Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 181 to 197 of 197
  1. - Top - End - #181

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_In_Tonic View Post
    Yeah...which would work, if you actually MOVED to make a Hide check. Probably is that even if the fighter looks up, he won't see you.
    You also don't move to make a reflex check, don't even drop prone, yet somehow you manage to take less damage from an attack from all directions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_In_Tonic View Post
    For that matter, if you and the Fighter are in a 5x10x6ft room and standing next to each other watching each other closely, you CAN STILL HIDE FROM HIM. There's literally nowhere for you to go.
    Well by the rules you cannot be on the same square of an oponent unless you're grappling each other, in wich case you can't use HIPS at all.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    As Action movies tell us, turning your head aside and covering it in your hands (or headgear, if oyu have any) makes you survive explosions.

    Really, though. It's an abstraction in the rules. If reflex saves needed diving for cover, they would probably get pretty messy in a fast, battle-map based game, and otherwise, it's not necessary in most cases and can just be described that way.
    "Après la vie - le mort, après le mort, la vie de noveau.
    Après le monde - le gris; après le gris - le monde de nouveau.
    "

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Djinn_in_Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stuck in a bottle.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    You also don't move to make a reflex check, don't even drop prone, yet somehow you manage to take less damage from an attack from all directions.
    I'm aware. I'm pointing out that most extraordinary and "realistic" abilities are nonsense anyway, so the Fighter can be as well.


    Well by the rules you cannot be on the same square of an oponent unless you're grappling each other, in wich case you can't use HIPS at all.
    Technically you're in adjacent squares in that amount of space. 5x10ft will hold two characters.

    Ingredients

    2oz Djinn
    5oz Water
    1 Lime Wedge


    Instructions

    Pour Djinn and tonic water into a glass filled with ice cubes. Stir well. Garnish with lime wedge. Serve.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    A fireball in a 10ft. by 10ft. room? Roll max damage and square it. Do not pass go, do not save for half.

    The reason it doesn't work realistically is that a realistic fireball would actually be semi-decent, and Evocation Can't Have Nice Things.

    Or, in less strawmanny terms, it would probably be a little on the strong side.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Well, I redid fireball back in the core spell rewrite project so that it did include the effects of explosive spell. That seemed quite decent.
    "Après la vie - le mort, après le mort, la vie de noveau.
    Après le monde - le gris; après le gris - le monde de nouveau.
    "

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Second Wind, Tide of Battle, Array of Stunts and Through the Haze are quite outside the box. I don’t remember seeing anything similar.
    They're, respectively, a variation on Iron Heart Surge, a common fighter feat fix, and a more limited version of true seeing.

    I thought we agreed not to tinker with game-mechanics for now.
    Did we? I must have missed that.

    But this would just make Mr. Fighter-Fix a frontloaded cherrypicky-mac-dipalot.
    If you take a level in sorcerer, you get 6 spells known and 8 spells a day; getting 2-4 class abilities from fighter should be comparable. The reason most people dip martial classes is to pick up prerequisites; you don't pick up a level of two or fighter or rogue for the fun of it, you do it because you need an extra feat or +1 BAB or evasion for your PrC of choice.

    Oh, and what about my idea regarding making Combat Focus active most of the time ?
    Sounds good to me.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    They're, respectively, a variation on Iron Heart Surge, a common fighter feat fix, and a more limited version of true seeing.
    A feat that resembles Tide of Battle? Where?


    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Sounds good to me.
    Okay, How does this sound:
    ======================================

    Combat Focus (Ex)
    Starting at 3rd level, a Warrior’s survival instinct, and his alertness and combat insight make him much less prone to mental influence. He gains +4 to all Will-saves vs. compulsions (fear, charm, hold, CHA-based skills etc) and +2 against all illusions.
    Any condition that disables the Warrior, totally prevents him from taking any willful action or hampers his determination (e.g. fascinated, panicked, paralyzed... etc.) also causes him to lose his Combat Focus.
    Also, as an immediate action, a Warrior can voluntarily end his focus to gain a bonus to a single d20 roll (save, attack roll, ability check, level check, etc) equal to 1/2 his class level. He may choose to do so after learning the result, possibly changing a failed result into a successful one.
    If a Combat Focus is lost due to a condition, it returns on the Warrior’s next combat-turn to come after it has ended. If it is expended voluntarily, it is regained after 1d4 rounds. At levels 9, 14 and 19 this waiting period is reduced to 1d3 / 1d2 / 1 round(s) respectively.
    As a Warrior gains levels, new benefits are gained that are based on this feature. These benefits either derive from Combat Focus maintained state or by expending it to perform tasks that are beyond the capabilities of others.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    A feat that resembles Tide of Battle? Where?
    I missed Tide of Battle in there, but you can already achieve its effects in a few ways. One or two ToB maneuvers let you take extra 5-foot steps when a certain condition is met (usually "hit someone"); there are a few ways to get extra move actions, the best of which for a fighter is Travel Devotion; and a higher-level ToB stance gives you an extra immediate action every round to use counters. Granted, that's three feats, one of which requires a high initiator level, but condensing feats and lowering their level is a common tactic for fixing feats so that's in line with what you'd get under this system.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Lord_Gareth's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    I've been wanting to say this for awhile;

    If you want to rebalance the Fighter - and the whole system - into something that is still cool, you need to make D&D stop looking like this and make it START looking like this. That is all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chilingsworth View Post
    Wow! Not only was that awesome, I think I actually kinda understand Archeron now. If all the "intermediate" outer planes got that kind of treatment, I doubt there would be anywhere near as many critics of their utility.
    My extended homebrew sig

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    I've been wanting to say this for awhile;

    If you want to rebalance the Fighter - and the whole system - into something that is still cool, you need to make D&D stop looking like this and make it START looking like this. That is all.
    Well, the first link is seriously broken (403), and the second... well, you don't need to be a crossover of Final Fantasy and Dead or Alive to be cool. It merely helps.

    Even theoretical physics can be cool. Although the striders are a PITA if you don't have a way of dealing with them.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2010-05-24 at 02:35 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Troll in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    I thought we agreed not to tinker with game-mechanics for now.
    How does slicing off arms with an arrow require tinkering with game-mechanics?

    My fighter fix from awhile back (which you commented on) can could do tons of stuff like that by simply modifying the old called shot rules and tacking them onto the fighter exclusively.
    I'm try not to be too vain but this was too perfect not to sig.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primal Fury View Post
    okay RoC, that is enough! the gitp boards can only take so much awsome, you might actually hurt somebody with this one!
    At long last, I have an extended signature

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn_In_Tonic View Post
    I'm still willing to lend a hand, nonsi...but first, you'll have to get off your high horse and decide to fix the FIGHTER, rather than everything around him. The Barbarian works. The Rogue works. The Psychic Warrior works. The Duskblade works. The Swordsage works. The Crusader works. The Warblade works. These are all attacking classes...which says to me that the rules for martial combat are fine. Maybe not tier 1-2, but still fine.
    I just had to say this:
    - The Psychic Warrior and Duskblade could work (given they have magic on their side), provided the right powers or power-combinations are selected/exploited – this requires some CO experience. I’ve tried to make a class with some solid foundations that even a beginner can’t trash.
    - Of the martial adepts, only the Swardsage has means of decently dealing with range (provided the player chooses the necessary maneuvers). The Warblade needs to be a quantum-physics professor to be decent and the Crusader doesn't have much to offer action-wise (and both of them suck at range combat).
    - Rogues work best with the Penetrating Strike ACF (Dungeonscape) and feats that increase the viable range for SA (provided you put enough points to UMD and have a generous DM). Other builds are really weak if the DM has any clue what he's doing.
    - As for the Barb – it absolutely doesn’t work unless the DM really sucks mammoth at running encounters. All this class poses is being an engineblock with some pumped up stats. There’s absolutely no combat action a Barb can take that the core Fighter cannot (at the same level or even sooner), save for rage dependant feats (which a player needs to know where to look) and pounce (which just makes it serve as a 1-level dip), but dealing with charging is ridiculously easy. Also, the weapon-spec tree, combined with melee weapon mastery, make rage obsolete offense-wise. And last but not least, +4 to Will saves while raging - at level 14 - is a joke and the Crusader is still harder to take down HP-wise.

    Anyway, if you have some useful tweaks for my Warrior, do share.
    Last edited by nonsi; 2010-05-29 at 12:53 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Okay guys, I could use some help here.

    There’s a change I wish to make with my Warrior that requires some brainstorming.

    Given:

    1. I’m a big subscriber to the approach that confines mortal men to 5th level.
    2. I think Uncanny Dodge should be within the reach of a mortal-level warrior (reminder: I categorize the barbarian type among many another types of warriors – all under the Warrior class).
    3. I think the Warrior still needs a bit more robustness.
    4. Every Fighter-Fix discussion I ever came across (including “Fixing the Fighter”) ends up with the inevitable insight that a non-magic-ish Fighter-fix is impossible without mechanical game tweaking, so I don’t intend to ditch my proposed changes.
    5. My Warrior gains only bonus feats at levels 5, 11 and 17.

    I wish to make the following changes:

    1. Move Uncanny Dodge down to 5th level.
    2. Add True Grit at 11th.
    3. (And here’s where I need a helping hand) Add another cool feature (17th) that relates to robustness, but I just don’t have a clue what it would be. I do know that I don’t want it to be something along the lines of Mind Blank, Foresight or True Seeing, but it should be something of equal value. It should be cool, it should be useful and it should increase the chances of survival when facing epic-bordering threats.


    Any idea might help, so share whatever pops to mind.
    Last edited by nonsi; 2010-05-30 at 02:57 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Well, one that came up in my feat change thread, and one I intend to make a feat out of some day would be this:

    Whenever the Warrior fails a fortitude save or constitution check, he can ignore the effects for X rounds.

    So, you fail your save vs. death... you still fight on for twenty seconds before collapsing.
    "Après la vie - le mort, après le mort, la vie de noveau.
    Après le monde - le gris; après le gris - le monde de nouveau.
    "

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Well, one that came up in my feat change thread, and one I intend to make a feat out of some day would be this:

    Whenever the Warrior fails a fortitude save or constitution check, he can ignore the effects for X rounds.

    So, you fail your save vs. death... you still fight on for twenty seconds before collapsing.
    Thanks for the inspiration. This is what I have for now (probably for good):

    =====================================
    Uncanny Dodge (Ex) – 5th


    True Grit (Ex)
    Warriors must learn to tough it out under fire.
    A Warrior of 11th level or higher may add his constitution bonus to any save he has to make (twice over for Fort saves).


    Improved Mettle (Ex)
    Whenever a 17th level Warrior is subject to a Fort or Will save that has partial effect(s) defined for a successful save, he instead takes only the partial effect(s).
    In case of Fort or Will saves that have full or no effect, the Warrior gains an immediate second save. Only on a second successive failure does he succumb to the effect, but only after [1 round per CON-mod] (min 1) have passed.

    In the case of Unfettered Warrior, the 17th level feature would be Improved Evasion.
    Sure, it doesn’t come close to Improved Mettle, but Unfettered Warrior is already the more attractive variant of the lot, so this would balance it with the others.
    Last edited by nonsi; 2010-06-01 at 12:07 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Not to nitpick, but i think that ability might be more straightforward if it gave a bonus to the save, rather than allowing a second role. (flavor justification: The character is tougher, not luckier, than others, which is why she has a better chance of success.) Suggested modification, humbly proposed:

    Improved Mettle (Ex)
    Whenever a 17th level Warrior is subject to a Fort or Will save that has partial effect(s) defined for a successful save, he instead takes only the partial effect(s).
    In case of Fort or Will saves that have full or no effect, the Warrior gains a +6 toughness bonus to the save. Even should the warrior fail such a roll, he is able to resist succumbing to the effect for [1 round per CON-mod] (min 1) have passed. If the warrior is considered in combat, or if a failure would result in the warrior's death, he may make a second attempt to resist the effect. If this second attempt fails the results of the failure apply as normal

    As above, I think the reordering of the rolls would put the flavor emphasis back on the toughness element, rather than the luck element. Also, the +6 bonus provides a general improvement to the character's ability to resist effects, which is somewhat more useful than just the re-roll given the number of situations where one may find themselves simply outmatched.

    Not sure if +6 is the right amount of bonus. Wanted to make it something more like an opposed roll, but that assumes an opponent.
    Recent Ancient Attempts at homebrewing :

    Daoist(Prc), Kinderhorror (MitP:8-0), Gribble(MitP: 11-1), Shardfiend(MitP:8-0), Sun Tyrant(MitP:6-0), Sunworshiper(MitP: 3-0),Spidaren (MitP: 7-0), Movie Themed Feats

    Any & all advice and opinions, and votes, are welcome

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: [3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

    Quote Originally Posted by Poppatomus View Post
    Not to nitpick, but i think that ability might be more straightforward if it gave a bonus to the save, rather than allowing a second role. (flavor justification: The character is tougher, not luckier, than others, which is why she has a better chance of success.) Suggested modification, humbly proposed:

    Improved Mettle (Ex)
    Whenever a 17th level Warrior is subject to a Fort or Will save that has partial effect(s) defined for a successful save, he instead takes only the partial effect(s).
    In case of Fort or Will saves that have full or no effect, the Warrior gains a +6 toughness bonus to the save. Even should the warrior fail such a roll, he is able to resist succumbing to the effect for [1 round per CON-mod] (min 1) have passed. If the warrior is considered in combat, or if a failure would result in the warrior's death, he may make a second attempt to resist the effect. If this second attempt fails the results of the failure apply as normal

    As above, I think the reordering of the rolls would put the flavor emphasis back on the toughness element, rather than the luck element. Also, the +6 bonus provides a general improvement to the character's ability to resist effects, which is somewhat more useful than just the re-roll given the number of situations where one may find themselves simply outmatched.

    Not sure if +6 is the right amount of bonus. Wanted to make it something more like an opposed roll, but that assumes an opponent.
    Good tip. Thanks.
    But instead of a flat +6, I think I'll make it +1 for each 5 levels (rounded up), because given how robust the Warrior already is, a +6 bonus pre-epic would practiaclly make it immune to most Fort and Will based attacks. This would also give something more to gain by taking epic Warrior levels.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •