Epic Path Fighter - Let's Talk!

[Nuada99]

There have been a couple of people asking about some of the aspects of the Epic Path fighter (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter), and in particular the Fighter's Challenge aspect, so, as someone who is currently playing a fighter in an Epic Path game, I thought I'd post up my character, and go over some of the many cool things about it.

Sojourn
Level 10 Half-Elf Fighter

Str: 20, Dex: 18, Con: 20, Int: 13, Wis: 14, Cha: 8 (includes magic items)
Hit Points: 149, Init: 8, Combat Edge: 4, Speed: 40

AC: 34 (40 vs. AOO's), Touch: 22, Flat-footed: 30
DR 7/-, ER 8/-

CMB: 22 (25 for trips), CMD: 35 (38 vs. Sunders)

Weapons/Armor/Items:
+1 Cold Iron (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Dweomermetals_And_Other_Special_Materials#Cold_Iro n_Weapons) Heavy Whip (http://epicpath.org/index.php/1-Hand_Melee_Weapons#Whip.2C_Heavy) (+22/+17, 2d6+13 damage)
+1 Light Hammer (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Unarmed_and_Light_Melee_Weapons#Hammer.2C_Light) (thrown) (+19/+14, 2d6+9 damage, 30 ft increment)
+3 Adamantine (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Dweomermetals_And_Other_Special_Materials#Adamanti ne) Full Plate (AC 12, DR 3, Max Dex 5, ACP -1, Speed -10)
+3 Ambergold (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Dweomermetals_And_Other_Special_Materials#Ambergol d) Shield of Resistance (AC 5, no Max Dex, no ACP)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1
Ring of Prot +1
Cloak of Resistance +2
Boots of Striding and Springing
Headband of Intellect +4
Belt of Physical Perfection +2


Racial Abilities (Half-Elf (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Half-Elf)):
- Street Tough (+2 to CMB, +3 at 10th, +4 at 20th, +5 at 30th; trip as a swift action 1/round)
- Wary (+2 AC vs. AOO's)
- Low Light Vision (you know...)
- Conservative Nature (+2 to Will Saves)

Class Abilities:
Combat Edge (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter#Combat_Edge_.28Ex.29) (currently +4)
Fighter's Challenge (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter#Combat_Edge_.28Ex.29)
Martial Prowess (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter#Martial_Prowess_.28Ex.29) (add Combat Edge to to-hit, damage, CMD, armor and shield Max Dex bonus, subtract from armor and shield ACP)

Fighter Tactics:
- Armor Mastery (No movement penalty from armor. Don in 1 full round. No to-hit penalties from armors or shields)
- Tough Hide (DR x/- equal to combat edge value; stacks with adamantine armor)
- Startling Speed (once per encounter, use immediate action to make a move up to my speed; if intercept an attack, intercepted creature must attack me instead of target)
- Vigilance (add combat edge to perception and initiative; during surprise rounds, can take a move action, regardless of whether I'm surprised or not)
- Resolve (reduce fear statuses to lesser status conditions: Baffled to Dazzed, Trembling to Nervous, Cringing to Shaken, Startled to Anxious)

Feats:
- Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Heavy Whip (http://epicpath.org/index.php/1-Hand_Melee_Weapons#Whip.2C_Heavy)
- Dodge
- Mobility
- Combat Reflexes
- Power Attack
- Cleave
- Weapon Focus - Heavy Whip
- Weapon Specialization - Heavy Whip
- Greater Weapon Focus - Heavy Whip
- Combat Expertise

Alright, that's the meat and potatoes. Let's go over what it all means.

First off, Sojourn is a tank's tank. He's designed to get the attention of monsters and keep it. He's got a trip attack he can make as a swift action every round, which is a nice debuff, but also allows him to apply his Fighter's Challenge to the monster he trips (even if the trip fails). His armor class is starting to fall behind the monster to-hits for his level (they need about a 16 on the die to hit him, if even CR), but his DR and ER, and prodigious hit points allow him to soak up what hits he takes. If he gets hurt, his Ambergold shield grants him bonus hit points equal to his BAB from any instantaneous heal he receives. That means that even a cure light wounds cast out of a wand (or potion) heals him a bare minimum of 12 points (2 from the spell, 10 from the ambergold bonus).

Regarding Fighter's Challenge, two people have remarked that they felt it should be something fighters can turn on or off, and I wanted to address why I think they shouldn't have that ability. Primarily, it's a balance thing -- fighter's get a feat every level and a tactic every other level, meaning the design of a fighter is WIDE open. You can make a fighter that deals comparable damage to an Epic Path rogue (rogues are our top melee damage class, but we made a mock fighter that could deal nearly 2000 points of damage per round, on average, at level 35). However, the challenge he lays down on anything he hits (or misses) means that neglecting defense will make him very fragile. This fragility means he's not breaking the game or making the rogue a less optimal choice.

From a fluff standpoint, the fighter's challenge is the core of the fighter, as integral as a Cleric's god, or a Wizard's spellbook. It provides a tactical mini-game to the fighter who wants to tank (optimizing which monsters are aggro'ed, or not) and those who don't (keeping the challenge confined to just the target(s) you think you can handle). But if that's not your thing, then the fighter probably isn't for you. Luckily, there's 14 other classes which are just as cool.

Fighter's challenge is a very potent taunt ability, but not to the point of completely taking away all options for the monster. The monster can move around, as long as he doesn't move away, for example. He can also make AOE attacks with no penalty, as long as he includes the fighter in the AOE. If he chooses to ignore the fighter, the penalty to his attack rolls is significant enough to make him regret it, but not so high he's got zero chance of being productive.

As a note, in Epic Path, CMB for everyone is calculated by adding BAB + STR + DEX (new) + Size mod. This lets the bendy jumpy classes have a shot at those combat maneuvers as well. CMD calculations are unchanged, though the fighter gets to add his Combat Edge to this.

If you'd like to see how a level 10 fighter compares to a CR 10 monster, take a look at our Bestiary for CR 10 (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Bestiary#CR_10). The red links are monsters we haven't written yet, but the blue links are all ready to play. Note that, in Epic Path, a standard encounter is one monster per player character, with a CR equal to player level. That means, if there are six players, there's six monsters in a standard encounter. However, if a monster has a "role" listed, those rules change a bit, depending on the role. I won't go into that here, but it's how you can make dragons (or other "boss" monsters) an interesting challenge without having to put six of them on the table. Dragons don't need friends (http://epicpath.org/index.php/Dragon,_Common_White_(Threat_Role)) to be a serious challenge.

Anyway, please ask me any questions you have.

[TheIronGolem]

In short, I find this version of the Fighter promising, but underwhelming. I'll start with what I like about it, though.

I'm glad you kept bonus feats. "Lots o' feats" isn't sufficient to make a good Fighter, as 3.5 failed to learn and Pathfinder only barely admitted. But they do provide options and ways to differentiate one Fighter from the next. A Fighter should have lots of combat feats, even though that's far from all he should have.

Combat Edge is similarly nice; the Fighter needs more than Big Numbers, but it does need them. I like that it applies to any weapon; that makes things friendlier for concepts that use more than one kind of weapon (daisho, sword-and-shield-bash, etc).

Fighter Tactics, in principle, are also pretty good. I'm of the opinion that all classes should have talent-style selectable abilities (spellcasters already get those, they're called spells), so it's nice to see those on the Fighter.

However, I find many of the actual Tactics lackluster. There are several that support medium or heavy armor, but none that support light or no armor. Coupled with Fighter's Challenge (more on that below), this feels like it's locking the Fighter into the "tank" role, which contrasts sharply with a supposedly "WIDE open" design. The Fighter class should support nimble swashbuckling types as well as big beefy tanks (and don't say "play a rogue", that's one way to swashbuckle but shouldn't be the only way). A 1/day restriction on things like Gut Shot and Ankle Smash makes no sense from either a fluff or a balance perspective. And there's virtually nothing with any non-combat application - that's bad enough for a 3.X or Pathfinder class, but unforgivable in a system that forbids multiclassing.

OK, back to Fighter's Challenge. Yes, they should be able to turn it off. The balance argument you offer doesn't justify making it mandatory; if they do "too much" damage compared to the Rogue to make it optional, then reduce their damage (or increase the Rogue's). The fluff argument makes even less sense. In fact, it isn't really a fluff argument at all, because you're not presenting any kind of in-universe justification as to why a Fighter can't hit something without Challenging it too. Instead, you're just restating the design goal of "fighter = tank" and calling it a fluff justification.

Furthermore, the design of the Challenge is such if you have more than one Fighter in a party and they have different Combat Edge values (due to level difference or whatever), then they're discouraged from teaming up on any of the same targets, because the lesser Challenge will override the greater one. This is manageable when there are lots of enemies to choose from, but what about when the whole party's fighting that dragon? The lower-level fighter faces the obnoxious choice of "don't attack the bad guy" or "make the rest of the party less safe".

Not only that, but not all fighter types want or need to draw aggro. An archer, for example, wants to put lots of damage downrange, but probably doesn't want the enemy incentivized to attack him back - that's the job of his big beefy friend who's in the thick of things. And no, the answer to that is not "play a Ranger" - see above point regarding swashbuckling and Rogues.

Basically, Fighter's Challenge is good, but it shouldn't be mandatory. And I don't mean just when you attack. It should be a Tactic you can take or not as appropriate to the character concept. Better yet, make it one of two more more Paths like you have with the Rogue, with alternative options that fit other types of battlefield support roles. For example, an alternate version could apply Combat Edge as a one-time to-hit bonus for the next ally who attacks the target before the Fighter's next turn.

[mauk2]

I'm glad you kept bonus feats. "Lots o' feats" isn't sufficient to make a good Fighter, as 3.5 failed to learn and Pathfinder only barely admitted. But they do provide options and ways to differentiate one Fighter from the next. A Fighter should have lots of combat feats, even though that's far from all he should have.

We agree completely! As a matter of fact, we are nearing the end of a massive buff and balance pass on pretty much every feat in the game. So, having access to 35+ feats is a considerably better deal than you might think. :)



Combat Edge is similarly nice; the Fighter needs more than Big Numbers, but it does need them. I like that it applies to any weapon; that makes things friendlier for concepts that use more than one kind of weapon (daisho, sword-and-shield-bash, etc).

I like that you mention sword-and-shield bash. I literally JUST got done with tuning up the shield feats, and that is a VERY viable and fun path now. We very deliberately made shields GOOD in Epic Path.



I find many of the actual Tactics lackluster. There are several that support medium or heavy armor, but none that support light or no armor. Coupled with Fighter's Challenge (more on that below), this feels like it's locking the Fighter into the "tank" role, which contrasts sharply with a supposedly "WIDE open" design.

I'm sorry, maybe we've given the wrong impression here.

Let me clarify: The Fighter is a Tank. The fighter is ALWAYS a tank. There are four classes (Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Warlords) that get a 'fight me bro' ability, and of those, the Fighter is hands-down the best. (The Barbarian gets some weird abilities for tanking as well, but the mechanics for those guys are different.) Just because the chassis is flexible enough to modify it into a tank destroyer does not make it into a motorcycle. So, yes, Fighters are optimized for heavy armor. And yes, that is completely deliberate. Just because the design is incredibly flexible does not mean it's not a tank, first, last, and always.

Sorry if that was not clear. :)



don't say "play a rogue", that's one way to swashbuckle but shouldn't be the only way.

We completely agree, which is why we wrote up the Prowler class from scratch and gave the Bard the Song of Steel ability. There's no less than three first-rate swashbuckling-capable classes in Epic Path. And yes, you could, if you desired it, have your Fighter wearing light armor and make up some defenses with feats and items and whatnot, and it would most likely play just fine. But the chassis is still tank, and not a motorcycle. :)

For the record: The Bard was a nightmare to design. Yikes.


A 1/day restriction on things like Gut Shot and Ankle Smash makes no sense from either a fluff or a balance perspective.

There are eighty-five Fighter Tactics. The two you mention are among the few offensive ones, and because Fighters are Tanks, they are therefore less powerful than the defensive tactics, such as Healer's Friend or Armor Mastery. That is 100 percent on purpose. (And yes, for a Fighter, Spell Turning is classed as an OFFENSIVE ability. Spell Resistance is their defensive ability to deal with spells and spell-like abilities.)

Now, that said, we've been kicking around the idea of making those offensive Tactics usable more often, but they are not weak abilities, by any stretch. The verdict is still out.

Also, to further address the 'fighters in heavy armor' thing: Due to their Martial Prowess ability, a Fighter adds his Combat Edge to the Max Dex limit for both their armor and their shield. Sojourn, above, is wearing adamantine full plate that weighs a hundred pounds(!), and his Max Dex modifier is still a whopping five. That's the exact same as all those other guys wearing their mithril Breastplates. Trust me, even with the heavy armor, the Fighter is one agile monkey. :)

Oh, and to further illustrate, we have completely rewritten and rebuilt every suit of armor and every weapon in the game. They are all unique now, and have a huge array of qualities. Sojourn, for example, is using a Heavy Whip as a weapon, which is a completely new type of melee weapon.


And there's virtually nothing with any non-combat application - that's bad enough for a 3.X or Pathfinder class, but unforgivable in a system that forbids multiclassing.


What would you suggest for a non-combat applications? I'm quite open to suggestions here. I'd be leaning towards something like the Leadership feat, but that is...fraught with issues that many GM's would be wary of. To address this issue we've increased the number skill points a great deal, and added the Bailiwick skill system, but if there are thoughts in the community for other non-combat systems, we'd be all ears.




OK, back to Fighter's Challenge. Yes, they should be able to turn it off. The balance argument you offer doesn't justify making it mandatory; if they do "too much" damage compared to the Rogue to make it optional, then reduce their damage (or increase the Rogue's). The fluff argument makes even less sense. In fact, it isn't really a fluff argument at all, because you're not presenting any kind of in-universe justification as to why a Fighter can't hit something without Challenging it too. Instead, you're just restating the design goal of "fighter = tank" and calling it a fluff justification.

Well, we'll look it over and see how we feel about it. If we weaken the Challenge, though, we'd be cutting other things out of the class to balance it, and believe me, it's working really well right now, I'd be reluctant to put too big of an axe to it.

Hrrrm.



Furthermore, the design of the Challenge is such if you have more than one Fighter in a party and they have different Combat Edge values (due to level difference or whatever), then they're discouraged from teaming up on any of the same targets, because the lesser Challenge will override the greater one. This is manageable when there are lots of enemies to choose from, but what about when the whole party's fighting that dragon? The lower-level fighter faces the obnoxious choice of "don't attack the bad guy" or "make the rest of the party less safe".

In the rare case of multiple Fighters, the Challenge actually becomes MORE interesting. The two Fighters could, for example, stand on opposite sides of said dragon, and by selectively 'walking down' the initiative scale by one holding his action, then the other, force the beast to divide it's attention. Alternatively, if a party is large enough to support two full-tilt tanks, that Dragon is almost certain to have henchmen, and one of the two fighters could off-tank the henchmen. (Note that our Dragon design takes into account such differential-taunt scenarios, though. Epic Path Dragons are NO JOKE.)

Even worse, the 'last hit' Fighter could take a Tactic which allows them to take a move as an interrupt, and simply debuff the beast and leave.

I have absolute faith in the players to use the tools available to make bad guys into tasty parcels of XP in original and exciting ways. :)



Not only that, but not all fighter types want or need to draw aggro. An archer, for example, wants to put lots of damage downrange, but probably doesn't want the enemy incentivized to attack him back - that's the job of his big beefy friend who's in the thick of things. And no, the answer to that is not "play a Ranger" - see above point regarding swashbuckling and Rogues.

Perfectly reasonable, and easily resolved by the simple trick of having your beefy friend go after you in the initiative order. And yes, we did think of that, and Fighters get powerful abilities (the Vigilance tactic) to improve their initiative to stellar levels.



Basically, Fighter's Challenge is good, but it shouldn't be mandatory. And I don't mean just when you attack. It should be a Tactic you can take or not as appropriate to the character concept.

Huh. Now see, this argument I find more compelling. We like giving players choices. :)

But here's the rub. There are eight melee classes in Epic Path (nine if you count the mutagen Alchemist) that are optimized toward no/light/medium armor. We very deliberately optimized the Fighter toward heavy armor just to break that trend. I'd be very reluctant to add a tenth light armor optimized class to the game, we already have a TON of those.

I'd lean more towards making an entirely new class, to be honest. We have outlines in place for five more classes once we get some spare time from other projects.


Better yet, make it one of two more more Paths like you have with the Rogue, with alternative options that fit other types of battlefield support roles. For example, an alternate version could apply Combat Edge as a one-time to-hit bonus for the next ally who attacks the target before the Fighter's next turn.

Hrrrrrrrm.

Dangit, now that's a hella good notion. That said, building those two Rogue paths was brutal, though.... Errgh. Lots to think about.

Tons of good feedback here, we'll be poking sticks at this a bit more.

Thank you for taking the time to look this over! The more eyes we have on this, the better the game will be for everybody. Remember, Epic Path is being written by fans, for the fans. More suggestions/criticisms/commentary please!

[DrMartin]

Maybe just a side issue, but i find it odd that you gave the fighter 6+ skill points (something that i heartily approve) and kept such a small list of class skills. A fighter perhaps most basic archetype is that of a protector, so is expected that he or she is at the very least able to mount watch and guard a location, so Perception and Sense Motive would fit on the list.

Expanding on that, the Fighter class can cover such a wide array of roles that the current skill selection does it very poor justice, for instance skills like Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility) and (history) and Linguistics would fit the role of a travelling envoy, or the scion of a great house, while if you wanted to play a swashbuckling kind of guy without having to multiclass rogue you'd need at the very least acrobatics and bluff.

Survival fit nicely on the list but I think that Heal should be there as well (as an army man, maybe you had to learn how to patch a few wounds)

[Nuada99]

Maybe just a side issue, but i find it odd that you gave the fighter 6+ skill points (something that i heartily approve) and kept such a small list of class skills. A fighter perhaps most basic archetype is that of a protector, so is expected that he or she is at the very least able to mount watch and guard a location, so Perception and Sense Motive would fit on the list.

Expanding on that, the Fighter class can cover such a wide array of roles that the current skill selection does it very poor justice, for instance skills like Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility) and (history) and Linguistics would fit the role of a travelling envoy, or the scion of a great house, while if you wanted to play a swashbuckling kind of guy without having to multiclass rogue you'd need at the very least acrobatics and bluff.

Survival fit nicely on the list but I think that Heal should be there as well (as an army man, maybe you had to learn how to patch a few wounds)

I just don't want to turn the fighter into a skill monkey. They get enough skill points to at least branch out into some skills which add depth to their character, but they aren't necessarily "pros" at it like the rogue or bard.

That said, given the "toolbox" nature of the fighter, I could see a case for giving them the ability to pick 2 or 3 skills at character creation to be class skills. This would emphasize the dynamic nature of the class, and allow that "leader of men" archetype (diplomacy, knowledge (nobility)) or "grizzled sentry" archetype (perception, sense motive).

Do you think that a low-level (level 1, probably) ability to pick a couple extra class skills would solve this concern?

[TheIronGolem]

Let me clarify: The Fighter is a Tank. The fighter is ALWAYS a tank. There are four classes (Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Warlords) that get a 'fight me bro' ability, and of those, the Fighter is hands-down the best. (The Barbarian gets some weird abilities for tanking as well, but the mechanics for those guys are different.) Just because the chassis is flexible enough to modify it into a tank destroyer does not make it into a motorcycle. So, yes, Fighters are optimized for heavy armor. And yes, that is completely deliberate. Just because the design is incredibly flexible does not mean it's not a tank, first, last, and always.

Sorry if that was not clear. :)

Might I suggest changing the class name, then? "Fighter" is a name that says "this class fights" but carries no assumptions or expectations regarding how it fights. It's a name that says "be any kind of warrior you want" (especially in the context of the D20 tradition), so there's some disappointment when Challenge pipes up and adds "...as long as it's a tank". If the intent is that the class be oriented around heavy armor and aggro management, its name should communicate (or at least hint at) that intent. "Brick", "Defender", something along those lines.



We completely agree, which is why we wrote up the Prowler class from scratch and gave the Bard the Song of Steel ability. There's no less than three first-rate swashbuckling-capable classes in Epic Path. And yes, you could, if you desired it, have your Fighter wearing light armor and make up some defenses with feats and items and whatnot, and it would most likely play just fine. But the chassis is still tank, and not a motorcycle. :)

Prowler looks nice, I'll grant. But I hold that every major martial archetype (swashbuckler, archer, armored knight, etc) should have a viable full-BAB option.


There are eighty-five Fighter Tactics. The two you mention are among the few offensive ones, and because Fighters are Tanks, they are therefore less powerful than the defensive tactics, such as Healer's Friend or Armor Mastery. That is 100 percent on purpose. (And yes, for a Fighter, Spell Turning is classed as an OFFENSIVE ability. Spell Resistance is their defensive ability to deal with spells and spell-like abilities.)

Now, that said, we've been kicking around the idea of making those offensive Tactics usable more often, but they are not weak abilities, by any stretch. The verdict is still out.

Are they all that offensive, though? Their primary effect is to inflict a status that hampers the enemy's ability to fight (which in turn protects their allies, as per the intended defensive role). That they add a modest amount of damage is a nice cherry on top, but the standard-action cost provides for a built-in drag on overall damage output. If you're concerned with the Fighter potentially outdamaging the Rogue or Barbarian, then letting them use this kind of option at will is a good way to lure them away from Big Damage tactics like full-attacks.



Also, to further address the 'fighters in heavy armor' thing: Due to their Martial Prowess ability, a Fighter adds his Combat Edge to the Max Dex limit for both their armor and their shield. Sojourn, above, is wearing adamantine full plate that weighs a hundred pounds(!), and his Max Dex modifier is still a whopping five. That's the exact same as all those other guys wearing their mithril Breastplates. Trust me, even with the heavy armor, the Fighter is one agile monkey. :)

Well, don't get me wrong, that's great. "Armor makes you slow and clumsy" is a trope I've long since grown tired of, and it's not even very realistic. But the choice to go with light/no armor is a thematic one as well as a mechanical one, and dodge-monkeying should be a viable type of tanking: "C'mon, take your best shot! You can't hit nothin'!"



Oh, and to further illustrate, we have completely rewritten and rebuilt every suit of armor and every weapon in the game. They are all unique now, and have a huge array of qualities. Sojourn, for example, is using a Heavy Whip as a weapon, which is a completely new type of melee weapon.

Haven't looked too close at weapons and armor yet, I'll have to check those out.


What would you suggest for a non-combat applications? I'm quite open to suggestions here. I'd be leaning towards something like the Leadership feat, but that is...fraught with issues that many GM's would be wary of. To address this issue we've increased the number skill points a great deal, and added the Bailiwick skill system, but if there are thoughts in the community for other non-combat systems, we'd be all ears.

Sadly, I couldn't find the older post I had on this exact subject that had some examples. But off the top of my head, here are some suggestions:


Tactics that lets the Fighter to apply Combat Edge as a bonus to one or two skills, perhaps in some cases limited to certain circumstances. For example, a Diplomacy check to convince the king that his general's battle plan is crap and yours is better. These could also make the skills in question into class skills when they aren't already.
Tactics that improve a Fighter's ability to craft magic weapons and armor (side note: big thumbs up on opening crafting up to everyone!). To spitball ways this could be done: decreased time/gold cost, increase max enhancement for your level by +1, allow use of two special materials instead of just one, etc.
A Tactic that lets a Fighter spend an hour packing the party's gear more efficiently, increasing everyone's carrying capacity for the rest of the day.
A Tactic that lets a Fighter fell a mighty oak with one stroke of their sword (or similar feat), expressed as being able to ignore up to their Combat Edge worth of hardness when attacking an object. "We need to cross this chasm, but there's no bridge!" *shink* *crash* "Here's your bridge, now get moving."
Tactics that grant alternate movement modes such as swim and climb speeds.



In the rare case of multiple Fighters, the Challenge actually becomes MORE interesting. The two Fighters could, for example, stand on opposite sides of said dragon, and by selectively 'walking down' the initiative scale by one holding his action, then the other, force the beast to divide it's attention. Alternatively, if a party is large enough to support two full-tilt tanks, that Dragon is almost certain to have henchmen, and one of the two fighters could off-tank the henchmen. (Note that our Dragon design takes into account such differential-taunt scenarios, though. Epic Path Dragons are NO JOKE.)

Even worse, the 'last hit' Fighter could take a Tactic which allows them to take a move as an interrupt, and simply debuff the beast and leave.

I have absolute faith in the players to use the tools available to make bad guys into tasty parcels of XP in original and exciting ways. :)

I don't know why you'd consider multiple Fighters in a party to be a rare case. But anyway, the delaying method you describe did occur to me as a way to mitigate the issue, but it won't occur to most players to try because delayed actions are kind of an obscure option - and even to those who know about it, saying "I wait for the other fighter to attack before I attack" for most of a fight (not to mention the frequent readjusting of initiative) seems more annoying than exciting to me.



Huh. Now see, this argument I find more compelling. We like giving players choices. :)

But here's the rub. There are eight melee classes in Epic Path (nine if you count the mutagen Alchemist) that are optimized toward no/light/medium armor. We very deliberately optimized the Fighter toward heavy armor just to break that trend. I'd be very reluctant to add a tenth light armor optimized class to the game, we already have a TON of those.

Well, I'm not arguing for adding another light-armor-optimized class so much as I am for a class that can optimize for any type of armor (and weapon) it chooses. See, my ideal Fighter is one defined by flexibility and adaptability. For example, in my PF games I give Fighters a class feature that lets them retrain all of their bonus feats and Weapon Training choices by practicing for an hour. I'm not saying you should do the same, but rather giving an example of design for a class that can adapt to changing circumstances with a little prep time, retooling their specialties to fit the anticipated needs of the day. Hence my suggestion to rename what you're currently calling Fighter, and if you have a more flexible martial class on the design board, maybe that one should be called Fighter instead.



I'd lean more towards making an entirely new class, to be honest. We have outlines in place for five more classes once we get some spare time from other projects.


Sounds good, I'll keep an eye out for that.

[DrMartin]

I just don't want to turn the fighter into a skill monkey. They get enough skill points to at least branch out into some skills which add depth to their character, but they aren't necessarily "pros" at it like the rogue or bard.

That said, given the "toolbox" nature of the fighter, I could see a case for giving them the ability to pick 2 or 3 skills at character creation to be class skills. This would emphasize the dynamic nature of the class, and allow that "leader of men" archetype (diplomacy, knowledge (nobility)) or "grizzled sentry" archetype (perception, sense motive).

Do you think that a low-level (level 1, probably) ability to pick a couple extra class skills would solve this concern?

Yeah, I understand the concern in flat-out giving it a larger skill list. Giving it an extra choice at first level sounds good, if fits the modularity of the class. The thing is that not all skills are equal, so if you give them 2 extra skills, you might as well give them Perception and 1 extra skill :D

Personally I'd just add Perception to their list, change the knowledges they get by default to "pick any two", and give them the choice of one or two extra skills at first level

[mauk2]

Prowler looks nice, I'll grant.

Thank you! It was fun to design, and every playtester so far has liked it a lot.


But I hold that every major martial archetype (swashbuckler, archer, armored knight, etc) should have a viable full-BAB option.

Thanks to their Skirmisher ability, the Prowler has a medium BAB, but uses two stats as primary combat stats. This is actually a stronger solution than full BAB, as long as you can reach your damage targets with the lower number of total attacks. The Prowler does just fine on that front, due to their Encroachment dice. :)

Full BAB is not required.



Haven't looked too close at weapons and armor yet, I'll have to check those out.

Please do! We've added a ton of new weapons and rebuilt almost every old weapon. We've also added new armor types, rebuilt the old armors, and even added a new type of shield.

We've also gotten rid of the useless cruft of armor, shield, and weapon types that infest the rules these days. We found them to be uniformly 'meh'.

Every weapon is now worthwhile, and there are no clear 'best' weapons. For example, among two-handed weapons, the lowly Great Club is now..pretty darn nice! :)






Tactics that lets the Fighter to apply Combat Edge as a bonus to one or two skills, perhaps in some cases limited to certain circumstances. For example, a Diplomacy check to convince the king that his general's battle plan is crap and yours is better. These could also make the skills in question into class skills when they aren't already.
Tactics that improve a Fighter's ability to craft magic weapons and armor (side note: big thumbs up on opening crafting up to everyone!). To spitball ways this could be done: decreased time/gold cost, increase max enhancement for your level by +1, allow use of two special materials instead of just one, etc.
A Tactic that lets a Fighter spend an hour packing the party's gear more efficiently, increasing everyone's carrying capacity for the rest of the day.
A Tactic that lets a Fighter fell a mighty oak with one stroke of their sword (or similar feat), expressed as being able to ignore up to their Combat Edge worth of hardness when attacking an object. "We need to cross this chasm, but there's no bridge!" *shink* *crash* "Here's your bridge, now get moving."
Tactics that grant alternate movement modes such as swim and climb speeds.



This list is pretty good!

And we're glad you like the change to crafting, it always irked me mightily that the only way to make a magic sword was to pay a wizard.

HOW DUMB IS THAT?

Wizards don't know diddly about swords!

So now, Fighters can make their own magic swords, and we've been VERY pleased with the entire Bailiwick skill system in play.


Er....

As a note, we have removed hardness and hitpoints for all items.

Yeah. That took a while.

Epic Path may LOOK like Pathfinder, but it really isn't. :)




Well, I'm not arguing for adding another light-armor-optimized class so much as I am for a class that can optimize for any type of armor (and weapon) it chooses. See, my ideal Fighter is one defined by flexibility and adaptability. For example, in my PF games I give Fighters a class feature that lets them retrain all of their bonus feats and Weapon Training choices by practicing for an hour. I'm not saying you should do the same, but rather giving an example of design for a class that can adapt to changing circumstances with a little prep time, retooling their specialties to fit the anticipated needs of the day. Hence my suggestion to rename what you're currently calling Fighter, and if you have a more flexible martial class on the design board, maybe that one should be called Fighter instead.

Hrrrrrm.

Darnit.

Hrrrrrmmmm....

[mauk2]

Maybe just a side issue, but i find it odd that you gave the fighter 6+ skill points (something that i heartily approve) and kept such a small list of class skills. A fighter perhaps most basic archetype is that of a protector, so is expected that he or she is at the very least able to mount watch and guard a location, so Perception and Sense Motive would fit on the list.

Expanding on that, the Fighter class can cover such a wide array of roles that the current skill selection does it very poor justice, for instance skills like Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility) and (history) and Linguistics would fit the role of a travelling envoy, or the scion of a great house, while if you wanted to play a swashbuckling kind of guy without having to multiclass rogue you'd need at the very least acrobatics and bluff.

Survival fit nicely on the list but I think that Heal should be there as well (as an army man, maybe you had to learn how to patch a few wounds)


I was going to reply with something completely different, but I was looking at the thread and realized that I didn't reply to this.

Right now, you can pick up additional class skills by your choice of race in Epic Path. So we have some of this 'baked in' already. There's also feats, etc.



That said, we're kicking around some ideas from this thread and are likely to re-tool the Fighter shortly.

See what you made us do? :)

[DrMartin]

Please do! We've added a ton of new weapons and rebuilt almost every old weapon. We've also added new armor types, rebuilt the old armors, and even added a new type of shield.

We've also gotten rid of the useless cruft of armor, shield, and weapon types that infest the rules these days. We found them to be uniformly 'meh'.

Every weapon is now worthwhile, and there are no clear 'best' weapons. For example, among two-handed weapons, the lowly Great Club is now..pretty darn nice! :)



I was looking through your weapon list and the added weapon properties seem quite interesting. If I may, "provocative" and "unaware" are quite strange names to define a weapon's attitude to certain combat situations, they sounds more character traits :D I don't have satisfying suggestions for alternative names, but maybe "ambush weapons" instead of unaware?

I quite like the scaling bonus to the base damage dice, though I feel it should scale based on BAB rather than plain character level. You may have a reason for this in giving classes like the prowler medium BAB as per your other reply though.

I noticed that you changed Weapon Finesse quite drastically: it is now a +1 to to-hit with light and finessable weapon, and a +1 to certain combat maneuvers. why the change? is there another option to get dex to to-hit, or is it an option that everyone gets under this system?

Also, unarmed strike in the table is a light weapon with the finesse property, which is redudant (unless i'm missing something)

[mauk2]

I was looking through your weapon list and the added weapon properties seem quite interesting. If I may, "provocative" and "unaware" are quite strange names to define a weapon's attitude to certain combat situations, they sounds more character traits :D

Whatever do you mean? (looks innocent)




I don't have satisfying suggestions for alternative names, but maybe "ambush weapons" instead of unaware?

Hrrrm.



I quite like the scaling bonus to the base damage dice,

Thank you! Simple as it is, that's one of the biggest tools we used to balance play across all characters.



though I feel it should scale based on BAB rather than plain character level. You may have a reason for this in giving classes like the prowler medium BAB as per your other reply though.

Yes, we greatly reduced the effects of BAB on combat performance. The main reason we kept the BAB progressions at all was for familiarity, backward compatibility, and to provide us another metric we could use to differentiate between classes with.


I noticed that you changed Weapon Finesse quite drastically: it is now a +1 to to-hit with light and finessable weapon, and a +1 to certain combat maneuvers. why the change? is there another option to get dex to to-hit, or is it an option that everyone gets under this system?

Not everyone. But, a mechanic we used extensively was giving competent melee classes multiple ability stats as adders to their to-hit and damage. Plus, many classes get other bonuses for their stats. Barbarians, for example, use their Con as their base to-hit and damage stat, and only add their Str to their combat abilities while in a Rage. Rogues may choose to fight based off either their Dex plus Int or their Dex plus Str. At mid-high levels, Rangers may spend two Quarry dice to add their Wis to their to-hit rolls. Fighters get Combat Edge, a fixed, weaker effect than a second combat stat, but it's free. Etc, etc.

So, in that environment, we decided to simplify Weapon Finesse and bring it more in-line with such feats as Desperate Battler, Grudge Fighter, and good old Weapon Focus. It is both simpler and stronger, in our opinion. :)


Huh.

If I was even halfway good at this forum thing, I'd make those links, but Nuada is the one who knows webpages, and he's busy re-tooling a thousand or so feats. :) (Oh, if you go look at feats, a crap-ton of them are broken today, but that's because he's working on them, all will be fixed soon.)



Also, unarmed strike in the table is a light weapon with the finesse property, which is redudant (unless i'm missing something)


Uh....

Hey! Look over there! WHAT'S THAT?! (vanish)

[Nuada99]

So, based on some truly excellent feedback on this forum, we've revamped the fighter class so that, at 1st level, the fighter can choose one of 5 possible "techniques", allowing him to customize the effects of his challenge.

Challenges are still mandatory, but they now vary in power (degree of aggro-drawing) based on the technique chosen. We've also added a tactic which allows a fighter to exclude a single creature each round from being challenged. (See Calculated Menace (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Calculated_Menace_.28Ex.29))

Challenges also now grant "assists", which are positive effects that vary from making the fighter more durable to granting allies bonuses to attack, damage and AC when attacking a challenged foe.

The new challenge write-ups are on the Epic Path fighter page (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter#Fighting_Techniques).

We've also added a new tactic which allows the fighter to pick two class skills, and add his combat edge as an untyped bonus to those skills. This is more expensive than just giving the fighter more class skills, but the fighter isn't a hoity-toity schoolboy. He learned all his stuff by breaking people's noses and making them tell him why the sky gets dark at night or why clouds can fly and he can't. This means his knowledge is sometimes a little bit... wrong. (Also, the +3 bonus from class skills is, while nice, not really game-changing. You can buy magic items at the top end that grant as much as a +70 competence bonus to a skill.) (See Diverse Background (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Diverse_Background_.28Ex.29))

As an aside, the Warlord class (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Warlord) is our "fighter who went to war school" class. They get a lot of skills, and are the "general who directs the troops" type. They're also a brand-new primary healer class, granting an alternative to the "must have a cleric in the party or it isn't a party" meme. We'll probably start a separate thread about them, at some point.

We added several other tactics to give the fighter a few more options:
Logistical Genius (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Logistical_Genius_.28Ex.29)
Outrageous Provocation (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Outrageous_Provocation_.28Ex.29)
War Smith (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#War_Smith_.28Ex.29)
Sword and Dagger (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Sword_and_Dagger_.28Ex.29)
Sword and Board (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Sword_and_Board_.28Ex.29)
Vulcan's Protege (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter_Tactics#Vulcan.27s_Prot.C3.A9g.C3.A9_.28Ex .29)

Please take a look and let us know what you think!

Thanks again for all the constructive feedback. We are listening, and I think the game is better for these changes.

[OldTrees1]

So, based on some truly excellent feedback on this forum, we've revamped the fighter class so that, at 1st level, the fighter can choose one of 5 possible "techniques", allowing him to customize the effects of his challenge.

Heterdox technique can choose any of the challenges but they are identical except for the bonus(so all choose the -4 to -7 option)

I really like this design structure for the Fighter. It keeps the customizable and feature focused approaches but does a good job of it. Balance can even be readily adjusted by moving when a tactic shows up (basic, advanced, or epic)


Fighter/Warlord multiclass looks interesting too.

[Nuada99]

Heterdox technique can choose any of the challenges but they are identical except for the bonus(so all choose the -4 to -7 option)

Assuming they want to draw aggro, yes, that's their best option. However, if they want to be a ranged attacker and remain less of a target, they might choose the least aggro option. Of course, the challenges are debuffs, so one in the middle might help the party more. I think there's a case for each choice to be valid.


I really like this design structure for the Fighter. It keeps the customizable and feature focused approaches but does a good job of it. Balance can even be readily adjusted by moving when a tactic shows up (basic, advanced, or epic)

Thanks! Glad you like it! Start lobbying with your local gaming group to try out Epic Path, and let us know how it goes! We really want more playtesters.


Fighter/Warlord multiclass looks interesting too.

So far, we've been discouraging multi-class while we hammer out balance to our satisfaction. Multi-classing opens up a Pandora's box of potential balance issues, and frankly, we haven't even started to assess the impact of that.

I also think one of the reasons multi-classing is so popular is because people get tired of their class, or feel like there's too many dead levels in their future, which could be spiced up by branching into other classes. Many classes are front-loaded, where a lot of the truly good stuff comes in the first few levels, making this even more attractive. Furthermore, because of how saving throws work, multiclassing can let you build up your saves beyond what any single-class character could ever hope to achieve. Each of these things has a balance impact that we would either need to bake into the monster stats to keep fights challenging, or nerf those starting levels of classes so your reward for dedication to a single class is better. (Of these two options, buffing the monsters is better, but it means that single-class characters might find the fights too hard.)

I think our classes are pretty consistently interesting, but I acknowledge that mutliclassing changes the game from "we have 15 playable classes" to "there are 210 combinations of classes (or more if you mutli-class multiple times)". That kind of variety can give a game more replayability, but at the expense of making game balance nearly impossible.

Right now, Epic Path has been number-crunched so that an even CR fight will be a fun challenge for any party from levels 1 through 35, without breaking the game, or forcing the GM to spend hours creating custom monsters that can actually challenge their party. I fear that allowing multiclassing would make this a lot less possible. It's not off the table, but requires a lot of analysis (that we haven't done yet) before I would recommend it.

[OldTrees1]

So far, we've been discouraging multi-class while we hammer out balance to our satisfaction. Multi-classing opens up a Pandora's box of potential balance issues, and frankly, we haven't even started to assess the impact of that.

I also think one of the reasons multi-classing is so popular is because people get tired of their class, or feel like there's too many dead levels in their future, which could be spiced up by branching into other classes. Many classes are front-loaded, where a lot of the truly good stuff comes in the first few levels, making this even more attractive. Furthermore, because of how saving throws work, multiclassing can let you build up your saves beyond what any single-class character could ever hope to achieve. Each of these things has a balance impact that we would either need to bake into the monster stats to keep fights challenging, or nerf those starting levels of classes so your reward for dedication to a single class is better. (Of these two options, buffing the monsters is better, but it means that single-class characters might find the fights too hard.)

I think our classes are pretty consistently interesting, but I acknowledge that mutliclassing changes the game from "we have 15 playable classes" to "there are 210 combinations of classes (or more if you mutli-class multiple times)". That kind of variety can give a game more replayability, but at the expense of making game balance nearly impossible.

Good game design advice. Focus on balancing single class usage before even looking at multiclass usage. Although I suggest returning to it in the looong run. Making 15 multiclass enabled classes takes less effort than 210 multiclass disabled classes.

I do expect my group will mix dual classed and single classed characters as fits their character concepts. I will double check and research to see the best method for my group (saves/BAB will probably either be fractional or character concept dependent do avoid higher/lower than expected values).

[mauk2]

I really like this design structure for the Fighter.

So do we! :) And frankly, we were SO DONE with the Fighter, it's been performing superbly in play testing. But, feedback from this thread made us re-look it, and we realized that the community was right, there was more that could be done.

The REAL straw that broke us down was another thread on this forum where somebody wanted to make a no-armor sword user, and...man, the suggestions coming in were just TERRIBLE. Is it really impossible in d20 to make a movie-style Spartan? Come on, Greek Hoplites are massively important historically, and the game can't do that at all?

Thus, the Saint of Battle was forged to fill that gap. Wanna play a ripped, shirtless warrior but DON'T want to be a raging berserker? Saint of Battle. Want to be those badass dudes fighting your way up a mountain from the last ten minutes of The Last of the Mohicans? Terra-Cotta Soldier is your hot ticket. Want to be Sir Lancelot? Wall of Steel Technique is literally made for you.

Very pleased with this.


It keeps the customizable and feature focused approaches but does a good job of it. Balance can even be readily adjusted by moving when a tactic shows up (basic, advanced, or epic)

All correct! But read carefully, many of the features and abilities are finely tuned to the underlying math, and small changes can have large effects.



Fighter/Warlord multiclass looks interesting too.

Multiclassing is one of those things we're really not looking at yet, and to be honest, we've really 'top loaded' a lot of the classes. For example, the strongest attack in the game is the Monk's Five-Point-Exploding-Palm-Strike, which inflicts a monster's Bloodied value. Considering that a CR40 Threat mob has over 10,000 hitpoints, that can be a pretty big hit. :)

In 3.5 and Pathfinder, making a playable character has devolved into how well you can paw your way through a mass of splatbooks looking for the rare nuggets of goodness in the mass of schlock. How the hell are new players supposed to have any damn fun with this?

Epic Path is big, bright, bold, and simple on the surface, with RIDICULOUS amounts of complexity under the covers. The Fighter, for example, can run fine if you just grab some dice and start swinging, but if you get into the details, you can build a custom Fighting Technique, then build a stack of 35 Feats and a separate stack of 17 Tactics.

In our minds, if you can't satisfy any reasonable concept with these classes, then we want to hear about it so we can make them better for you. :)

THEN, we'll look at multi-classing. Because that's going to be interesting.


Oh, and yes, the warlord is really good. But that'll be another thread, later. :)

[OldTrees1]

In our minds, if you can't satisfy any reasonable concept with these classes, then we want to hear about it so we can make them better for you. :)

THEN, we'll look at multi-classing. Because that's going to be interesting.


Oh, and yes, the warlord is really good. But that'll be another thread, later. :)

Well, the Fighter / Warlord multiclass concept was the "Warrior of legend that inspires followers and leads them in the battle but keeps the enemies focused on themselves to protect the followers" concept. Fighter does a good job of creating the Warrior of legend and the keeps the enemies focused on themselves parts but the inspires followers and leading them into battle is what the Warlord represents so well.

However I will reiterate that you do have your priorities well chosen in focusing on single classed for now. And it shows in how well designed the 2 classes I have looked at so far were.

[mauk2]

Well, the Fighter / Warlord multiclass concept was the "Warrior of legend that inspires followers and leads them in the battle but keeps the enemies focused on themselves to protect the followers" concept. Fighter does a good job of creating the Warrior of legend and the keeps the enemies focused on themselves parts but the inspires followers and leading them into battle is what the Warlord represents so well.

Ooohh, good concept, very iconic.

I would direct you to a Heterodox Warrior wearing heavy armor and using the Terra Cotta Warrior Assist that eliminates AOO's to anyone except yourself and the Saint of Battle Assist which buffs anyone who flanks with you. For tactics, I would point you at Battlecry and Battlefield Master, bolstered with Create Opening and Startling Speed.

That's the foundation for a pure Fighter build which does exactly what you're describing. :)

And you know, that would be one hell of a very fun and very unconventional Fighter that would just RULE the battlefield. Nice.


However I will reiterate that you do have your priorities well chosen in focusing on single classed for now. And it shows in how well designed the 2 classes I have looked at so far were.

Thank you, it is appreciated, we want to make the game better for everyone and its nice to hear that our efforts are not misguided. Well, completely misguided. :)

More feedback is totally appreciated, and if anyone has any questions please ask! We've been playtesting Epic Path with various tables of experienced gamers for years now, but it would be nice to hear other's thoughts.

[TheIronGolem]

I'm still not crazy about the mandatory Challenge, but Calculated Menace salves that complaint to a reasonable extent. I could live with spending a Tactic on that option.

I quite like the new Techniques, especially the build-your-own option with Heterodox Warrior. It really expands the Fighter's identity beyond simply "the tank class". Nice job!

I think there's still room for some more out-of-combat utility options, but the ones you've added are pretty good. I like that I can make a Fighter who excels at Stealth, Disguise, or Acrobatics.

Keep up the good work.

[mauk2]

I'm still not crazy about the mandatory Challenge,

?? The Challenge is not mandatory any longer.

Allow me to explain.

Somebody was surprised that we were not allowing for multiple Fighters in a party, due to Challenges overwriting. Thinking about it, that was a reasonable point. We've always accounted for differential taunt situations, since there are four classes (five if you count Barbarians and their 'I dare you to hit me' self debuffs) that can lay 'fight me bro' debuffs.

A Monk's Goading Ki, a Paladin's Censuring Smite, and a Warlord's Heedful Jibe all stacked with a Fighters Challenge, and still do. We disallow Challenges from stacking because they are VERY strong, and min-maxer's will min-max and build parties of five or six Fighters that are invincible to melee. (And yes, we're even designing monsters that can operate satisfactorily under such conditions, but it's a huge pain).

But, we want to allow players options, so in this redesign, we chopped Challenges way back (they were frankly too strong and too weak all at once the old way, we fixed a lot of issues with this rebuild) and added Assists.

You will notice that ALL the assists in the four pre-designed Fighting Techniques are unique. So as long as no two Fighters choose the same Technique, they will stack cleanly, while the Challenges will fall off as originally designed. Not perfect, but it lets Fighters work together much better.

So how do you turn off Challenges completely? It's easy, you declare you are using any pre-defined Technique and then you wear the wrong armor.

Poof! Challenge is completely and permanently eliminated. Even easier than asked for!

However, we are making that loss of Challenge ever so painful by tying it to all those tasty, tasty Assists. So, sure, you can turn off the Challenge any time you want...but it costs you. (Notice that this also locks you out of that ever so satisfying Heterodox Warrior Technique as well, since that works with any armor.)

And, because the number one rule of gaming is having fun, we then tossed in the Calculated Menace tactic to provide a workaround so you can 'buy back' your Assists.

When designing a Fighter in Epic Path, you will discover that it is not a simple class. Indeed, it is close to the MOST complex class, both to build and to play. Making a good Fighter 'build' is a series of brutal choices, and that's GOOD. Choosing Tactics is almost painful, because there's SO MANY nice toys in there, but you can't choose even close to how many you want.

So...mean...of...us....




but Calculated Menace salves that complaint to a reasonable extent. I could live with spending a Tactic on that option.

We're very glad you like it!


I quite like the new Techniques, especially the build-your-own option with Heterodox Warrior. It really expands the Fighter's identity beyond simply "the tank class". Nice job!

Aw, shucks, you're gonna make us blush. :)


I think there's still room for some more out-of-combat utility options, but the ones you've added are pretty good. I like that I can make a Fighter who excels at Stealth, Disguise, or Acrobatics.

Always open to suggestions, from anybody. We incorporated pretty much every great idea presented in this thread for out-of-combat options in the new Tactics, and we're all ears for more thoughts/ideas/suggestions. Remember, Epic Path is for ALL OF US. The more you love the game, the better it gets.

Also, remember that we completely rebuilt all the races as well, and many of them can get you additional skills as well. For a price. :)



Keep up the good work.

You betcha! Keep making suggestions, we're listening!