleport, it's farfetched that fighters wouldn't invest a lot of time and energy learning techniques to counter those abilities somehow. Again ToB helps with this, as others have said.

Morty
2007-06-06, 12:22 PM
Magic requires years of special training, while any peasant can swing a sword. At level 20, a wizard can stop time, summon elemental beasts to fight for him, or kill instantly with a word. The fighter can hit people really well, and possibly trip them or execute a really powerful charge. Oooh. Despite the fact that he's spent just as long studying the martial arts as the wizard has his spells. In the olden days, this was somewhat addressed by the wizard needing more XP to level, but now it's just a power gap.

The problem is, wizards are doing it far too easily. Most powerful spells should be difficult to cast even by powerful wizards.


Fighter abilities must be mundane This somewhat follow from the first point. It's easy to imagine that a character who can throw magic missiles at level 1 could do really amazing things by level 20. But there's an assumption that the fighter's progression can only be to get better at purely physical attacks. This is why ToB is a really great alternate approach: really advanced study in the martial arts lets you do things that aren't remotely plausible in the real world, like attacking so fast it sets things on fire.

If you're setting things on fire by attacking them, you aren't fighter anymore. You're sword wielding spellcaster.


Wizards are scientists, fighters are not. If magic is vulnerable to melee, it's "realistic" that wizards would spend time researching spells to protect against that. And they have. Phantom Steed, Mage Armor, Fly, etc can save the caster from being grappled or full-attacked at close range. Meanwhile, the fighters have apparently been hiding behind a rock practicing the same old moves while the wizards teched up. In a world where enemies can fly, cast spells, and teleport, it's farfetched that fighters wouldn't invest a lot of time and energy learning techniques to counter those abilities somehow. Again ToB helps with this, as others have said.

The better solution would be, that while wizards are all-powerful, they can't really do much when someone is actively trying to chop their head off. Therefore, no broken defensive spells.
Seriously, the problem isn't with meleers, but with badly written D&D magic. It's perfectly possible to have wizards killable by fighters.

KoDT69
2007-06-06, 12:52 PM
One thing that really bugs me about the whole Fighter vs. Wizard eternal debate - The fact that the general consensus seems to accept the abilities of a 20th level Wizard without giving any consideration that said Wizard probably had a Fighter in the beginning to help him survive. It would be a highly custom campaign designed solely for Arcane to rule all for a solo 1st level Wizard to make it to level 20. Seriously, even a goblin can do that 4hp worth of damage, with just about any type of weapon too. So the Wizard casts Fly to avoid danger while the Fighter Great Cleaves the goblin army, and they both get equal XP :smallyuk: I would refuse to play in a campaign so contrived that the arcane caster PWNS no matter what.
This is why I have made a lot of my own homebrewed changes to most of the base classes, most minimal at best, but a lot for the fighter. I started with the feats. For core fighters, and feat in the feat tree becomes a freebie later on. Example, the 2nd level Fighter takes Cleave, at 8th level he gains Great Cleave as a bonus feat (or a new feat if he already expended a 2nd one for Great Cleave). A lot of the feats I changed this way to make the Fighter more versatile. I also allow ToB Maneuvers to be taken by the Fighter as Feats. The ToB classes are a waste when WotC should have just added the abilities to the Fighter class to begin with. Core Fighter with White Raven and Iron Heart Surge FTW! :smallbiggrin:

Draz74
2007-06-06, 12:57 PM
Yeah, I hate the "magic should be better than melee, because it's magic" idea. At equal levels, magic and melee should be equally powerful. The reason Merlin types are so powerful in literature is that they're high-level, compared to most of the other characters; NOT just because they can use magic. That's what the level system is for.


The problem is, wizards are doing it far too easily. Most powerful spells should be difficult to cast even by powerful wizards.

Good point. This would go a long way toward fixing many things.


If you're setting things on fire by attacking them, you aren't fighter anymore. You're sword wielding spellcaster.

Why??? :smallconfused: You're not chanting arcane phrases and pulling on the strings of the Weave. In this particular case, you're not even using some more subtle supernatural effect like ki. You're just so good with a weapon that you can hit fast enough, and in just the right places, to set something on fire in the same way mountain men start fires with wood-rubbing or flint & steel.

Besides the literature thing, the "magic should be better than melee" fallacy comes from the other fallacy, "Anything so amazing that it strains real-life credibility must be magical." Even if something is necessarily supernatural, supernatural != magical.

I think ANY high-level character should be able to perform stunts that, to us, seem supernatural. That doesn't mean a fighter has become a spellcaster.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 01:00 PM
I've been in the "give fighters more feat trees" camp for years.

the first problem with the "mundaneness of fighters" comes when you start considering at what point does a fighter stop being mundane? I mean, level 20characters are by virtue of their level, not mundane people. Yeah, a peasant can pick up a sword and swing it. But a level 20 fighter is not just swinging picking the thing up and swinging it. They're people who live and breath weaponry.

Wizards should be able to do things that are fantastic because they have magic. Fighters should be able to do things that borderline on the fantastic because they've trained their body and mind to perform at super human levels.

the argument for fighters being fine the way they are is that fighters can be super human all day long while wizards can only be earth shattering a number of times per day.

the problem with this argument is that first of all, while fighters can be super human all day, wizards power scale just wouldn't even register a fighter. That's like saying a knife is the same as a gun because a gun has limited ammunition. And in this analogy, a wizard is not like pitting a 6 round pistol against a knife, it's like pitting a 2000 round machine gun mounted against the knife.

this problem stems from the wizard's ability to perform these earth shattering feats with nearly NO reprecautions what so ever. They're not paying a price for their spells. All they need to do is take an 8 hour nap, read for an hour, and they can go right back to destroying the world with a single hand wave.

suddenly, magic is powerful AND cheap. There is no cost associated with using magic. Sure, it takes 20 levels to get there. But it also took 20 levels to get to where the fighter was, so the investment is the same. In my mind, rules such as this cheapens magic. Okay, so in addition to it being a machine on a jeep against a knife, the jeep now also has the ability to fully reload itself in a matter of hours. Oh yeah, and they have a nifty little safety mansion that nobody can get to except for himself, so he can fully reload in peace.

Morty
2007-06-06, 01:13 PM
suddenly, magic is powerful AND cheap. There is no cost associated with using magic. Sure, it takes 20 levels to get there. But it also took 20 levels to get to where the fighter was, so the investment is the same. In my mind, rules such as this cheapens magic. Okay, so in addition to it being a machine on a jeep against a knife, the jeep now also has the ability to fully reload itself in a matter of hours. Oh yeah, and they have a nifty little safety mansion that nobody can get to except for himself, so he can fully reload in peace.

And that is the problem with D&D magic, even though few people seem to notice it.


Why??? You're not chanting arcane phrases and pulling on the strings of the Weave. In this particular case, you're not even using some more subtle supernatural effect like ki. You're just so good with a weapon that you can hit fast enough, and in just the right places, to set something on fire in the same way mountain men start fires with wood-rubbing or flint & steel.

I'm traditionalist. When I'm talking about fighters performing awesome feats- something they should do at 20 level- I mean cutting dragon's head off with one slash, or parrying arrows with sword. But not setting things on fire. That's what you have torches or wizards for.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 01:20 PM
Believe me M0rt, I've tried writing up rules that address that very issue with magic before. But then I had a hard time figuring an elegant solution to this sort of thing.



I'm traditionalist. When I'm talking about fighters performing awesome feats- something they should do at 20 level- I mean cutting dragon's head off with one slash, or parrying arrows with sword. But not setting things on fire. That's what you have torches or wizards for.
I actually like the idea of a fighter being able to perform nearly-inhuman levels of athleticism and strength. In my mind, that makes a lot of sense as far as progression goes.

Indon
2007-06-06, 01:21 PM
And that is the problem with D&D magic, even though few people seem to notice it.

Well, D&D magic used to be much harder, mechanically.

-Material components were, by default (To say AD&D had a "RAW" would be misleading, though technically accurate), tracked in detail. Most DM's houseruled otherwise, however, due to the amount of time spent on this. 3'rd ed abstracted this into buying an all-in-one spell pouch and assuming grabbing the neccessary ingredient was a free action.

-Wizards had to obtain all spells from scrolls, and had to make a roll to transcribe them (and if they failed, they couldn't get the spell). 3'rd ed modified this mechanic, and added in the wizard gaining spells every level automatically, for free.

-Some spells even had more significant costs to them, such as how Haste spells caused your character to age significantly every time they were effected by one. 3'rd ed removed many of these, or abstracted them into XP costs.

Now ask this: Why were these factors from earlier editions removed, or mitigated?

Quietus
2007-06-06, 01:31 PM
Now ask this: Why were these factors from earlier editions removed, or mitigated?

Because they were found to slow the game down needlessly, I assume. Having to keep track of eight million tiny details would get frustrating. The authors simply didn't appear to think about how powerful these changes would make spellcasters.

Theodoxus
2007-06-06, 01:34 PM
Magic is technology. I've said it before, I'll say it here - again. Magic is technology.

A 20th level wizard is simply a jet fighter jock who takes off from an aircraft carrier (MMM), flies out, drops a couple of hellfires (AoE CC), swings back around, fires off a few rockets (DD), meanwhile boosting the ground troops morale (buffs) and flies back at top speed to the aircraft carrier to refuel and do it all again.

A 20th level fighter is, at best, a groundpounder with a lot of nifty gear, but the best thing he carries on his belt is a radio to call in for air support.

It sucks, and its counterintuitive, as I've mentioned previously, that any kind of martial art would develop where access to machineguns and tactical nukes had been around since day one. Maybe as a lark, or something along the lines of a modern day LARP, but not as a serious military discipline.

Melee combatants of any flavor must loose out to magic for the same reason they'd loose out to a modern military army. They're out gunned, in every sense of the word. Fighters don't loose just because 'it's magic'. And anyone who still espouses that 'because I said so' attitude needs to come here and read so they can at least sound intelligent while they tell off the little fighter.

The only thing that will ever help the melee fighters in the long run is a complete revamp of the magic system. The Vancian model - the only one available originally through 2nd ed. - helped keep this in check. Now, with spontaneous casting, rediculous metamagics and nearly all spells able to be cast within one round, magic has completely outstripped martial. Why anyone would pick up a sword when they could simply claim dragon blood and become the jet fighter in the sky is beyond me.

Magic needs to return to the box - but like Pandora, it's too late, imo. At least for this edition of the game. Hopefully next time, they leave it complex, hard to accomplish, amazing results when it works, but nearly disasterous when it doesn't - magic. Else the high level game is doomed without a lot of houseruling or DM fiat.

Theo

elliott20
2007-06-06, 01:38 PM
Well, D&D magic used to be much harder, mechanically.

-Material components were, by default (To say AD&D had a "RAW" would be misleading, though technically accurate), tracked in detail. Most DM's houseruled otherwise, however, due to the amount of time spent on this. 3'rd ed abstracted this into buying an all-in-one spell pouch and assuming grabbing the neccessary ingredient was a free action.

-Wizards had to obtain all spells from scrolls, and had to make a roll to transcribe them (and if they failed, they couldn't get the spell). 3'rd ed modified this mechanic, and added in the wizard gaining spells every level automatically, for free.

-Some spells even had more significant costs to them, such as how Haste spells caused your character to age significantly every time they were effected by one. 3'rd ed removed many of these, or abstracted them into XP costs.

Now ask this: Why were these factors from earlier editions removed, or mitigated?
Well, I can understand some parts of that since enchant weapon costed you a CON point. That means nobody would EVER create a +1 sword. The idea behind mitigation is a good one, but it's implementation did so such a fashion that just made wizards more difficult to play by increasing the book keeping. That and the sorceror made it necessary that they find some way of standardizing spell advancements and such.

In 3E though, I think significant costs such as aging and XP costs should still be standard stuff. And there's one additional cost that D&D has NEVER addressed: time.

While in a lot of fantasy novels, you'll see a wizard who spends eons casting a single spell, in D&D every wizard can in a matter of 6 seconds re-arrange the cosmos.

Think about that for a second. So basically, the time it takes to cast a single bolt of magic missile vs. creating a localized earthquake is.... 6 seconds.

Talya
2007-06-06, 01:43 PM
Note that it is very, very hard to end up with a high level wizard, from level 1. There are far more level 10 fighters in any given setting than wizards, simply because 99.9999% of wizards will die in their first four levels. At level one and two, it's a single hit that kills them. Worse yet, they've got the lowest armor class of anyone to make that single hit easy. Lastly, they don't have much combat use early on either.

Wizards at high levels should be far more powerful melee types because they've paid through the ass to get there.

Now, that said:

I think much of the problem lies with the hit point system. A single lucky hit, be it sword, arrow,or spell, should always be able to do in a wizard, but at level 20 that's not really the case. A fighter who gets the drop on a wizard should kill him outright in one round, but melee damage doesn't scale well with spell effectiveness.

Indon
2007-06-06, 01:44 PM
In 3E though, I think significant costs such as aging and XP costs should still be standard stuff. And there's one additional cost that D&D has NEVER addressed: time.

While in a lot of fantasy novels, you'll see a wizard who spends eons casting a single spell, in D&D every wizard can in a matter of 6 seconds re-arrange the cosmos.

Think about that for a second. So basically, the time it takes to cast a single bolt of magic missile vs. creating a localized earthquake is.... 6 seconds.

Actually, while I don't recall clearly I'm pretty sure spells took longer to cast in AD&D, as well. At the very least, they provided a significant 'negative' modifier to initiative (I think you added your spell level to your initiative, or somesuch?).

Matthew
2007-06-06, 01:46 PM
Magic is technology. I've said it before, I'll say it here - again. Magic is technology.
I wouldn't be inclined to agree.


Melee combatants of any flavor must loose out to magic for the same reason they'd loose out to a modern military army. They're out gunned, in every sense of the word. Fighters don't loose just because 'it's magic'. And anyone who still espouses that 'because I said so' attitude needs to come here and read so they can at least sound intelligent while they tell off the little fighter.

I'm not clear on what you're saying here.


The only thing that will ever help the melee fighters in the long run is a complete revamp of the magic system. The Vancian model - the only one available originally through 2nd ed. - helped keep this in check. Now, with spontaneous casting, rediculous metamagics and nearly all spells able to be cast within one round, magic has completely outstripped martial. Why anyone would pick up a sword when they could simply claim dragon blood and become the jet fighter in the sky is beyond me.

Actually, Magic kicked the ass of Fighters at Level 20 under Second Edition as well. Also, there were plenty of variant Spell casting models available, especially by the time of Spells and Magic.


Magic needs to return to the box - but like Pandora, it's too late, imo.

It certainly does. It is, of course, way too late in terms of RAW, as the ruleset has been published and that's pretty much that.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 01:47 PM
That's terrible game design, Talya. Dynamic imbalance is still imbalance. If the wizard sucks at first level, this is every bit as big a failure in the game as the fighter losing out at level 20.

Just a note in defense of spontaneous casting: The most powerful magic user is the one still most tightly locked into the Vancian model: the wizard. The sorcerer, though more powerful than the non-casters, is still less powerful the classes that have to prepare their spells.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 01:55 PM
That's terrible game design, Talya. Dynamic imbalance is still imbalance. If the wizard sucks at first level, this is every bit as big a failure in the game as the fighter losing out at level 20.

Just a note in defense of spontaneous casting: The most powerful magic user is the one still most tightly locked into the Vancian model: the wizard. The sorcerer, though more powerful than the non-casters, is still less powerful the classes that have to prepare their spells.

well, spontaneous casting itself is not really a problem. I mean, the end result of spontaneous casting just means that a sorc doesn't have to spend any time reading.

To elaborate, by "spontaneous", we mean people who can cast ANY spell on the go in a matter of 6 seconds regardless of time or preparation. Whether or not the spell was gained from reading or from springing forth from their inner core is not the issue here.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 02:07 PM
Wizards still have to prepare their spells, though. Aside from certain feats or special abilities (we won't mention Complete Champion), the wizard sets the spells he's able to cast in the morning. He can't change that up on the fly.

Now, granted, once prepared, they're easy to cast, but that does not equal spontaneous casting. Spontaneous casting has a specific meaning in third edition that doesn't apply to wizards.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 02:09 PM
Wizards still have to prepare their spells, though. Aside from certain feats or special abilities (we won't mention Complete Champion), the wizard sets the spells he's able to cast in the morning. He can't change that up on the fly.

Now, granted, once prepared, they're easy to cast, but that does not equal spontaneous casting. Spontaneous casting has a specific meaning in third edition that doesn't apply to wizards.
Yeah, it was kind of a lexicon mess up there for me.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 02:13 PM
Actually, one of the most balanced spellcasting systems I've seen is in Arcana Evolved, and it's actually even more flexible and makes casting spells even easier than in D&D. However, it balances this by giving the casters weaker spells to work with (and by boosting up the other classes).

Fawsto
2007-06-06, 02:35 PM
Hmmm... I Like the ideas... But in my opinion you are leveling D&D using the "high standards". At least i'd say that to balance D&D we must cut some of the "wizzie and friends" powers. See... anything that has the ability to cast spells like as a full caster is totaly cheese. Check the Druid and the Favoured Soul and you will see what happens when you give these classes other abilities! However the partial casters aren't the next step down in the ladder of power. Bards (I like to call him a partial caster... hmmm... probably wrong, though), Paladins, Rangers... These guys aren't all mighty as the full casters... Why? Well everything happens to be in the spells avaible to those classes. What makes a Cleric 10 times better than a Paladin is the spell selection. While partial casters have rather basic spells even when in the best magic lvls (normaly 5), a full caster can already bend reallity with his 5th lvl spells... Finaly I'd say that the path for balancing any fighting class with the overwelming destructive power of a comabt focused full caster is to remove or nerf some of the most destructive spells or spell combos, now, how to do this? Well, probably would take a long time, but with a little effort someone could do it.

Let's first start with the idea of "isn't this too much power for a mere mortal?". Let's use our sense of reality to understand what is possibly too much for a wizard to do.

Number 1: Time stop. Well, nice spell isn't it? Many nasty "I win" combo's come from this babe. First of all, imo who is able to stop time (doesn't matter the spell definition, just it's function) even for a brief moment is God himself.

This sounds like a joke, but expresses the truth.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 02:42 PM
The problem is that you also have to take into consideration the power of the monsters. A high level fighter has a lot of trouble making a difference against some of the powerful enemies, like pit fiends or dragons. At the least, fighters and the like need to be ratcheted up to the level of the monsters.

Fawsto
2007-06-06, 02:48 PM
That's true... But isn't D&D based on adventure parties? Pehaps a Dragon or Pit Fiend isn't made to be taken alone... Only, of course, by a overpowered mage...

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 02:53 PM
The problem is letting the fighter contribute meaningfully at all. He should not only be helping, but helping as much as the wizard or cleric. Unfortunately, he can't do that. Even in a party, there's very little he can do. There's a limit on how much he can be buffed by the wizard, even if he didn't have better things to do with his spell slots.

So, yes, wizards, clerics, and druids need to be downgraded a bit. The most powerful spells need to be taken away or nerfed. Wildshape needs to go. But the fighter also needs to be given a boost to his power, in the form of mobility and will save, so that he can continue to help the party at high levels.

Fawsto
2007-06-06, 02:57 PM
Actually this thread seems to be helping me a lot... In the past few weeks I begun working in a way to rebalance the classes folowing these ideals... When I am finished rebalancing not only the Fighter, but all core classes plus the ones found at complete warrior, aventurer, arcane and divine, I'll translate it and post here in the forum... You have spoken the truth... There is little that a fighter can do in high lvls.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 02:57 PM
well, that's why I believe two things need to happen to truly balance the classes

1. power up the fighter so they can actually competently take on greater challenges

2. increase the casting cost for magic so that full casters can still do the amazing things they can do, but they must pay the price.

The way I see it, costs come in the form of time, money, XP, special materials and slot levels. by simply just adding a couple of these to the spells, you can easily make sure that casting them is no longer trivial.

barawn
2007-06-06, 03:21 PM
The only thing the fighter needs are feats that grow with levels, and a few more available feats. Spellcasters need the spell progression nerfed a bit, since you've got spells growing linearly with levels, and number of spells growing linearly with levels.

One of the two should stay fixed. Since I'm not a big fan of spells becoming useless, the maximum number of spells per day should stay fixed.

Hmm, I wonder what that would do - maybe just say "you can never know more spells in any day than your spellcasting ability score." (modified for sorcerers in some way)

That would mean that spellcasters grows quadratically until about level 10, and then proceed linearly.

Indon
2007-06-06, 03:29 PM
The problem is letting the fighter contribute meaningfully at all. He should not only be helping, but helping as much as the wizard or cleric. Unfortunately, he can't do that. Even in a party, there's very little he can do. There's a limit on how much he can be buffed by the wizard, even if he didn't have better things to do with his spell slots.

So, yes, wizards, clerics, and druids need to be downgraded a bit. The most powerful spells need to be taken away or nerfed. Wildshape needs to go. But the fighter also needs to be given a boost to his power, in the form of mobility and will save, so that he can continue to help the party at high levels.

But here we come to a problem of potentially conflicting playstyles.

Many of the spells considered overpowered; Polymorph, Time Stop, etc. are also very interesting and, well, cool, with significant narrative potential. Removing spells (or classes, or races, or anything) from the game is problematic as it could lessen the game's diversity and potential.

And one can't just say, "Well, D&D isn't primarily a narrative game, so we shouldn't pay much heed to such matters," because D&D clearly isn't exactly a wargame either; otherwise, more attention would have been paid to game balance in the first place.

If anything, the fact that D&D accomplishes no individual gaming objective as well as many other games demonstrates that it tries to do everything at once, and one of those things would be to provide as much diversity - even for potentially 'overpowering' things - at once.

Theodoxus
2007-06-06, 03:38 PM
well, that's why I believe two things need to happen to truly balance the classes

1. power up the fighter so they can actually competently take on greater challenges

2. increase the casting cost for magic so that full casters can still do the amazing things they can do, but they must pay the price.

The way I see it, costs come in the form of time, money, XP, special materials and slot levels. by simply just adding a couple of these to the spells, you can easily make sure that casting them is no longer trivial.

Easiest thing I can think of - keep Evocation at sub round casting times and move every other type of spell up a few notches. Allow abjuration spells their 3.0 duration, but make them take 2 rounds to cast. That wizard's gonna be buffing his friends, in combat, at risk of disruption if not careful. Save or Suck spells which aren't evo should take a few rounds too - probably a real quick a dirty way to swap them out would be (spell level -1) in rounds (minimum 1 round). This would give enemies lots of chances to negate the wizards contribution to things like crowd control and insta-gib spells, but still allow the wizard to deal direct damage (the weakest thing he can do) normally.

Shapechange varient already addresses the uberness of wild shape by toning the ability down while still allowing the druid to keep the flavor of animal forms and the ability to cast spells without the cheese of casting in animal form. "oh look, a cute little brown bear. Ow! That bear just summoned a swarm of bees on me."

Clerics are a bit more difficult to curtail in power, though a varient of the wizard, where everything but Conjuration (healing) is likewise increased in casting time. But there's nothing really keeping the cleric from waking up, casting a crapton of persistant magic to make them fighting godlings. Other than ruling such metamagic out of existance...

it's a start though.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 03:53 PM
well, I think to truly do the job right, you need to look at each spell and modify it on a case by case basis.

the principle I want to promote here is this: powerful, cheap, fast, pick two.

if you want something to be powerful and fast, you're gonna be paying DEARLY for it. (So want to cast wish in a matter of 6 seconds? fine, I hope you're not going to miss your CON score)

If you want something fast and cheap, it's gonna have to be weak. (magic missile anyone?)

if you want something power and cheap, it's going to take you a long time to do it. Keep in mind, I don't mean cheap as in just money, I also mean in the way of XP, ability points, etc, etc. So if you want to cast a force cage that cannot be destroyed but you don't want to hurt yourself doing it, fine. But it'll take you a while to put it together.

So, with that in mind, we need to look at the usage of the spells and adjust the cost accordingly.

So things like Time Stop? Well, the POINT of time stop is so that you get extra rounds to act. So asking for a giant casting time would be counter intuitive. This means that it would make more sense to increase the cost of such a spell. Tack on a 500 XP per casting cost and I'll bet you the only time wizards are using these things it's going to be REALLY important.

What about save or die spells? well, same thing. If you can either stand there for a long time casting a curse on the guy, or you can again burn your nifty 500 xp and get it out now. Either way, it's not going to be a trivial matter.

takes a lot of work, but I think this approach would work the best.

Droodle
2007-06-06, 06:00 PM
Frankly, timestop should be an epic spell...or it should just be unstable. Give the spell a 50% chance of fizzling, a 25% chance of actually working, and a 25% chance of backfiring and stopping time just for the wizard. Allow the wizard's spellcraft score to be removed from the fizzle chance (so a wizard with a spellcraft score of 35 only has a 15% chance of his timestop fizzling), but the spell will always have a 25% chance of backfiring which can never be mitigated. That's what I'd do.

Sir Giacomo
2007-06-06, 06:08 PM
The problem is letting the fighter contribute meaningfully at all. He should not only be helping, but helping as much as the wizard or cleric. Unfortunately, he can't do that. Even in a party, there's very little he can do. There's a limit on how much he can be buffed by the wizard, even if he didn't have better things to do with his spell slots.

So, yes, wizards, clerics, and druids need to be downgraded a bit. The most powerful spells need to be taken away or nerfed. Wildshape needs to go. But the fighter also needs to be given a boost to his power, in the form of mobility and will save, so that he can continue to help the party at high levels.

Nope.

You do not need any of that. No nerfing and no upgrading needed, at least not in core.
If you are in a group, the fighter can be buffed sky-high. All core monsters in MM I can get slain by a normally-built fighter in 1 round (actually, all high level, as in lvls 17-20 characters will be able to do that).
Casters may be able to do more outside of combat, but with a good DM you will be able to also give the fighter opportunities to shine at high levels (at low levels, the wizard needs that kind of DM help, too, so it evens out.)

- Giacomo

Droodle
2007-06-06, 06:20 PM
Nope.

You do not need any of that. No nerfing and no upgrading needed, at least not in core.
If you are in a group, the fighter can be buffed sky-high. All core monsters in MM I can get slain by a normally-built fighter in 1 round (actually, all high level, as in lvls 17-20 characters will be able to do that).
Casters may be able to do more outside of combat, but with a good DM you will be able to also give the fighter opportunities to shine at high levels (at low levels, the wizard needs that kind of DM help, too, so it evens out.)

- GiacomoNot normally built fighters. Ranged fighters, maybe, but a normally built fighter will be chewed up and spit out by a balor. Not to mention that a fighter will lose immediately against most monsters who happen to be full casters by simply having their will saves targeted.

EDIT: Or, worse, get dominated and turned against their party.

Valdyr
2007-06-06, 06:25 PM
This has been a really great thread. Here's something that popped into my mind.

Back in 1st Edition and maybe 2nd Edition (if I recall correctly) you only gained hp up until a certain level (maybe it was 10 or 9?). After that you gained a couple hp per level, but didn't roll your hit dice.

I'm not suggesting that things were more balanced in 1st or 2nd - on the contrary, the wizard would routinely outclass the fighters and rogues (ahem... thieves) - but hp might be part of a way to rebalance things. If wizards remain physically frail (which I think they should) and low on hp, they may be more balanced. It's been my experience that higher level D&D gets to look something like a MMORPG battle. The Fighter and Barbarian take a lot of hits and don't do much damage and the wizards nuke and the clerics buff (and do some nuking). I think the threat of death should be close by the wizard.

Even though its a pain, the full magic rules should be used. It's not automatic that Clerics/Druids get their spells. Pelor might not like that his cleric is using those several thousand gp on a magical item instead of contributing to the Temple. The cleric might one day wake up with no new spells. Night encounters can disturb the 8hrs of sleep and leave the party without spells the next day. The player might bitch, but I've been the rogue too many times fighting against something that is not alive and/or has no discernable anatomy. Your cool abilities don't automatically work all the time. Spell components rules take time, but as Uncle Ben says, with great power comes great responsibility.

Another thought: What if spellcasting drained your CON or some other attribute. This is abundantly attested in fantasy literature and would discourage wizards from turning into giant nuke launchers. Especially if they have low hp.


I think the problem is with wizards, clerics and druids. In my opinion, they should be nerfed rather than new rules being created to make the fighter better. There's my two cents worth.

Matthew
2007-06-06, 06:43 PM
Yes, in First and Second Edition, Hit Dice only went up to Levels Nine and Ten (depending on Sub Class); after that there was a fixed Hit Point advancement.

Draining Constitution is a possibility, but probably too severe in my opinion. Some kind of roll to cast Spells should be implemented, along with some serious Fatigue Rules, but it would have to be part of a more systematic fix for Magic. You are right that it is possible to make things too easy on Spell Casters, but they do have ways and means of avoiding most of the legitimate methods of restricting their power.

elliott20
2007-06-06, 08:48 PM
as of right now, the ONLY viable fighter at high levels are either a two-hand weapon charging fighter or an archer fighter. And the first one still needs a ridiculous amount of support from everybody else just to be even remotely effective.

The fact that a fighter needs to be "properly" built in order to not just remain competitive, but even remotely useful speaks volumes about the system. A wizard without DM fiat and played not even "properly", just normally, is still EXTREMELY potent compared to the fighter. (you pretty much have to purposely gimp a wizard to make him any where near the fighter)

One other way you can do this is by making wizards suffer fatigue and exhaustion or just take temporary ability damage for casting certain spells. And depending upon how powerful the spell, the more temp ability damage you might take.

Matthew
2007-06-06, 08:58 PM
You don't really have to do much building to optomise a Melee Fighter, though really, do you? I mean, we're talking about half a dozen Feats, max, aren't we? All the same, yeah, past Level Five things start going down hill, past Level Ten the Fighter's contribution is noticably small by comparison.

Human Fighter 20
Strength 25-29
Power Attack, Great Sword +5, some other Feats...

Fawsto
2007-06-06, 09:38 PM
You know that the "I like to play walking nuclear bombs" players would say that the wizard is a total zero in the very first lvls. Well... I guess that's true... Fighters and Rogues are much more effective than the 6 hp + 12 AC Wizard shooting Magic Missiles and Casting Sleep... Well these spells are apropriated for the first levels, but when they are over, see ya in 8 hours, guys! That's why I came with a plan, that, together with adjusting and eliminating some spells and pehaps some absurd metamagic feats will make the situation a little more comfortable:

Number 1: Forget about "Sleeping for 8 hours and studying the book for one hour to get the spells". Now, all casters will prepare their spells (or gather the equivalent magic power, if we are talking about sorcerers) taking appropriate time for it.

Spell Lvl / Time needed to prepare / Difficulty to prepare
0 / 5 minutes per spell / Walking around
1 / 10 minutes per spell / Walking around
2 / 20 minutes per spell / Walking around
3 / 30 minutes per spell / Walking around
4 / 1 hour per spell / Traveling in a ship or something like that
5 / 2 hours per spell / Traveling in a ship or something like that
6/ 3 hours per spell / traveling in a ship or something like that
7 / 5 hours per spell / Completely concentrated on preparing the spell
8 / 6 hours per spell / Completely concentrated on preparing the spell
9 / 7 hours per spell / Completely concentrated on preparing the spell
Epic: At least one day / Full magic laboratory or similar.

What happens with these modifications? Well, the caster will think twice before nuking an entire place with his 7, 8 or 9 lvl spells cause he would take a loooooong time preparing them again. The initiate casters will be able to prepare their most basic spells faster making teh adventure more dynamic. See that there is no need to specify that the caster is studying a book, he maybe praying or doing some meditation to gather the specific magical forces.


For the fighters (some modifications apply only for the Fighter, the others can apply to any fighting class), I've given them more skill points per lvl (4 + int) and a extra extra feat from the following list: Use exotic weapon, Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse or Two weapon fighting. The Fighter musn't follow any pre-requisite to choose one of those feats.

I also changed some magic Itens and made a few ones:

Magic Item: Anti Dispelling Brooch: This brooch protects all magic itens wield by the user of the item. All attempts to dispel the magic itens, even when succeeded, won't be permanent, the itens will come back to normal after 1d4 rounds. Each time this Brooch protect the itens it uses a charge. The brooch possess 15 charges when created.

Magic atribute: Energy and Energy Burst weapons: Many warriors find it hard when an opponent take's off and start flying or is a immaterial opponent like a ghost or apparition, that's why I amde a small but rather important change on this amgic atribute. Any energy weapon can shoot a dart of it's own type of energy in a distance of 60 feet. This dart deals 1d4 points of damage per attack that the character could make in that round (max of 4d4). It takes an action equivalent to a full attack to activate this power. The attack is ranged touch attack and may affect the immaterial creatures as the rules apply (spectral touch weapons ARE still better, this is just a minor change). Energy Burst do teh same thing but deal 1d6 per attack points of damage. If the weapon is, for example, a +3 weapon, it will deal the xd4 + 3 points of damage. Other enchantments don't apply to the damage. The critical of the energy dart is 20, x2.

Archers: I do think that archery in D&D sucks... I maybe wrong... But let's see if this is a valid perspective. When a character receives a projectile like an arrow, dart or javelin, he must remove the projectile, otherwise he will suffer - 1 in all physical rolls. Removing a projectile requires a successful heal check (dc: 10) or the wound will bleed for 1d2 rounds (1 hp per round). The penalty may increase by one per 4 small projectiles that hit the target or 2 medium or large projectiles. Bigger creatures receive no penalties for being hit by small projectiles.


I hope this can bring some light ... Please, comment, I am really trying to implement these ideas.

Jasdoif
2007-06-06, 10:07 PM
Magic Item: Anti Dispelling Brooch: This brooch protects all magic itens wield by the user of the item. All attempts to dispel the magic itens, even when succeeded, won't be permanent, the itens will come back to normal after 1d4 rounds. Each time this Brooch protect the itens it uses a charge. The brooch possess 15 charges when created.Umm...that's standard for using dispel magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) on magic items; their magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, then resume as if nothing happened.


Anyway, something that would help melee fighters, I think, is a Manyshot-like feat for melee attacks. Call it Manystrike or something. Those regular full attacks become hard to come by, and that fourth attack's -15 makes it pretty much "20-or-miss" by the time you get to it. Or better yet...Manyshot (and Manystrike) aren't feats, but actions that all characters with the requisite BAB can use. Perhaps remove the penalty and make them the new full attack, while still being a standard action....

Matthew
2007-06-07, 06:13 AM
Doesn't Slashing Flurry do something like that?

Callix
2007-06-07, 06:58 AM
Archers really do have trouble in D&D (see my sig for a solution), but poor ole melee fighters have one huge problem: damage mitigation. The rogue has evasion. The barbarian has damage reduction. Ranger and Pally get healing and some buff spells. Monks have... SR, immunities, DR, etherealness, self-healing etc. Don't even get me started on what casters (especially divine casters) can do to limit their damage taken. What can the fighter do? Squat. They need some way to make those hard hits less troublesome. Oh, and some way to land hits on all those different motion types. But if you want a way to stop wizards and let fighters shine, hurl a big shiny golem at them. Can't do anything about ClericZilla, but a golem with low DR and a dispelling effect on hit/at will, buffs only... I like.

Jack Mann
2007-06-07, 07:57 AM
Another thought: What if spellcasting drained your CON or some other attribute. This is abundantly attested in fantasy literature and would discourage wizards from turning into giant nuke launchers. Especially if they have low hp.


I think the problem is with wizards, clerics and druids. In my opinion, they should be nerfed rather than new rules being created to make the fighter better. There's my two cents worth.

Again, the problems fighters suffer are not just in comparison to the casters. Their problems are also related to the abilities monsters possess. At higher levels, fighters (especially melee fighters) have trouble doing anything to monsters, no matter how much the rest of the party might buff them.

I'll agree that casters need a bit of nerfing, but con drain is a pretty bad way to go about it, especially if it's applied universally to all spells. It would make the wizard unplayable at low levels, since he wouldn't be able to regularly have the drain restored until level seven or there-abouts, when the party cleric gets access to restoration. Con damage is slightly better, but it runs into a further problem. The wizard simply cannot afford to cast spells except in the most dire of circumstances. This leads to a situation where the wizard can do absolutely nothing except hide during most battles. There's already too much of that at low levels.

A good fix will allow the wizard, the cleric, the fighter, and yes, even the poor, beleaguered monk to be useful and helping the party most of the time at all levels. Not just at high levels, or at low levels, but through the entire game.

ravenkith
2007-06-07, 08:44 AM
Shadowpouncer builds are superior to tanking builds, IMHO.

But, as has been mentioned before, the core book is very balanced, and deliberately designed to allow players to choose whether to trade power now (fighter) for power later (wizard), or to gain power in the mid levels, but never reach the peaks (cleric/druid), or to be in a support role (monk/rogue/ranger/paladin/sorceror).

Only a few people can actually take center stage, and when they do, they won't have it forever: this is pretty damn balanced, and matches a lot of different playstyles and mindsets.

Maybe you don't mind putting in an investment in order to gain ultimate power later. If not, then you go wizard. With all the spells available to the wizard, it takes some research and time to become familiar with them all. The way the class is set up actually encourages role playing that, and doesn't put nukes in the hands of 1st level characters, but 5th: and when you get 'em, at first they're mini-nukes, so as to avoid accidents.

Maybe you want to get into the game and beat up on stuff right now: Fighter or Barbarian loan themselves to this kind of player. Doesn't take a lot of thought or research to be any good with it, just a few dice rolls and some grunts.

Maybe you don't want to just hit things, but by the same token, you don't want to wait until forever to get your power going: Druid and cleric will make good matches, granting a lot of power during the mid to high levels, while never achieving the peaks of the wizard at 17+. These classes are much more forgiving than the wizard, in terms of spell selection, and mistakes on the field of battle, with the ability to heal, and if necessary, participate in melee. Also, they don't hae the early capability to tpk an entire party by accident.

The game itself is a masterpiece, and does exactly what it was designed to: appeal to as many different types of players as possible, and allow each of those players to have a chance to shine.

The exceptions to this in core are the monk and the sorceror.

Why? Well the monk, quite frankly, loses all armor and gives up magical weaponry in return for the ability to be a threat even when naked. Unfortunately, the reward just ins't enough to offset the cost, because you end up giving up all magic weapons and armor, which kills the class starting at level 7. It's arguable that they're unplayable after this point, despite the fact that they were probably designed to be the baseline class against which all others must be compared.

The sorceror, on the other hand, is a crippled wizard, with the ability to cast spontaneously and slightly more often. It's the arcane fighter, in effect, by trading power later for power now, and tuthfully just doesn't fit.

It seems to me that these two classes just didn't get as much attention as the others, in term of playability at all levels and overall balance, as opposed to current balance.

If you want your players to have the same capabilities at all levels, get rid of all classes but the ranger, make all skills class, and grant the ranger trapfinding capabilities at first level similar to those of a rogue's. In addition, grant access to the druid spell list in addition to the ranger, but keep the mechanics the same as a normal ranger (spells/day, select any each morning to memorize, etc.). Introduce a combat mastery style for sword and board, and one for two-handed weapons, and add them to what can be chosen.

Capable of tanking, skillmonkeying, casting (but not with two much power in the form of the more devastating wizard spells), and coming with an animal companion, everybody starts from the same baseline and everything is fair and balanced.

But people will still find something to complain about.

elliott20
2007-06-07, 08:53 AM
Number 1: Forget about "Sleeping for 8 hours and studying the book for one hour to get the spells". Now, all casters will prepare their spells (or gather the equivalent magic power, if we are talking about sorcerers) taking appropriate time for it.

Spell Lvl / Time needed to prepare / Difficulty to prepare
0 / 5 minutes per spell / Walking around
1 / 10 minutes per spell / Walking around
2 / 20 minutes per spell / Walking around
3 / 30 minutes per spell / Walking around
4 / 1 hour per spell / Traveling in a ship or something like that
5 / 2 hours per spell / Traveling in a ship or something like that
6/ 3 hours per spell / traveling in a ship or something like that
7 / 5 hours per spell / Completely concentrated on preparing the spell
8 / 6 hours per spell / Completely concentrated on preparing the spell
9 / 7 hours per spell / Completely concentrated on preparing the spell
Epic: At least one day / Full magic laboratory or similar.

What happens with these modifications? Well, the caster will think twice before nuking an entire place with his 7, 8 or 9 lvl spells cause he would take a loooooong time preparing them again. The initiate casters will be able to prepare their most basic spells faster making teh adventure more dynamic. See that there is no need to specify that the caster is studying a book, he maybe praying or doing some meditation to gather the specific magical forces.

I actually thought this model was a pretty decent one. It made sure that spells are no longer trivial and like V would say, "comes with a price is not to be squandered".

I believe though, that this means feats can then be used to for slightly different effects.

Most metamagic feat allow you to ignore a certain aspect or requirement. I think that's the wrong to go about preparing it. Certainly, metamagic feats should make casting a little easier (especially if you're gonna make the spell like 4 levels higher than it's supposed to be) but I don't think it should skip over the restrictions entirely, at least, not until they've invested large amounts of time and feats to that one goal.

So for example, you'd have a feat that allows you to prepare a spell in say, half the amount of time or some such, but increasing the casting time, or even creating a casting cost XP.

Marius
2007-06-07, 09:10 AM
I've played a lot of low level wizards and they weren't weak at all. Wizards get save-or-lose spells from level 1 even if they are more fragile I've never seen wizards die more than fighters.
At low levels d&d is not the fighters playground it's just balanced. At high levels casters rule the game. And the only way that fighters can contribute is with highly optimized ranged builds and they are only useful in fights anyway.

ravenkith
2007-06-07, 09:21 AM
At low levels d&d is not the fighters playground it's just balanced.

Rubbish. A wizard can cast his save or suck, what, once?

A fighter can hack at people once every six seconds.

In terms of numbers of opponents eliminated per day, I'd guesstimate that a level 1 fighter can kill 1 person of equivalent level every three rounds for sure.

A level 1 wizard can make 1 or two people suck at something, usually temporarily, and normally not killing them at all. Alternatively, he could make up to four people fall asleep.

Fighter outkills a wizard up until about level 7, where they draw roughly even, and the Wizard starts to pull away.

In dungeons and dragons, where combat is king, this represents a clear advantage for the fighter at low levels.

Now, a fighter vs. a warlock is a whole different equation, and as such, the pair are fairly balanced at every level.

Saph
2007-06-07, 09:25 AM
Fighter outkills a wizard up until about level 7, where they draw roughly even, and the Wizard starts to pull away.

Yep. I've just been playing a wizard from levels 2 through 9, and that sounds about right to me.

Now we're at level 9, I'm starting to look stronger than the fighter-types. But at earlier levels the fighter did most of the work.

- Saph

Fawsto
2007-06-07, 12:34 PM
That's all my point is about... Casters are weak in low levels, and at the higher levels they get overbalanced and destructive.

About metamagic and the model I presented earlier, if, like someone used matamagic feats on a 3rd level spell to make it like a 9th level one, he would need to expend the time and resources I listed before.

The anti-dispeling brooch is not for general dispeling magic, it is for spells that can dispell a magic atribute forever or represent a continuous dispeling. I guess that Mordenkain's Disjunction can do something like that... can't remember exactly though... and a Beholder's eye creates an antimagic field or something like that. The brooch would protect the itens from this type of dispelling.

The problem with archers in D&D is that, with exception of a critical hit, they will suffer against creatures with damage reduction. Ok, the archer would find means to do more damage, but nothing can beat a fighter and his broadsword with power attack. That's reality. I am not taking PrC in consideration.

What make's it a problem to increase the Fighter's power is that you would have to automaticaly increase the power of the other fighting classes, since, theorically, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians are also Fighters, but rather modified to fulfill a diferent role in the story.

I believe taht the fighter needs more versatility. Barbarians smash things, but they can also travel and survive in the wilderness with ease; Paladins can ride to battle and do tremendous damage with a smiting mounted charge but they can also heal and buff themselves; Rangers are the most multi-pourpose fighting class, they can excell in close/ranged quarters, survive in the wild and do some buff/healing; What the Fighter can do? Destroy, Destroy, Destroy... Till they die from hunger in the forest or the massive battle deals enough damage to put them down.

Marius
2007-06-07, 12:53 PM
Rubbish. A wizard can cast his save or suck, what, once?

A fighter can hack at people once every six seconds.

In terms of numbers of opponents eliminated per day, I'd guesstimate that a level 1 fighter can kill 1 person of equivalent level every three rounds for sure.

A level 1 wizard can make 1 or two people suck at something, usually temporarily, and normally not killing them at all. Alternatively, he could make up to four people fall asleep.

Fighter outkills a wizard up until about level 7, where they draw roughly even, and the Wizard starts to pull away.

In dungeons and dragons, where combat is king, this represents a clear advantage for the fighter at low levels.

Now, a fighter vs. a warlock is a whole different equation, and as such, the pair are fairly balanced at every level.

You seem to forget that fighters have also finite aumounts of hp, at first level one or two hits can also kill a fighter and since he's going to be in the front lines he's the one that's going to be hurt.
And at first level a specielized wizard can cast 3 first level spells that can win fights very quickly, you said it yourself, he can put 4 people to sleep winning a fight by himself in one round. Wizards can also use scrolls if they really need to. And they have useful cantrips to use out of combat at those levels.
I have never felt less than fighters at low levels when I was out of spells the cleric was probably out of spells too and the fighter was almost dead so we had to rest.

On another subject I love Warlocks but they are weak, very weak.

elliott20
2007-06-07, 12:55 PM
Fawsto: well, by increasing the feat tree selection that has more ties to BAB and more melee stuff, you DO buff up the other fighter subtypes, though the fighter gets the best bang of the buck out of the group.

Giving the fighter better feat selection means they'll actually have things to take after 6-7 level and that they can branch out.

this, of course, does include your suggestion of giving them more versatility and choices.

But yeah, I would like to expand upon your model.

I believe that all spells should inherently have a kind of base "cost" that needs to be account for. And to account for that, you either have to spend time casting it, time preparing it, material resources, or just pure old fashion lifeforce energy in the form of XP or some other. The more powerful a spell is, the more of this you need to put into it. Mitigating the costs just means that you gotta account for that cost ELSEWHERE or make the spell take up a much higher level spell slot.

Saph
2007-06-07, 01:10 PM
And at first level a specielized wizard can cast 3 first level spells that can win fights very quickly, you said it yourself, he can put 4 people to sleep winning a fight by himself in one round.

Uh huh. Have you actually tried this in a game?

Your chances of putting four 1-HD targets to sleep with a single sleep spell are just about zero. First you have to spot the enemies. Then they have to stand clustered in a 10-foot radius, well away from your party members, while you cast the spell. Then they all have to fail their saves. The chances of all four enemies failing that DC 14-15 will save? Not good.

This also assumes that the enemies are polite and stand around waiting while you finish the 1-round casting time of sleep. And that they're not undead or vermin, or something else that's immune. And that the ones who make their saves don't simply wake up the ones who failed theirs.

People on these forums really overrate the power of arcane casters at low levels.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-06-07, 01:20 PM
I would tend to agree. Spell Casters can be useful at low levels, but they will probably contribute a good deal less than a Fighter, Rogue or Cleric. When they are successful, however, it can be dramatically so.

Jasdoif
2007-06-07, 02:07 PM
Doesn't Slashing Flurry do something like that?Something like that, yes, but the penalties on that feat are utterly ridiculous. You get two attacks as a standard action, but one's at -5 and the other's at -10. In a reasonable situation, you have a better chance of hitting with your one regular attack then you will hitting with either one of your slashing flurry attacks. (By reasonable situation, I mean no situation where a roll other then natural 20 can hit, or where a roll other then natural 1 can miss, is advantageous to use Slashing Flurry in).

EDIT: OK, looking into this a bit more...when you consider the chances of both attacks hitting, a situation where the standard attack needs to roll at least a 5 or above to hit is better for the Slashing Flurry on average. However, your odds of hitting once with your standard attack remain higher then your odds of hitting with either of your two attacks until your attack bonus is itself 2 or more points higher then your target's AC. It's essentially gambling at this point: Is it more important to get one hit, or two?

Yahzi
2007-06-07, 03:34 PM
In my games I did a couple things
Here's my homebrew changes:

1. Receive Leadership at level 5 for free, and bonus feat at 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 ( so they get one every level).
2. All saves are Good (screw monks! Fighters are supposed to be tough!).
3. 4 skill points per level.
4. 1/2 BAB as AC bonus (but that's true for everyone).
5. Max HPs (again true for everyone).
6. Stop playing after 10th lvl.

The last one's probably the most important.

:smallbiggrin:

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-07, 03:51 PM
1) dealing with cohorts is a PIA. More feats doesn't help fighters, they typically run out of good feats to take already.
2) tough is not a descripitve term well suited to Will saves or reflex saves
3) I agree. Fighters have a sad skill list, but they should be able to have climb/jump/swim/intimidate maxed without a particularly high intelligence.
4) High ACs just help make casters stronger, because many of their spells don't make attack rolls, and casters don't need any help with AC.
5) Max HP does significantly help fighters over arcane casters, and makes PW spells less powerful, and rely on the fighter types to soften up the target before being used effectively.
6) I tend to prefer to end a game in the 8-12 range as well. Although I have run a 1-23 game before.

Matthew
2007-06-07, 04:09 PM
1) That varies from game to game. Some Players like having Cohorts and some campaigns are well suited to them.
2) True, but Fighters should have Good Reflex and Will Saves. Reflexes are important in combat and Will is important to get you there...
3) D&D's Skill System is pretty rubbish. a tweak here or there won't fix much, but it won't do much harm either.
4) High Touch Attack Armour Class is actually important. In combination with high Saves, it should do something, even if not enough.
5) I hate this idea. Poor Blasters.
6)Yeah, me too.

Droodle
2007-06-08, 07:29 AM
You seem to forget that fighters have also finite aumounts of hp, at first level one or two hits can also kill a fighter and since he's going to be in the front lines he's the one that's going to be hurt.
And at first level a specielized wizard can cast 3 first level spells that can win fights very quickly, .Also worth mentioning is that a low level wizard is just as good with a crossbow as a rogue, bard, or cleric......and by the time he actually starts to lag behind in the ranged combat department (when rapid shot is actually worth using and just before the full BAB classes are starting to get iterative attacks), his spell casting is strong enough to make it a non-issue.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 08:41 AM
There are lots of things to consider when you compare the fighter and wizard, it's true, but I chose to put it down to combat capability and endurance, because that's where the biggest gaps are between the two, especially at first level.

One thing to note is that sleep, arguably the most powerful spell in a first level character's arsenal, is temporary, and easily broken. You can't just kill all of the people you put to sleep automatically-you'll get one free attack, and if you don't kill them outright, you're going to have to battle that person.

All of which uses up time, which counts against the duration of your spell.

Just pointin that out.

Limitations:

Hit points. Both classes have them. The wizard has less than the fighter. Theoretically, the wizard can be killed by one good (non-critical) hit from a dagger. In most cases, it would take two or three similar hits to kill the fighter. Advantage fighter (duh).

Base attack bonus. Uh, yeah. No contest. Fighter gets full bab, wizard gets 1/2. When every single point of bab translates to essentially, a 5% greater chance to hit, thats a big difference*. At first level, combine the Fighter's +1 with his lkely strength score of 18, and he's got a +25% chance of hitting. A wizard with his secondary score in dex (16?), using a crossbow, will have a +20% chance of hitting, but will provoke aoos when attacking melee combatants, or have 1 attack every two rounds as he relocates to avoid being overrun. Advantage fighter (duh).

Saves. Each class has one good save. Fighter gets fort, and wizard gets will. Will is less important at low levels than fort: most of the devestating effects target fortitude saves early on, or simply ignore saves and work against armor class. You are far more likely to come up against a save vs. poison (fort) from a trap than you are a save vs. dominate, or whatever. Advantage fighter. Again.

Armor class. Yeah, if you're backing anyone other than the fighter here, at least until magical equipment is readily available, you're in for a shock. The fighter can buy a shield and a chain shirt and be good to go, 24 hours a day. The wizard can exceed the fighters armor class by casting shield and mage armor, but he's used two of his three daily spells and it only lasts for one minute before dropping back down equal to his heavily armored rival. Mage armor works for an hour and then bam! it's gone too, and the wizard is back to being a walking target. You guessed it! Advantage fighter.

Skills. Ok, they get the same amount of skill points (which personally, I've never been a fan of), but the wizard has access to more skills as a part of his class. Advantage wizard.

Weapons. Um yeah, this one's a no-brainer. The fighter can pick up any non-exotic weapon and be a threat with it, from the greatsword to the dagger. The wizard only gets mostly non-threatening weapons to start with, consisting of the dagger, a walking stick, and a couple of crossbows. Advantage fighter.

Spellcasting. Yeah this ones a clear win for the wizard, but with 0th level spells being mostly for show, and 1st level spells being limited to 3, at first level, this guy is going to need a modicum of luck and a hell of a lot of planning to use these spells to make an impact.

Feats. Puhleeze. Fighter allows you to select two feats (character and fighter bonus): wizard gives you one you can choose (starting character feat), one that isn't very effective (summon familiar), and one that you simply cannot take advantage of (scribe scroll). Advantage fighter: the versatility and type of feats available to him are far superior than the crap that gets handed to the wizard.

Combat: Assuming each were in a room full of commoners that replenished as soon as they dropped, and that they never get hit, Fighter wins. He can go all day at full effectiveness, using power attack to put out +4 to hit, 2d6+6+2 Points of damage each round. More than enough to kill a commoner every single round, 2 if he took cleave as his second feat. Wizard, assuming he takes point blank shot and a crossbow, can put out 1d8+1 every round, which will not guarantee a kill every round, let alone 2.

If we bring damage into it, allowing them both to take hits, the wizard gets the short end of the stick immediately, because he will most likely die in the first round, possibly getting one kill, while the fighter could last three or four rounds, getting six to eight.

In an archery duel, each character against a horde of enemies, the fighter still takes the cake, assuming 70ft range, by taking a composite longbow, which puts out 1d8+4/round, while the wizard now gets only 1d8/round.

Spells in combat: This is where things get problematic. Assuming that both knew what they would be facing, and had a day to prepare for each challenge (circumstances that clearly favor the wizard), I'd still give the edge to the fighter for the melee, simply because the best first level combat spell the wizard has for such a situation is either burning hands (1d4 in a 15ft cone , dc 15 ref save for half damage), a spell which will result in no direct kills, or sleep, a spell, that once again, yields no kills. No sorry, after checking again, Color Spray is CLEARLY the best 1st level combat spell, gving up to 3d4+1 rounds of incapacitation to several people at once. No kill yield, though, simply temporary incapacitation.

For the ranged situation, 3 rounds of magic missile (guaranteed hits would help) simply aren't enough to overcome that fighter's capabilities.

In a one on one competition, locked in a 60ft room, start at each end, Fighter on wizard...

Fighter wins at first level. Why? Best thing wizard can do is win initiative and cast sleep, and hope the fighter doesn't roll high on his will save.

If both things go in the wizards favor, he has the chance to get one free hit, a coup de grace, on the fighter, most likely with a dagger, for 8 points. Assuming the wizard maxes his damage roll.

You will not kill the fighter right away. He gets a dc 18 fort save, a roll on which he has a +5 or +6 on. He needs to roll a 12 or better to live.

Only if all of those things break in the wizards favor can he hope to win. Because if that fighter gets back up, one power attack later, the wizard is fricking toast, man. If the fighter gets initiative, he just charge power attacks, and the wizard is split in twain.

Fighter wins at low levels, for all the above reasons.

*Yes, I'm aware the math doesn't actually work like that, but I'm keeping things as simple as possible here, so that my argument doesn't run longer than it already has. Probability theory is not a fun-time topic, nor is algebra.

Sir Giacomo
2007-06-08, 08:54 AM
Kudos to ravenkith. That was one of the best low-level class comparison analyses I have ever read!

Funnily, somewhere on these boards once the issue came up that a wizard is the most powerful class at first level because he could take spell mastery, sell his spellbook for several 1,000 gp and then buy 6 or 8 trained wardogs...:smallsmile:
But in regular play, fighters rule combat at low levels.

- Giacomo

Wehrkind
2007-06-08, 10:27 AM
One thing that confuses me is that people continuously quibble about X ability being "supernatural" and thus not appropriate for the fighter. That is rather odd, considering the ever present magic weave etc., but further because by levels 7-10 even fighters are well past the abilities of any "normal" person. Characters at this point are nearly legendary, so why feel concerned about being able to do incredible things? Even in a zero magic setting, a tenth level fighter is far past what the greatest real life warrior has ever accomplished, getting into the realm of Boromir, Ajax or even Achilles. Ignoring chainmail, shield and dexterity as easily as a normal level 0 person hits a naked and clumsy person? That's remarkable. Assuming then that magic is pervasive, as well as very powerful potentially, it makes a lot of sense that after a point pure sword swinging as we know it is only part of the act, as the figher achieves an almost magic mastery of combat and training. The problem is that D&D assumes a no magic setting, and builds the fighter for that, then tacks on magic figuring the equipment will make up for it.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 10:37 AM
Kudos to ravenkith. That was one of the best low-level class comparison analyses I have ever read!


Thanks, SG.



Funnily, somewhere on these boards once the issue came up that a wizard is the most powerful class at first level because he could take spell mastery, sell his spellbook for several 1,000 gp and then buy 6 or 8 trained wardogs...:smallsmile:


Yeah, that's a very different strategy. lol.



But in regular play, fighters rule combat at low levels.

- Giacomo

Up until about level 7, in fact. The law of diminishing returns vis a vis their BAB, and the increased irrelevance of hit points thanks to the addition of more and more 'save-or-die' spells, or spells that damage masses of people at once.

Arguably the real threshold is level 5, where the mage gets flight for the first time, but the limited duration on such a capacity is what pushes it back to 7 for me.

The fighter's usefulness is basically reduced to 'extra hit points between me and the enemy' after level 11, where the wizard gets hold of disintegrate, a spell where he can, if a fighter fails a fortitude save, kill him outright for the first time.

Disintegrate = 2d6/level = 22d6 = 132 damage
Fighter = 1d10 a level = 110 max. (154 with a +4 con)

Remember that very, very rarely is someone going to bounce all tens on their hit dice, and few people put an 18 in con, preferring to put it in strength if possible. Chances are, a fighter is going to have hp in the 110 to 120 range at level 11, leaving him ripe for a one-shot kill.

Especially if the wizard wins initiative and engages greater invisibility first, following up with other spells to weaken the fighter before going for the kill (poison, anyone?).

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-08, 10:37 AM
In terms of making the fighter more useful, I really like the idea of wildcard feats. Give the fighter a feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, that he can out every day. Maybe even give a progression that makes it easier to swap out as you reach higher levels (10 minutes at level 5, 1 minute at level 10, 1 round at level 15, swift or even immediate action at level 20).

elliott20
2007-06-08, 10:38 AM
this is why I think the whole "fighter's must be mundane" argument is ultimately flawed. By virtue of being a high level character, you're automatically not mundane.

This whole insistence that fighters MUST remain mundane is nonsense to me. The monk, for example, has clearly no arcane connections what so ever, but can do things that are literally spell replicas. But nobody bats an eyelash about it. (incidentally, I HATE the way the monk class was written, but that's whole another thread)

I think that it is perfectly reasonable for a fighter of sufficiently high level to start picking up abilities that borderline on the supernatural if they chose to.

Hell, I wouldn't even mind giving fighters the option to pick feats that can overcome certain kinds of DR, feats where they learn better defensive options against magic, feats where they learn how to move at blinding speed. I'd sure as hell make the requirements stiff for them so they can't just do so blindly. But I think that is a fair trade.

Don't forget, the fighter is probably THE custom character class. Instead of getting special abilities, they get feats. This screams versatility. the problem here is that the feat selection, thanks to magic, effectively takes away any REAL versatility to speak of. by comparison, their versatility feels more like a choice between a red shirt and a blue shirt.

Matthew
2007-06-08, 10:51 AM
I would be willing to argue that the Fighter is already enjoying quite a few abilities well beyond the pale of what is natural by Level 10. His capacity to inflict and resist damage is pretty much magical, especially when he starts chopping through walls...

No, the biggest issue with Fighters and Supernatural Abilities is that they encroach on his customability. He can get as many Supernatural Abilities as he likes, so long as it is through Feats (in fact, arguably, he already does). I doubt anyone would care.

martianjones
2007-06-08, 11:13 AM
??? OK, so I've seen a lot of talk about giving fighters more, better fighter only feats and it's just...

Well, now I see "he can get whatever as long as it's through feats"... if you are making these nifty Fighter-Only Feats, isn't that basically the same as giving the fighter special abilities? I mean, if you want options, you could do a thing, like the rogue gets--Special Ability from a list... why does it have to be feats?

Fawsto
2007-06-08, 11:14 AM
Hmmm... and if we give the Fighter an option like is given to the Ranger? I mean, and if the fighter could get a tree the improves his focus on a weapon/group of weapons?

Lemme try to explain: Im my campaings we always deal with Weapon Focus as if it refers to a group of weapons, not to a single one. We group these by kind and methode of use. For example: A Longsword is a well a sword by definition (weapon that consists mostly in a straight blade with a proportionaly small hilt) and deal slash and piercing damage, also Bastard swords, scimitars and broadswords can enter this cathegory. But how Weapon Focus works here? Well, someone could say that his focus apply when he is Using One-handed Swords to deal Slashing Damage, meaning that his focus work with the Longsword, the one-handed Bastard sword and the scimitar (they all are 1 handed swords and deal slashing damage), but wouldn't work with the broadsword (since it is 2 handed) nor with the sabre (cause it deals piercieng damage). You understand?

Another axpect from my campaing settings is that each class must choose the weapons they are proeficient with from the weapon list availble to teh class. Ex: A fighter may choose 4 + int modifier martial weapons and 6 + int modifier simple weapons, if he wishes to "buy a new proeficience" he must expend 1 skill point per simple weapon or 2 skill points per martial weapon. Wizards in the other hand, know to use a number of simple weapons equal to his int modifier (ok, it maybe high, but they know surely less efective weapons). Obs: Fighting classes receive an extra "weapon skill point" every 2 levels, after that they can buy the proefitience with a new weapon.

How does this benefits the fighter? Well, when we are using a campaing made with the point buy methode (27 points) every feat is important. Meaning that a fighter who can use many weapons with the same hability is far more versatile. He is mostly immune to sunder or disarm, since he will just draw another weapon.

Thinking like this, how can we improve the fighter? Well, in my opinion the fighter should become something like a Weapon Master. In the Epic Lvl book they say that an epic fighter knows more strategies and methodes to deafeat an opponent than anybody else. Well that isn't true... I propose to make it a reality.

I proposed before to give an extra extra feat to the fighter that represents his fighting style and a few more skill points. And now I am proposing the following.

I intoduce you to the Class Hability "Fighters Edge".

This would work as an combat specialization but with some modifications. In the frst lvl a fighter would receive 1 Fighter Edge point. He would be able to sue this fighter edge bonus point in one of the following places: AC, BAB (for the first strike only), damage, resitance tests and to avoid being disarmed and alike, for one round. In the next round he would be able to relocate this bonus, but only during HIS turn. The "Fighter Edge" bonus increases by one in the 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th level. And after the 4th level the fighter is able to divide the bonuses and alocate them in diferent places.

Second Class Hability I want to introduce is the "Weapon Master".

Reaching the 20th level a fighter is so cunning with the use of weapons that he now knows how to use all martial and simple weapons plus 2 extra exaotic weapons. All feats that would affect one or more weapons (like weapon focus) now aplly to all weapons that the fighter knows how to use. If the fighter finds a exotic weapon he doesn't know, he may learn how to use it by expending a full weak training with the weapon.

Starsinger
2007-06-08, 11:24 AM
Yes, you can buff a fighter and he becomes useful. However, every single target buff spell you cast on a fighter is a spell that potentially could be used in another way. Now, a spell like Haste, which can affect the entire party, and all of whom would benefit from it, in some way, is much better. Likewise, everyone likes Mass Wombat's Endurance (or whatever the animal is :smalltongue:), but that round you spent casting Heroism on the fighter, you could've spent casting a spell to end the battle that much quicker. Take a video game for example, "Character X is really good if you put a lot of time, effort, and money into him. But Character Y is good right now, and will be good throughout the game, without as much time, effort, or money." Of course, in D&D it's "Character X is good at level 1, and is decent at high levels if you put time, effort, and money into him. But Character Y sucks at level 1, but increases in power exponentially, with minimal effort or money."

EvilElitest
2007-06-08, 11:26 AM
Those feats are already in the ELH. Besides, SR is cheap for PC's if they get it all the time; that's why it isn't in the PH. Spells can do this, but only for a short time.

Fast healing? That is epic, just for 3, with hefty requirements.

Besides, ToB actually does a great job balancing melee and casters.

No, ToB classes are their own classes. I want to balence fighter, not War Blade , Sword Sage and Crusader on this thread at least.



Fighters need to be able to learn 'Spells', otherwise known as Techniques, freely and without limit. Then employ them at a similar rate as Spell Casters (Sorceres probably, as these would need to be spontaneous). That was pretty much the diagnosis of Tome of Battle and it came close to an answer, but instead of fixing Fighters it created new Base Classes.

There was quite a good Home Brew about Monks learning secret Techniques.

Martial adepts do something like that, not fighters

I hate classes that have hte over the top "I use a certain move now in a special manner"
I doesn't make sense, a figher is just a person who is very well train in weapons, he doesn't use special super fighter attacks (Power attack ect are an exception)


from,
EE

martianjones
2007-06-08, 11:29 AM
Likewise, everyone likes Mass Wombat's Endurance (or whatever the animal is :smalltongue:)

OMG, I am never calling it anything else again! :D :D

elliott20
2007-06-08, 11:41 AM
??? OK, so I've seen a lot of talk about giving fighters more, better fighter only feats and it's just...

Well, now I see "he can get whatever as long as it's through feats"... if you are making these nifty Fighter-Only Feats, isn't that basically the same as giving the fighter special abilities? I mean, if you want options, you could do a thing, like the rogue gets--Special Ability from a list... why does it have to be feats?

actually, the way to make certain feats effectively "fighter only" without making them blatantly just sticking feats to just fighters is by creating feats trees that are investment intensive so that a normal character CAN conceivably get the same feat if they want, but it would be difficult.

Fighters, just by virtue of getting a million feats, would then have more flexibility and options to expend their feats to get to these better abilities.

for example, take this sample feat (it's not a real feat, nor is it a serious one, just an example)

Death Cut
You've learn to discern your foes weakness in his anatomy that with great precision, you can deal a lethal blow with a single hit.
Pre-req: improve critical, +15 BAB, great cleave, whirlwind attack
benefit: 1/day, By making a sense motive check with a DC equal to the creatures BAB + bluff, you can discern where the creature's weak spot in his anatomy would be and would cause a lethal blow. The next attack you make if it connects will automatically be a critical threat, and the creature must make a Fort save with the DC equal to the 10 + BAB / 2 or be instantly slain.

Creatures that are immune to critical hits such as undead, constructs, etc, are also immune to this strike.

It's painfully obvious this ability is just a rip off of the monk's death touch ability. (Well, okay, it's actually like 5 times better but still...)

But as you can see from the requirements, getting this would not be easy as it requires a whirlwind, which already needs 4-5 feats, great cleave, which needs another 3, and improve critical, which is another one. that's 9 total possible feats before you can get this.

Without bonus feats or taking some fighter levels, most classes cannot get this without going epic.

Matthew
2007-06-08, 11:45 AM
??? OK, so I've seen a lot of talk about giving fighters more, better fighter only feats and it's just...

Well, now I see "he can get whatever as long as it's through feats"... if you are making these nifty Fighter-Only Feats, isn't that basically the same as giving the fighter special abilities? I mean, if you want options, you could do a thing, like the rogue gets--Special Ability from a list... why does it have to be feats?
Well, it's because he may not want to take Special Ability X, but rather a Feat of some other description. Keeping the Fighter as customisable as possible is the aim.


Martial adepts do something like that, not fighters

I hate classes that have hte over the top "I use a certain move now in a special manner"
I doesn't make sense, a figher is just a person who is very well train in weapons, he doesn't use special super fighter attacks (Power attack ect are an exception)

That was a suggestion for bringing the Fighter up to the Level of Spell Casters. I don't like Martial Adepts either, but it pretty much is the answer if that's what you are seeking to do.

martianjones
2007-06-08, 11:47 AM
But... then doesn't that makes it bad for the fighter, as it requires a whole bunch of feats to qualify for that the fighter may not have wanted at all? I mean, great cleave and whirlwind attack, who takes those (especially both of them)?

I mean, feats are ALL the fighter gets... that means he has to use them to cover ALL of his weaknesses AND try to get one or two useful combat styles out of them on top of that...

Besides... those feats would be more easily accessible through multiclassing... like 2 levels of Fighter, 2 levels of Psychic Warrior, 2 levels of Monk, and so on, and you wind up with more feats than a real fighter would have...


Matthew, but the rogue special ability lets them select a feat... couldn't you leave that option for the fighter special abilities? Fighter-only feats, might as well be a list of special abilities... and if they want something else they can get a regular feat that way.


For the record I saw Tome of Battle recently and I loved it... I have been playing a Crusader in my RL game and it's SO much more fun than any other melee character I've played... but we had to mess with the "maneuver recovering" mechanic a little.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 11:51 AM
Fighters aren't meant to be as good as wizards at level 20.

A low level fighter can swing a sword.

A low level wizard can show you some pretty lights.

A highe level fighter can swing a sword, hard.

A high level wizard can make the universe bend to his whims.

In what world should that even be a contest???

Why is this difficult to understand?

elliott20
2007-06-08, 11:55 AM
But... then doesn't that makes it bad for the fighter, as it requires a whole bunch of feats to qualify for that the fighter may not have wanted at all? I mean, great cleave and whirlwind attack, who takes those (especially both of them)?

I mean, feats are ALL the fighter gets... that means he has to use them to cover ALL of his weaknesses AND try to get one or two useful combat styles out of them on top of that...

Besides... those feats would be more easily accessible through multiclassing... like 2 levels of Fighter, 2 levels of Psychic Warrior, 2 levels of Monk, and so on, and you wind up with more feats than a real fighter would have...
Hey, I just said it was AN example, not a GOOD example! :smalltongue:
My point is that if you nest the really good powers deep into the feats, then they become investment intensive enough that other classes who don't get nearly as many feats will think twice before investing in them while fighters who get plenty of feats can more easily afford it.

And we don't have to limit it to just a couple feat trees. To do this properly, you would have to do a lot of work because you need create a lot of feats for the fighter to take.

the way I see it, you need to place feats for

increasing mobility
increasing defense against magic
over coming DRs
damage output increase

thus far, while there are feats that can do all of these, they do so in very minor ways. Most of the feats are geared towards the last one, damage output increase. and that's solely in charging Two-hand weapon fighting.

martianjones
2007-06-08, 12:00 PM
Hey, I just said it was AN example, not a GOOD example! :smalltongue:
My point is that if you nest the really good powers deep into the feats, then they become investment intensive enough that other classes who don't get nearly as many feats will think twice before investing in them while fighters who get plenty of feats can more easily afford it.
But then you are wasting the fighter's existing feats and making him pay by taking a certain style or using his feats on prerequisites for the Big Ones... and besides, people say special abilities will make fighters too similar to each other or not customizeable enough, but if you give them REALLY GOOD feats that they have to have other feats to take all fighters will take those other feats and they'll become less customizeable in practice 'cause nobody will customize except to get the feats at the end of the chain, right?

Plus other classes usually have enough feats to complete one feat chain... and if you give it so many prerequisites they can only complete one then the fighter will only get like 2, 3 at most, and get them late... plus you can't like let the fighter fly or anything with feats, so using them to do the stuff you said could be hard.

Matthew
2007-06-08, 12:00 PM
But... then doesn't that makes it bad for the fighter, as it requires a whole bunch of feats to qualify for that the fighter may not have wanted at all? I mean, great cleave and whirlwind attack, who takes those (especially both of them)?
It depends on a lot of things. Fighters have all kinds of problems and the more Feats that are created the less they can cover them.


I mean, feats are ALL the fighter gets... that means he has to use them to cover ALL of his weaknesses AND try to get one or two useful combat styles out of them on top of that...

Yes, and he probably should get more or some chains should be folded into others. Combat Styles in D&D were pretty much broken by 3.5 Power Attack. It ended the debate about which was best. Special Abilities won't make a lick of difference if they can be modelled by Feats.


Besides... those feats would be more easily accessible through multiclassing... like 2 levels of Fighter, 2 levels of Psychic Warrior, 2 levels of Monk, and so on, and you wind up with more feats than a real fighter would have...

And considerable experience Penalties, but yeah versatility is the aim of Multi Classing as well.


Matthew, but the rogue special ability lets them select a feat... couldn't you leave that option for the fighter special abilities? Fighter-only feats, might as well be a list of special abilities... and if they want something else they can get a regular feat that way.

You could, but why bother? Just make them Feats that require Fighter Level X, just like Weapon Specialisation.


For the record I saw Tome of Battle recently and I loved it... I have been playing a Crusader in my RL game and it's SO much more fun than any other melee character I've played... but we had to mess with the "maneuver recovering" mechanic a little.

Yeah, people are pretty much divided on this one. Some love it, some hate it. There's no denying that it is more powerful and provides more options, but it isn't to everybody's taste.

Fawsto
2007-06-08, 12:05 PM
ravenkith, are you telling me that Wizards "go epic" before lvl 20? Cause it seems so. And I can't agree that a game where the people should play equivalent roles is emant to let that happen.

Saph
2007-06-08, 12:09 PM
On the subject of Tome of Battle, one thing that the fighter really, really should have is the Warblade's "Weapon Aptitude" class feature.

When I first bought Tome of Battle, I looked at that ability and thought "Perfect! Finally makes Weapon Focus and all those other one-weapon feats useful - now why didn't the Fighter have that ability right from the start?"

- Saph

martianjones
2007-06-08, 12:13 PM
I guess that's convenient... my characters tend to keep buying more of the same weapon though, so I would not use it much if ever... I guess if you found like a really cool heavy mace or something as loot and had taken sword feats...

Saph
2007-06-08, 12:21 PM
I guess that's convenient... my characters tend to keep buying more of the same weapon though, so I would not use it much if ever... I guess if you found like a really cool heavy mace or something as loot and had taken sword feats...

In most campaigns, you tend to find a lot of random treasure. Since you can only sell things for half price, it's usually more cost-effective to use the weapons you find than to sell them and keep upgrading the weapon you've got - not to mention that in many campaigns, you don't have the spare time or store access to upgrade your greatsword or spiked chain. This makes feats like EWP and Weapon Focus not much use.

But if you have Weapon Aptitude, you can switch them around whenever you like. You just found an orc bane guisarme in the middle of an orc-hunting adventure? Switch your Weapon Focus feat to Guisarme. Your DM just gave you a repeating heavy crossbow that shoots explosive bolts?* Switch your EWP feat to Repeating Heavy Crossbow.

- Saph

*Actually happened in a game. It was some weird gnome invention.

Jasdoif
2007-06-08, 12:27 PM
On the subject of Tome of Battle, one thing that the fighter really, really should have is the Warblade's "Weapon Aptitude" class feature.

When I first bought Tome of Battle, I looked at that ability and thought "Perfect! Finally makes Weapon Focus and all those other one-weapon feats useful - now why didn't the Fighter have that ability right from the start?"It gave me a somewhat similar thought, though more about the feats in general: Instead of having to take feats like Improved Critical, Weapon Specialization, etc. for one weapon at a time...why not take the feat once, and then it applies to every weapon you have Weapon Focus for?

Now a fighter can get all the happy bonuses on melee and ranged weapons without having to double feat expenditure, just getting a second Weapon Focus feat will do it.

Matthew
2007-06-08, 12:38 PM
Hell, why use Feat Slots at all? Just have the Fighter 'learn' them...

Yeah, seriously, in a highly structured RPG like D&D it's Power Creep that is responsible for most of these sorts of (necessary) changes. We might as well just ignore the Weapon Specific aspect of any Feat and just allow them to work with all Weapons, that's eventually going to be the outcome.

Kioran
2007-06-08, 12:53 PM
The one thing, which has already been broguht up, but nevertheless, which makes the Fighter unique is that he is straightforward. Very straightforward and either easy to play or very versatile for a player with good imagination or natural violence*.
The base class at least should not be forced to use things like "black pearl of doubt" or some "triple-ascendant-phoenix-slash" to be on par with the others.

The Key to the Fighter class is, in short, offer improving his secondary maneuvers(Trip, Disarm, Grapple etc.), his weapon attacks (Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Spesh, the TWF-Chain) but also his defense (Dodge, Toughness, Shield Spesh, Shield Ward, Arrow Deflection). Most of these are passive upgrades which you do not need to use actively. This is and should be the great advantage of the Fighter, being able to dish out the hurt without resorting to fancy maneuvers. Customizaton is the other.

Sadly, the Fighter is lacking in most departments. But letīs do this by the departments:

Secondary maneuvers: Here, the fighter reins relatively supreme, especially noncore, since he has good BAB and most other classes would use at most one of them (Improved Trip or Grapple come to mind) since they canīt spare the Feats. Making these maneuvers much stronger than they are now brings the resurgence of the Trip-Monkey, or make the big grappling monsters nearly undefeatable.

Weapon attacks: In short, the Fighters gets not much out of this. Power Attack is good, but everybody has it, and most other martial classes have at least one Feat Chain(Ranger) or can afford one if necessesary. More Feat Chains donīt improve your power, and Weapon specialization is not the big edge like for example rage is.
Weapon Spesh, however, with the fixed bonus, is the best thing to improve Sword and Board or TW against two hands, so aybe a stacking greater Weapon Specialization would help a lot.

Defense: Core, there is almost nithing aside from Dodge and Mobility, and combat expertise is not always an option if you dump int or rely on actually hitting something. With PHBII and the complete Warrior it gets a little better, but not much. This is the main vector for improvement. Offer Feats for AC. Make the Save-increase Feats stacking. Let Greater resilency grant you DR 1/- if not already present. In short, gibe the Fighter the opportunity to use his feats to be the better Meatshield. 1 HP (d8 to d10) doesnīt cut it, thereīs no reason a cleric should be a better tank (he is, though, because he has better saves and access to buffs and healing).
Make this a real Feat sink, but make it available. Most martials will profit, but only one - the Fighter - will wholeheartedly rejoice.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 12:54 PM
The core rulebook is fine as is.

Epic is NOT part of the core rules. The game was meant to end at level 20.

The entire game is balanced when you look at the big picture.

No, a level 20 fighter is not as good as a level 20 wizard.

But a level one wizard is not as good as a level 1 fighter.

Modifications to the fighter to make it as good as a wizard at level 20 are utterly unfair, as the fighter didn't have to suffer throught the low levels in order to achieve that kind of power, like the wizard has to.

In addition, to be a wizard requires a lot of investment on the part of the wizard player, in terms of both time and money. He must buy every book with spells in it, read all the spells, and add them to his spell book if they are good, then he has to determine which spells are the best ones he can carry in order to make himself useful. He also has to look at the tactical situation and figure out when to use a particular spell.

A fighter has to buy the best armor, the best sword and whatever other equipment he wants, occasionally glancing at new feats, which he probably won't take anyways, at the end of which he'll roll the die to hit, and roll the die for damage.

Most games take place at the low end of the spectrum in any case.

The wizard gets better at shaping the universe as he levels up.

The fighter gets better at swinging a sword as he levels up.

If you want the power of a wizard at high levels, play a damn wizard from level one and earn it like the wizard player has to.

Matthew
2007-06-08, 01:07 PM
Well, that depends on your point of view. 3.x very strongly suggests that Wizard 20 and Fighter 20 are supposed to be balanced. They aren't, everybody knows it. The question is how far you want to close the potential power gap. Most people want to close it completely, which is a very hard thing to do. What we're discussing here is closing the gap by some degree, because Wizard 20 is not just better, it's intolerably better.

Green Bean
2007-06-08, 01:12 PM
The core rulebook is fine as is.

Epic is NOT part of the core rules. The game was meant to end at level 20.

The entire game is balanced when you look at the big picture.

No, a level 20 fighter is not as good as a level 20 wizard.

But a level one wizard is not as good as a level 1 fighter.

Modifications to the fighter to make it as good as a wizard at level 20 are utterly unfair, as the fighter didn't have to suffer throught the low levels in order to achieve that kind of power, like the wizard has to.

In addition, to be a wizard requires a lot of investment on the part of the wizard player, in terms of both time and money. He must buy every book with spells in it, read all the spells, and add them to his spell book if they are good, then he has to determine which spells are the best ones he can carry in order to make himself useful. He also has to look at the tactical situation and figure out when to use a particular spell.

A fighter has to buy the best armor, the best sword and whatever other equipment he wants, occasionally glancing at new feats, which he probably won't take anyways, at the end of which he'll roll the die to hit, and roll the die for damage.

Most games take place at the low end of the spectrum in any case.

The wizard gets better at shaping the universe as he levels up.

The fighter gets better at swinging a sword as he levels up.

If you want the power of a wizard at high levels, play a damn wizard from level one and earn it like the wizard player has to.

But at low levels, the wizard can at least contribute. Sleep, grease, charm person, they have all sorts of good utility spells. High level fighter? At best they're one step above useless, and at worse they're a liability.

Morty
2007-06-08, 01:15 PM
Besides, just because you're powerful and can ignore the laws of reality doesn't mean you're better at combat. High level wizard is mighty spellcaster and all that, but he's also a guy who spent most of his life sitting and learning.

martianjones
2007-06-08, 01:16 PM
Wow... come on. Fighters aren't great after a certain point, but they're not USELESS. They can still charge and stuff.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 01:21 PM
I dunno MJ, they're pretty close at 17+.

In some cases, they are even a liability.

Easiest way to fix thr problem?

Don't allow wizards.

If someone wants to play arcane, force em to play sorceror.

Severely limits the available power (in terms of number of spells to choose from), and pushes everything back a level.

Stil unhappy? Disallow non-core spells.

Still unhappy? Up the hd of the sorc to 8, the skills to 6, and disallow 9th and 8th level spells.

Still unhappy? Force arcanists to go warlock.

Wait, aren't people still saying that's broken too?

elliott20
2007-06-08, 01:28 PM
Don't forget, at low levels, the wizard might have an disadvantage so that the odds are tipped against him at 1:3, at high levels, the odds are not just tipped against the fighter, they're crushing him at like, 1:500 or something.

that to me, hardly seems right. I'm not saying close the gap completely, I'm saying close it enough so that the fighter can still at least be USEFUL at higher levels instead of just being another body shield.

martianjones:

well, bridge feats, whether you like them or not, act as natural deterrants for people without the feats to spare to randomly pick them, and are treated as "entrance" fees, I suppose. Which, yeah, if you throw too many of them out there, just makes no sense. The idea here is to give the fighters a chance to learn to do some fantastic stuff and shore up their over all weaknesses a little by utilizing the one thing they have, feats.

So perhaps a really DEEP tree is not the best solution, since it forces even more specialization (though not necessarily), but the tree itself will ensure that fighters are more likely to pick up those feats. And if you have lots of trees to pick up, (and perhaps even more powerful feats that require the BIG feat ontop of the smaller trees to learn) you can in essence give them some customizability.

We just have to make sure the feats they have to pick along the way don't suck so they can remain relevant from level 1 - 20

Morty
2007-06-08, 01:43 PM
Stil unhappy? Disallow non-core spells.


Because Forcecage, Time Stop, Ray of Enfeeblement, Overland Flight, Phantom Steed, Cloudkill, Teleport, Mage's Disjunction, Rope Trick, Wind Wall and Wall of Iron are from 3rd party sourcebooks.

Indon
2007-06-08, 01:50 PM
Because Forcecage, Time Stop, Ray of Enfeeblement, Overland Flight, Phantom Steed, Cloudkill, Teleport, Mage's Disjunction, Rope Trick, Wind Wall and Wall of Iron are from 3rd party sourcebooks.

I believe you would go to the next applicable "Still unhappy?" line.

That was hardly a call for an exception, even if his post didn't have a handler.

Morty
2007-06-08, 01:57 PM
I believe you would go to the next applicable "Still unhappy?" line.

That was hardly a call for an exception, even if his post didn't have a handler.

The point is, while all of the other lines are viable solutions, disallowing non-core spells isn't, as many of the brokenest spells are core.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 02:23 PM
I actually estimated that it would cut the abuseable spells by roughly 1/4, and would include both arcane an divine spells of all types.

The idea here being, at this point, that perhaps magic overall is what you have a problem with, not merely the wizard class. In addition, this would cover no longer being able to use polymorph for anything outside the MMI.

It's simply a step in the process, is all.

Keep in mind, they are now playing a sorceror with only core spells to choose form. As such, they are going to have to be very careful what to pick, because unless you allow retraining rules from PHBII, they're going to have a tough time from recovering from any mistakes in spell selection.

I mean seriously, at this point you're punishing arcane casters for playing them, and you're making it difficult to qualify for many of the best PrCs, completely doing away with anything that requires specialization, or wizard levels.

The next step will be the breaking point for many: disallowing 8th & 9th level spells. Timestop? Force cage? gone.

And, if you aren't getting new spells out of these levels, aren't you going to rethink taking them at all?

Which means save dcs at the high end will suffer, as casters lose caster levels in return for some form of other benefit.In addition, you're denying access to certain applications of metamagic...by not granting ninth and eighth levels slots....

I think you'd see a lot more multiclassing.

The killer is forcing them to play warlock though. I mean, a high level warlock vs a high level fighter, no equipment? Warlock.

With equipment? Almost certainly fighter. (7/10, I'd imagine).

The answer is not to build the fighter up, but to strip the other classes down.

Jasdoif
2007-06-08, 03:17 PM
The answer is not to build the fighter up, but to strip the other classes down.I dunno...weakening the other classes is a certainly a good step, but it still leaves a melee fighter at an overwhelming disadvantage against larger foes who have good reach. And removing size categories and reach from the game doesn't seem like a good alternative here.

barawn
2007-06-08, 03:31 PM
I dunno...weakening the other classes is a certainly a good step, but it still leaves a melee fighter at an overwhelming disadvantage against larger foes who have good reach. And removing size categories and reach from the game doesn't seem like a good alternative here.

Bah. That's what mounts and Ride-By Attack are for.

ravenkith
2007-06-08, 03:34 PM
No one class should be perfect: we're just trying to bring everyone else done to the fighter's level at 20th, so the 'special kid' of D&D can have some more time in the sun.

elliott20
2007-06-08, 03:58 PM
meh; I actually think it's fine that wizards can do some awe inspiring things. I just don't think they should be able to do them so freely and so easily without any reprecautions.

I mean, being able to cast time stop is fine if it's one of those things that requires a significant amount effort. The problem comes when a wizard can do on a whim 6-7 times a day without any real worry that there is a price attached to it. All they have to do is sleep, study and next day they're ready for a whole new round of 6 time stops.

It's like having a bunch of players play Who Wants to Be A Millionaire, except you get as many lifelines as you want. It shouldn't be used that way. Having a trump card is fine, but when your trump card becomes the only thing you ever will need to do, it makes everything else redundant.

Kioran
2007-06-09, 10:11 AM
Even without comparing him to Arcane Casters I think the Fighter has a problem. Apart from the lack of class Features itīs the bad HD he gets.

In the essence, class levels are HD with class features. Nevertheless, they are HD, and when you compare the HD of the five core martial classes (Barb, Fighter, Monk, Pali, Ranger), you get this:

B: 1d12 HP, 4 Skill ranks, one good save, good BAB
F: 1d10 HP, 2 Skill ranks, one good save, good BAB
M: 1d8 HP, 4 skill ranks, all good saves, mediocre BAB
P: 1d10 HP, 2 skill ranks, one good save, good BAB
R: 1d8 HP, 6 Skill ranks, two goods saves, good BAB

As you can see, the Fighter and Paladin both have the weakest HD of the Martials, with weak saves(thought the Paladin gets Divine Grace) and abysmal skills.
The Barbarian is not only a little tougher(doesnīt matter all that much after Constitution, but still), he also gets enough skill ranks to be actually able to do a little for the Party apart from riding and not trying to drown/plummet to death.
The Monk and Ranger HD are clearly superior, with better saves(which do more for your meatshield than the 1 paltry Hitpoint per lvl) and a plethora of skills, with the Monk having one major rawback in the mediocre BAB.

So far. But still, the fighter, of all these, is the easiest martial class to take down. Utterly humiliating, considering he was planned as the Meatshield. Being outperformed by Rangers in that department at mid-lvl makes many a Fighter cry at night.........

And now, for utter pain and despair, take Druid HD:

1d8 HP, 4 Skill ranks, two good saves, mediocre BAB

They at least compare to Fighter HD, allthough they do not outstrip them. But they get a full Spellcasting progression and a powerful cohort. Friggin druids.

Now all of this wouldnīt be that bad if not for the essential low value of Armor in 3.5. So apart from granting the Fighter Feats that make him tougher, give him better HD. Nothing like the royal HD (Dragon and Outsider, the kings of hitdice), but more like two good saves and four skills. Or at least a d12 and another good save. Or d12 and four skills. Anything. He doesnīt get useful things like Bonus speed or rage, at least give him staying power. Argh.

Fawsto
2007-06-09, 10:17 AM
Hmm... Elliot speaks the truth... As I stated before, timestop and other cheesy spells should be banned. I am not saying to remove the 8th and 9th spell lvls either. They are important as trump cards, but there are some Godish effects that, if used reapeatedly, would make everything else stupid.

Everybody in D&D should have disadvantages. For example: The Samurai (Comp. Warrior) will much probably loose to a Paladin, since the effects of fear that a Samurai can apply will not affect a paladin, ever. That is common in D&D. It makes the game organic. But when a class or group of classes is completely umbeateble in High levels, the things are wrong, very wrong. See, a Paladin can be defeated by, let's say, a Ranger; but a Wizard is almost umbeateble, not to mention a Favoured Soul or other pesky Full Casters + cheesy class features.

Magic is the problem. Nerfing magic is the solution, but only partialy. Lets remember that if you nerf the casters an entire group would suffer and be nerfed, so the underpowered classes should receive small boost of power, so no one would complain about it and a group of adventurers would still be able to face anything in their CR.


Edit: Check around in this thread. I posted a few ways to increase the Fighter's skills in combat and his versatility.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 10:21 AM
Fighters need Full saves, sure, but 1D12 Hit Dice? 1D10 is fine. Magic is the core of the problem. No matter how you look at it, it's the Fighter's vulnerability to magical effects that causes the problems. Even so, Fighters compare very well to Base Classes that are not Full Spell Casters. Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, Rogues, Bards and Paladins are all relatively well balanced against the Fighter.

[Edit]
CR at high levels where Full Spell Casters really contribute is a very poor guide. Even though I would be inclined to increase the power of None Casters slightly, by far the most significant alteration has to be to the power of Full Casters.

Fawsto
2007-06-09, 10:25 AM
Hmmm... I feel a little worried to give a fighter good saves in the 3 spots... There must be another way...

I belive that giving good saves to the Fighter is excentialy the same thing as saying that we must give good saves to all fighters. And now we are overpowering the Paladin and the Barbarian and making the Monk even worse than he was before. (Of course, I am not comparing them with casters)

Kioran
2007-06-09, 10:28 AM
Fighters need Full saves, sure, but 1D12 Hit Dice? 1D10 is fine. Magic is the core of the problem. No matter how you look at it, it's the Fighter's vulnerability to magical effects that causes the problems.


That is very right, but another good save, or two additional good saves will do much more for the staying power than the HD(since with CON 14+ and a few Ab-Boosters d10 to d12 doesnīt make a big difference) . Giving the Fighter a better Will save and additional HP would make him the classic ideal of Meatshield, since he canīt simply be magicked out of the fight and can take a lot of the worst the enemy can dish out, which is a lot better for the flavor. additional skills are also nice.....

Incidentaly, we (my IRL RP-Group) have experienced the Scout-Class to outperform the Fighter in many combat situations an toughness......

Matthew
2007-06-09, 10:28 AM
Indeed, and I would give Full saves to all Classes, were it up to me. Frankly, the way that saves scale is utterly ridiculous, as it becomes increasingly more difficult to save versus Caster Level (1-20 over 20 Levels), even with Full Saves (2-12 over 20 Levels). Saving Throws should scale 1-20 over 20 levels.

[Edit] Meatshield is a term I always find confusing. I don't see Fighters as defensive walls, but they should be more capable of resisting magical effects.

ravenkith
2007-06-09, 11:01 AM
all saves set to 20?

No. Just no.

Everybody would make their saves all the time.

That's a bad idea, because it makes casters next to useless.

Which just creates even more problems.

I'd say, if you monkey with saves at all, give every class one good save (12) and two not as good (8).

Matthew
2007-06-09, 11:06 AM
How so? To be clear, we're not talking about setting them to 20, we're talking about making them scale 1-20 by level. The Save is always 10 + Caster Level (1-20) + Casting Attribute, so assuming all else is even, the Save will be 1D20 + Save Attribute (1-20) + Attribute, meaning an almost fifty fifty chance for unmodified Saves at equivalent levels.

[Edit] Whoops, thinking of my House Ruled game, there. Yeah...

Nah, Full Saves is fine for the way Spells currently work. To paraphrase Minsc, "Full Saves for everyone!"

Thrawn183
2007-06-09, 11:09 AM
I think the problem with feats is the difference in their power levels. A fighter gets 10 bonus feats. That means that a feat on average should equal 10% of all of another classes special abilities. Look at the feats to increase will/fort/reflex saves. A mere +2!? That comes out (at 20th level) to be the equivalent of what the fighter already had in his bad saves (+6 total between them vs +6 will or ref base) for 30% of his class features. Ouch!

I am not a fan of extremely long feat trees. This means that every fighter who chooses Feat X of level 15 or higher looks exactly the same. Instead make a lot of BAB +16 or higher feats. Non-combat oriented classes simply won't be able to get them without dipping into full BAB classes. And the fighter by virtue of getting 4 feats at 16th level and higher versus everyone else geting only 1 will be able to choose lots of the very high power/versatile feats.

I think there need to be greater feats for defense. The fighter does have many options available for increasing ac through feats. But what if I want to play a fighter that has high defenses agaisnt magic? Maybe something to make himself immune to mind affecting spells or effects. The fighter as is has too spend way too many feats to be able to do decent damage and even if he didn't there simply aren't high power defensive feats that would make sense to take. I'm talking to you Iron Will!

Also, feats should scale. I am personally a fan of feats that scale with BAB. I dunno, maybe make Iron Will +2 with an additional +1 per 5BAB. That's a pretty impressive +6 at level 20. But a character that takes it at say, level 1, won't suddenly be the invincible hulk of will saves. It basically just makes them competent at all levels.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 11:22 AM
Yeah, I used to like the scaling idea a lot and it's still kicking about in my head, but I'm not such a big fan of it anymore. I say give the Fighter a Bonus feat at every level, make Iron Will, Skill Focus and such +4 Bonuses. I do agree that Feat Chains are annoying, though. A high BAB prerequisite seems like the best idea, except where things are Improved, Greater and Perfected.

[Edit] Oh, yeah, check out my Avoidance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46955) Feat in the Home brew forum for an idea on increasing magic defences, or not, your choice.

TheAlmightyOne
2007-06-09, 11:25 AM
well ive just started a level 1 fighter and hes pretty good. 12 hp, +2 strength, +1 base attack bonus, + 1 if one of our clerics casts bless, +2 from the bards song, +1 from weapon focus (geatsword) and power attack. throw in my 15 AC so as a level 1 guy thats pretty good

Matthew
2007-06-09, 11:27 AM
Level 1 Fighters are great, but you've probably made a poor choice with a Great Sword. Weapon and Heavy shield is the way to go at Level 1, you don't meet enough high HP critters to make that extra 2.5 Points of Average Damage better than +2 AC. Try and persuade your DM to use the Weapon Focus (Weapon Group - Heavy Blades) variant, then you can have your cake and eat it; (or even better take Bastard Sword and aim for Exotic Weapon Master).

Sutremaine
2007-06-09, 11:32 AM
The Save is always 10 + Caster Level (1-20) + Casting Attribute, so assuming all else is even, the Save will be 1D20 + Save Attribute (1-20) + Attribute, meaning an almost fifty fifty chance for unmodified Saves at equivalent levels.

[Edit] Whoops, thinking of my House Ruled game, there. Yeah...
If you think save DCs that scale with caster level are ridiculous, what advantage does scaling saves over twenty levels have over changing the save DC system back to the way it is by RAW?

TheAlmightyOne
2007-06-09, 11:38 AM
Level 1 Fighters are great, but you've probably made a poor choice with a Great Sword. Weapon and Heavy shield is the way to go at Level 1, you don't meet enough high HP critters to make that extra 2.5 Points of Average Damage better than +2 AC. Try and persuade your DM to use the Weapon Focus (Weapon Group - Heavy Blades) variant, then you can have your cake and eat it; (or even better take Bastard Sword and aim for Exotic Weapon Master).

I'm the DM. I have to play as only 2 other people in a group of 9 know the rules. I think I can persuade me but only because im sleeping with me. Also im just meat shield at this stage. We have a wizard and a bard with 5 hp. The wizard could currently be taken down by a moderatly sized insect and he has a tendancy to run into melee. Also a rogue who refuses to unlock doors because hes scared of traps. and doesnt search for traps of course.

Kioran
2007-06-09, 11:47 AM
I think making some Feats stack which previously didnīt would already do a lot for the Fighter, since apart from Weapons and special maneuvers, thereīs nothing he can specialize in. Stacking Save-Bonus Feats or AC-Feats or DR-Feats are very useful.
A High BAB-requisite Feat-Chain which offers immunities or resistances against Fear effects, or sleep or mind-affecting spells would also be nice.

The most important thing, however, is giving the Fighter better HD. My favorite would be this:

1d10 HP, 4 Skill Ranks, good Fort + will, bad reflex, full BAB

alternatively you could grant

1d12 HP, 4 Skill Ranks, good Fort, bad ref + will, full BAB

like the Barbarian has. I donīt see the barbarians class-features as weaker than the fighters(even without the versatility), why should his HD be more powerful?

You could even give him the d12 and the better saves to make him the ultimate Meatshield(though that would be setting him ahead of the Barb and Pala imho, which isnīt to good). Just any configuration which actually makes him useful without resorting to spell-likes or radical changes in current game balance. Leveling the field between casters and the rest isnīt going to happen in 3.5.
Leveling the field between the other Martials and the Fighter or even Rogues and Fighters? Entirely possible with a few minor, directed changes.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 11:52 AM
If you think save DCs that scale with caster level are ridiculous, what advantage does scaling saves over twenty levels have over changing the save DC system back to the way it is by RAW?
I don't. I think it's very logical if done consistantly (i.e. where both DC and saves scale by level).
I do think the way saves currently work is fairly stupid, though, as most Casters pump their primary Casting Attribute through the roof, making Saves very difficult indeed, especially if you have only +6 Base at Level 20.

So, for example:

Spell Caster 20 casts Level Nine Spell on Fighter 20.

Spell Caster Save DC = 10 + Spell Level + Casting Attribute = 10 + 9 + 5-10 (depending) = DC 24-9, assuming no further cheese.

Fighter 20 Fortitude Save = 1D20 + Save + Constitution Bonus = 1D20 + 12 + 7 (assuming maxed out starting Constitution of 18 + Magic Item +6)
Fighter 20 Willpower Save = 1D20 + Save + Willpower Bonus = 1D20 + 6 + 7 (assuming maxed out starting Wisdom + Magic Item +6)
Fighter 20 Reflex Save = 1D20 + Save + Willpower Bonus = 1D20 + 6 + 7 (assuming maxed out starting Dexterity of 18 + Magic item +6)

In the first case, he has a reasonable chance of failure 25-50%
In the second case, we're talking 55%-80%
in the third case, the same.

Looks pretty bad for the Fighter to me.

Switching it round to scaling by Level and Caster Level means that level equivalent Characters have a relatively even chance. It also allows saves to interact on the same scaling level (almost) as Skills and BAB. It makes the whole system more consistant and avoids the whole Multi Classing silliness.


I'm the DM. I have to play as only 2 other people in a group of 9 know the rules. I think I can persuade me but only because im sleeping with me. Also im just meat shield at this stage. We have a wizard and a bard with 5 hp. The wizard could currently be taken down by a moderatly sized insect and he has a tendancy to run into melee. Also a rogue who refuses to unlock doors because hes scared of traps. and doesnt search for traps of course.
Good for you, it's a good enhancement for Fighters.

Thrawn183
2007-06-09, 12:14 PM
Yeah, I used to like the scaling idea a lot and it's still kicking about in my head, but I'm not such a big fan of it anymore. I say give the Fighter a Bonus feat at every level, make Iron Will, Skill Focus and such +4 Bonuses. I do agree that Feat Chains are annoying, though. A high BAB prerequisite seems like the best idea, except where things are Improved, Greater and Perfected.

[Edit] Oh, yeah, check out my Avoidance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46955) Feat in the Home brew forum for an idea on increasing magic defences, or not, your choice.

Well, I looked over the two versions you posted. The prior is probably too stong. Particularly in the hands of a monk. The second... actually seems to be pretty decent. The low reflex save of a fighter is balanced by the low BAB of a caster using a ranged touch/ray spell, so it would be possible for the fighter to avoid the ray without making it impossible for him to be hit at all.

I'm a fan of looking towards other feats for parallels on how to design new one's, just keep in mind that deflect arrows is balanced by the fact that you'll be getting hit with multiple arrows in a round whereas you might only get hit by a single ray (that is capable of finishing you completely).

Have you thought of designing a feat chain to get a fighter half of mettle? I was thinking of maybe 3 feats, 9-14th level roughly, that give a fighter mettle but only on fortitude saves. This stays with the flavor of the fighter (only getting good fort saves) but prevents some of the things like ray of exhaustion where it doesn't really matter whether or not you make the save, you're still getting hurt.

Fawsto
2007-06-09, 09:57 PM
From "The Amazing Fighter" to the "Saves for all" coming trought the "Nerfing the Wizard". Amazing how can a simple idea explanation can become a 5 paged thread :smallbiggrin: . And no, I am not being sarcastic, I love this!

But I guess we should concentrate our ideas here... We should try to find a way to bring together these ideas rather than just posting them here.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-09, 10:59 PM
What is the goal here exactly? Are we trying to make a level 20 fighter as good as a wizard? Or are we trying to give an incentive to take fighter for 20 levels? Fighter 10 into PrC is probably a more common model than fighter 20, and fighter 2/something else 8/PrC 10 is probalby even more common.

There seems to be a desire not to give effects to fighters that 'seem like magic', and a desire to 'keep fighter a simple class'.

Here are a few suggestions, that give incentive for taking fighter to level 20.

level 3
I think that the ability to trade out weapon focus should ideally be here. It helps against dipping, and level 3 is when you start finding good magic weapons worth swapping out for anyway. I also think this should take a significant amount of time (10 minutes, enough not to be an in-combat thing).

level 5
-a level 5 fighter is probably still better than a level 5 wizard, mostly because the wizard still runs out of spells at this level. Anything we put here should be times/day, and not that awesome.

suggestion:

Critical Strike:
A fighter of fifth level or higher is capable of pushing himself for short periods of time. 1/day per five levels, as a swift action, a fighter may double the base weapon damage of any weapon he weilds. This benefit lasts for 1 rnd, + 1rnd/5 fighter levels. This is base weapon damage only, not including any modifiers from strength, enhancement bonuses, or anything else.

I personally like to give fighter some MAD, so I would also allow a feat that extends this by 1rnd/point of wisdom modifier, and gives an additional use per day. Also note that this helps a two-weapon fighter more than a 2H weapon fighter, which is my personal bias (I like 2WF, which sadly is overshadowed by zweihanders). This also gives some love to the EWP fighters, which tend to have a higher base damage die.

level 10- by this point the fighter is very much weaker than the wizard. The take out spells at this level are huge, and the fighter's weak saves make this problematic. This is a good level for a defensive power.

Suggestion:

Ignore Condition:

The fighter of tenth level or higher can press on against any odds. 1/day, as an immediate action, the fighter may enter a state on invulnerability. Any condition-causing effect that allows a save is put off until he leaves this state, and even if he dies, he keeps going until this state ends. Durations of effects on the fighter are still calculted as normal, so some effects that have a short duration will be completely negated. If a fighter reaches -10 while in this state, he no longer benefits from healing, and will die when this state ends. The duration of this state is 1 rnd, +1rnd/5 fighter levels.


Level 15.

At level 15, the fighter is verging on being useless, and needs some real help. A level 15 fighter ought to be a terror on the battlefield, and an inspitation to his allies.

Suggestion:

Battlefield Menace

A level 15 fighter is a true battlefield nightmare. Once a fighter reaches 15th level, he fights with such skill and power that his opponents flee before him, and his allies are inspired to fight better.

A fighter of 15th level may make an intimidate check to demoralize his opponent with every attack, and unlike a normal intimidate check, mutliple successful attempts stack (1st check = shaken, 2nd check = frightened, 3rd check = panicked). As long as there is at least one opponent who is demoralized or worse within line of sight, a fighter's allies recieve a +2 morale bonus to all saves against fear.


Level 20.

Yeah, well, wizard still probably wins here, and there isn't much we can do about that. Although Critical Strike and Ignore Condition both increase at level 20, I still kinda want to put something here. The 'level 20 ability'.

Vorpal Strike:

A fighter of 20th level treats any slashing weapon he wields as if it has the vorpal quality.
A fighter of 20th level increases the critical multiplier and threat range of any piercing weapon he wields by 1.
A fighter of 20th level treats any bludgeoning weapon he wields as if it were sized for a creature two sizes larger.

Additionally, a fighter of 20th level can, 1/day, declare an automatic crit with any weapon he wields. He doesn't even have to roll to hit. This will not trigger special crit effects on the weapon though (such as vorpal or the various 'burst' weapons).


So, does that make fighter worth taking all twenty levels in?

Droodle
2007-06-10, 04:27 AM
The next step will be the breaking point for many: disallowing 8th & 9th level spells. Timestop? Force cage? gone.

And, if you aren't getting new spells out of these levels, aren't you going to rethink taking them at all?

Which means save dcs at the high end will suffer, as casters lose caster levels in return for some form of other benefit.In addition, you're denying access to certain applications of metamagic...by not granting ninth and eighth levels slots....
You know, I kind of like the spirit of this idea. However, I'd suggest a simpler implementation. 8th and 9th level spells won't exist (except, perhaps, as epic spells), but wizards and clerics will still get the spell slots to use for meta-magic. Add in Rich's variant polymorph (or remove polymorph completely), and I think casters may just be balanced with melee types. From an optimization point of view, this will bring the Bard more or less on par with the other casters, too.

Kioran
2007-06-10, 06:18 AM
What is the goal here exactly? Are we trying to make a level 20 fighter as good as a wizard? Or are we trying to give an incentive to take fighter for 20 levels? Fighter 10 into PrC is probably a more common model than fighter 20, and fighter 2/something else 8/PrC 10 is probalby even more common.

There seems to be a desire not to give effects to fighters that 'seem like magic', and a desire to 'keep fighter a simple class'.

Here are a few suggestions, that give incentive for taking fighter to level 20.

level 3
I think that the ability to trade out weapon focus should ideally be here. It helps against dipping, and level 3 is when you start finding good magic weapons worth swapping out for anyway. I also think this should take a significant amount of time (10 minutes, enough not to be an in-combat thing).

level 5
-a level 5 fighter is probably still better than a level 5 wizard, mostly because the wizard still runs out of spells at this level. Anything we put here should be times/day, and not that awesome.

suggestion:

Critical Strike:
A fighter of fifth level or higher is capable of pushing himself for short periods of time. 1/day per five levels, as a swift action, a fighter may double the base weapon damage of any weapon he weilds. This benefit lasts for 1 rnd, + 1rnd/5 fighter levels. This is base weapon damage only, not including any modifiers from strength, enhancement bonuses, or anything else.

I personally like to give fighter some MAD, so I would also allow a feat that extends this by 1rnd/point of wisdom modifier, and gives an additional use per day. Also note that this helps a two-weapon fighter more than a 2H weapon fighter, which is my personal bias (I like 2WF, which sadly is overshadowed by zweihanders). This also gives some love to the EWP fighters, which tend to have a higher base damage die.

level 10- by this point the fighter is very much weaker than the wizard. The take out spells at this level are huge, and the fighter's weak saves make this problematic. This is a good level for a defensive power.

Suggestion:

Ignore Condition:

The fighter of tenth level or higher can press on against any odds. 1/day, as an immediate action, the fighter may enter a state on invulnerability. Any condition-causing effect that allows a save is put off until he leaves this state, and even if he dies, he keeps going until this state ends. Durations of effects on the fighter are still calculted as normal, so some effects that have a short duration will be completely negated. If a fighter reaches -10 while in this state, he no longer benefits from healing, and will die when this state ends. The duration of this state is 1 rnd, +1rnd/5 fighter levels.


Level 15.

At level 15, the fighter is verging on being useless, and needs some real help. A level 15 fighter ought to be a terror on the battlefield, and an inspitation to his allies.

Suggestion:

Battlefield Menace

A level 15 fighter is a true battlefield nightmare. Once a fighter reaches 15th level, he fights with such skill and power that his opponents flee before him, and his allies are inspired to fight better.

A fighter of 15th level may make an intimidate check to demoralize his opponent with every attack, and unlike a normal intimidate check, mutliple successful attempts stack (1st check = shaken, 2nd check = frightened, 3rd check = panicked). As long as there is at least one opponent who is demoralized or worse within line of sight, a fighter's allies recieve a +2 morale bonus to all saves against fear.


Level 20.

Yeah, well, wizard still probably wins here, and there isn't much we can do about that. Although Critical Strike and Ignore Condition both increase at level 20, I still kinda want to put something here. The 'level 20 ability'.

Vorpal Strike:

A fighter of 20th level treats any slashing weapon he wields as if it has the vorpal quality.
A fighter of 20th level increases the critical multiplier and threat range of any piercing weapon he wields by 1.
A fighter of 20th level treats any bludgeoning weapon he wields as if it were sized for a creature two sizes larger.

Additionally, a fighter of 20th level can, 1/day, declare an automatic crit with any weapon he wields. He doesn't even have to roll to hit. This will not trigger special crit effects on the weapon though (such as vorpal or the various 'burst' weapons).


So, does that make fighter worth taking all twenty levels in?

Some of these are almost like ToB (critical strike, Iron Heart surge ignore condition). Mind you, that doesnīt make them bad as such, itīs just to close to spell-like abilities for my liking. Besides, automatically shaking conditions make several things not only unlikely to work against Fighters but actually totally ineffective. Leveling the field, yes. Leaving no chance to the other side? No......

On the other hand, the Fighter actually intimidating his opponents while Fighting? Hell yeah. Intimidation in combat is too weak as it is. But with every attack is a little too much - an "intimimancer" build with haste would send everything off screaming. Instead, both too add flavor and to limit the effectiveness to a useful level, make this every time the Fighter drops an opponent(like cleave) and then make the effect last for 1d4 rounds. That way, mooks would cower and run before a powerful Fighter, while a single Balor wouldnīt.

Capstone ability? Hmm, this is a difficult one, since itīs usefulness is, unlike intimidation, very dependent on Fighting Style(ranged? Critmonkey? Charger?).

I do like, however, the thought of making base classes generally attractive to take the high or mid-lvls, so people actually take them as classes instead of shopping for features and Feats.........

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-10, 06:45 AM
I haven't actually seen Tome of Battle, so if some of that is close, meh. I really don't see any of that as spell-like, though.

EDIt- of course, discussions about improving the fighter are almost purely academic for me, as I play Arcana Evolved (in which fighters and casters are pretty well balanced)

barawn
2007-06-10, 08:49 AM
You know, I kind of like the spirit of this idea. However, I'd suggest a simpler implementation. 8th and 9th level spells won't exist (except, perhaps, as epic spells)

Or, make things even simpler: have the spells at high level be of decreasing frequency in the world. By 9th level, they could basically not exist at all. None of them (set your world in a "pre-9th level spell" era). You could then selectively introduce them via extreme quests, at which point they can use them.

All casters do have research/adding spells variant rules, so you can just use those.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-10, 10:25 AM
Well, I don't think things get really hairy in till after level 10-13 or so. Maybe what should be done, is that after that, its all epic Keep wizards, clerics and all them the same, and give everybody else new stuff. That way we don't shoot casters in the foot?

Easier said then done, I know...

Matthew
2007-06-10, 04:43 PM
Well, I looked over the two versions you posted. The prior is probably too stong. Particularly in the hands of a monk. The second... actually seems to be pretty decent. The low reflex save of a fighter is balanced by the low BAB of a caster using a ranged touch/ray spell, so it would be possible for the fighter to avoid the ray without making it impossible for him to be hit at all.

Thanks for taking the time to look. I'm kind of in two minds as to whether I should be replying here or there... anywho, yeah, I have to agree that the first version of the Feat is more powerful than the last. However, the more I look at it, the less I feel it is overpowered, particularly if I change it to 'all ranged attacks', rather than just Rays or Ranged Touch Attacks.
I don't really feel to sorry for the Spell Casters, they have a bunch of other options. In combination with Archers, they could even 'fake the Character out'.
To be clear, I am more in favour of the mechanic of the latter Feat for just about all similar mechanics (such as Deflect Arrows, Block Arrow and potential Melee Versions), but in the context of D&D 3.x I think the way the power wheel is turning, the game favours automaticaly successful Feats as reasonable options.
Still, I am not certain, it is just a thought. We should probably continue further discussion in the Homebrew Forum, though.


I'm a fan of looking towards other feats for parallels on how to design new one's, just keep in mind that deflect arrows is balanced by the fact that you'll be getting hit with multiple arrows in a round whereas you might only get hit by a single ray (that is capable of finishing you completely).

Yes indeed, and that's a good point, but if we take the example of a single High level Archer, the situation might be quite different. Hard to say. What is certain is that Ray Attacks are not the Spell Caster's only option.


Have you thought of designing a feat chain to get a fighter half of mettle? I was thinking of maybe 3 feats, 9-14th level roughly, that give a fighter mettle but only on fortitude saves. This stays with the flavor of the fighter (only getting good fort saves) but prevents some of the things like ray of exhaustion where it doesn't really matter whether or not you make the save, you're still getting hurt.

Yeah, Mettle and Evasion are pretty nifty ideas. Deep Blue incorporated the idea into his Fighter Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45180) as a Level 10 Class Feature. I would have rather seen it as a Level 10 Fighter Feat (as with most of the Class Features Deep Blue incorporated, it seems to me to impinge on the Fighter's customability, but would be fine as a Fighter Feat).