[3.5] Fighter Discussions – a curious enigma

[nonsi]

I’ve seen, literally, hundreds of Fighter discussions, about what the Fighter needs in the game mechanics of 3e. Within them, I’ve also encountered dozens of 20-levels Fighter fixes/remakes – some of which brought quite a few interesting ideas, some were quite lame in the big picture and some... well, totally irrelevant to 3e’s Fighter issues.
One thing I can say with certainty – I have never seen any fix, other than mine (we’ll get there in a moment), that successfully manages to address all of them in a neatly wrapped package. Well, there was one that came quite close – the one that most affected my version, but it was a bit too focused on overwhelming offense and not enough on lasting power and build/in-game options.
ToB’s Warblade is also arguably supposed to do just that, but in order to accomplish this endeavor it relies on an entire book of melee-related rules system. The “arguably” addendum came due to 1) the fact that it requires quite a bit of rules-mastery in order to produce effective builds, 2) a martial character has to be a genius to be a good martial character, 3) a lot of gamers view the mechanics as a pseudo-magic system, and 4) different builds cope with different aspects, but none of them handles all of them.

Now, the interesting thing about this topic, as far as my observations amount to, is that it seems like the main issue about 3e’s Fighter is talking about it. It seems like no one’s really interested in accumulating valid solutions to the primary Fighter-issues and assembling them together in a complete package that goes for broke and takes a Fighter-fix “all the way to the bank”. People are usually transfixed on a specific solution (e.g. bumping combat stats, doing something with certain feats/feat-categories or inventing some new group of feats that they believe will “magically” make all the problems go away) that they subconsciously(?) screen away explanations as to why their approach is not getting them any closer to a real solution.
Well, boy’n’girls, it doesn’t work that way. A feature tweaking here and there won’t cut it.
The icon of bound-to-earth martial prowess needs one hell of a face lift and quite a bit of rules expansion in order to play in the big boys’ sandbox and have fun without relying on DM cuddling – a turf most are reluctant to venture into.

So, this is going to be my very last attempt to bring my solution (click me) to a serious discussion and evaluation.
I argue that I can prove that I’ve managed to address any and all of the shortcomings that 3e’s martial classes suffer from. This may sound quite boastful, I know, but I believe I can successfully back myself up. I’ve been to this discussion in the past with some of WotC’s top-dog optimizers, and their claims ended up revolving around defending ToB, stating that for each argument I made there’s a specific build of a specific class-combo that somehow manages things, that my fix fails because my Warrior can’t bend reality or trump the game like full spellcasters can, or that my rules also aid other classes(??!).
So far, I’ve managed to contradict any detailed argument against my proposed solution.

So again, I claim that my Warrior is a solid tier-3 base class all the way from level 1 through 20 and that it decently handles each and every well known and acknowledged 3e Fighter issue (and remember: an archer is not a pulverizer, an iron-clad powerhouse is not an unfettered daredevil, a brawler is not a cavalier, a commando specialist is not a mass-combat coordinator, etc. a specific build is not supposed to mix archetypes/rolls).


One last note: This is not about “mine’s bigger than yours”, I’m doing quite fine without pats on the shoulder. It’s just that it irks the eye to see these discussions pop up again and again when a valid solution already exists. OTOH, I would very much like to find out if there’s indeed a warrior archetype that’s impossible with my solution, or if regardless of my beliefs, I actually did neglect an important issue (and make the appropriate
modifications).

[Bergor Terraf]

First thing first, sorry for not replying to you in the fighter manifesto thread. I saw it and wanted to comment on it, but got up in the conversations there and forgot about it.

I didn't read everything (it is a lot to take in in one shot), but I did read the feats, game mechanics and the warrior class itself. I still have trouble balancing my creations, so i wont try to determine if your stuff is or not. But I will give you my opinion on it, for wathever it's worth.

I like what you did with the feats. You went there and used common sense to clean them up and made others to fill the gaps. I like that.

You also did the same thing with the game mechanics wich is a good thing in my opinion. I think I'll use a few of tham myself. Critical hits in particular, now give more use for a high BAB, which I like. Feint seems interessting, not too good but not too bad. Giving HP to force effects is really great. The simplified grapple rules are great. Shield another can finally give a tank the possibility to, well, tank!

For the warrior, I prefered the name fighter. I know it is really generic and vague, but that's what is great about it: you are not pushed into any archetype, you decide what you are by how you build your character (at least, it should be like that). The class itself looks really good.

All in all, I really liked what I saw.

[Draz74]

One thing I can say with certainty – I have never seen any fix, other than mine (we’ll get there in a moment), that successfully manages to address all of them in a neatly wrapped package. Well, there was one that came quite close – the one that most affected my version, but it was a bit too focused on overwhelming offense and not enough on lasting power and build/in-game options.

Hmmm. Have you not seen this one?

Also, I followed the link in your OP, and I didn't find a concise write-up about a Fighter fix. I found a huge wall o' text in the middle of a huge thread.

[Doc Roc]

I'm guessing you haven't read F&K's fighter fix, or ours. Also, could you do unto us the small favor of wrapping your fighter fix up in a more accessible and directly implemented package?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Interesting and well thought out, but not the masterpiece you seem to claim it to be. Perhaps it's the unintuitive process by which I had to find your changes, but the following are still issues (unless I missed something in the morass of houserules).

• Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.
• Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
• Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.
• Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.
• Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.
• Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
• Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
• A large amount of further houserules are necessary in order to fully use your changes, making the solution incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players.

ToB’s Warblade is also arguably supposed to do just that, but in order to accomplish this endeavor it relies on an entire book of melee-related rules system. The “arguably” addendum came due to 1) the fact that it requires quite a bit of rules-mastery in order to produce effective builds, 2) a martial character has to be a genius to be a good martial character, 3) a lot of gamers view the mechanics as a pseudo-magic system, and 4) different builds cope with different aspects, but none of them handles all of them.

Interestingly, many of these points applies doubly to your creation. You're not just using an entire new set of rules...you're changing the core rules, which has massive repercussions across the entire system, and is, if anything, harder to learn for an experienced player. Using ToB, it's actually fairly difficult to completely nerf yourself, but you still chose to rely on a feat distribution system, which means that an attempt to branch out to to many things or merely an attempt to experiment can nerf your character into oblivious. Finally, even in your system different builds cope with different aspects, as one build of your fighter cannot possibly cover all the weaknesses of martial combat.

I'm not trying to tear you apart: I'm just pointing out my thoughts on the matter.

[Oslecamo]

One last note: This is not about “mine’s bigger than yours”, I’m doing quite fine without pats on the shoulder. It’s just that it irks the eye to see these discussions pop up again and again when a valid solution already exists.

1-Most fighter discussions arise from players whitout much experience optimizing and dare to say the vanilla fighter is a good class. This atracts a lot of other people screaming how OP casters are and throwing their main combos, and perhaps ToB fans screaming Warblade is better. Very few people indeed sugest homebrew fighter classes at all.
2-Ironically, there's dozens of "fighter fixes" out there, and so far none really managed to stand out that much, wich keeps them "diluted".
3-Even if there was an effective fighter fix, RAW still stands supreme and homebrew is normally banned from said discussions by default.

OTOH, I would very much like to find out if there’s indeed a warrior archetype that’s impossible with my solution, or if regardless of my beliefs, I actually did neglect an important issue (and make the appropriate
modifications).

Well, for one side, I've learned from experience that diferent people have diferent vews of the fighter more than anything else. Some believe the fighter should be some commando that outskills the rogue, others a combat machine that outrages the barbarian, and then some claiming that the fighter should be as adept at manipulating reality as a fully pimped out wizard. So what one sees as the perfect fighter solution is somebody else's weak/overpowered/meh fighter solution.

This is, a fighter that can take a batman wizard will whitout doubt steal the show if he ends on a campaign with a blaster sorceror, an archer rogue, and a healbot cleric facing ground based mooks whitout magic tricks.

Also, "mine’s bigger than yours" indeed.

[nonsi]

Hmmm. Have you not seen this one?

Yes I have.
1. It makes ToB maneuvers, in comparison, seem very credible IRL.
2. It still doesn't handle a lot of 3e's Fighter issues.

Also, I followed the link in your OP, and I didn't find a concise write-up about a Fighter fix. I found a huge wall o' text in the middle of a huge thread.

That "huge" wall o' text is quite easy ho manage.
- 5 short paragraphs that specify how to approach my fix and the motivations behind the chosen solution.
- A short paragraph with a link to my house rules (all you had to do was "click") and indication of the 4 relevant entries within the thread.
- 4 paragraphs that detail what one's supposed to do with the said entries.
- 3 short closure paragraphs.


Just try again, search and click "My House Rules", use the "huge wall o' text" to navigate my house rules and see what you make of it.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Mind addressing my points above? It's hard to discuss when your input isn't taken into account, and I'm interested in discussion.

[nonsi]

I'm guessing you haven't read F&K's fighter fix, or ours.

Yes I have.
Here's a good (even though partial) analysis why it's a bad fix.

Also, could you do unto us the small favor of wrapping your fighter fix up in a more accessible and directly implemented package?

I could, but it won't make things easier to follow. My instructions are as easy as it can get. And it will be easy once you get to know your way around my house rules a bit. It's really not that hard.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Ah. Didn't know you were going post by post. Apologies for my above posting, then.

[Nero24200]

It may sound harsh, but theres alot of "Talking the Talk" but not "Walking the Walk" in my opinion. Alot of the issues with the fighte class still remain (I think Djinn's list is a pretty good evaluation) and it requires alot of house rules to be effective.

It's not nessicerily a bad fix, but I don't think you did yourself any favours by claiming that you fixed all of the fighter's problems, when alot of the more glaring and obvious problems still exist.

Not to mention that not everyone views the fighter the same. Your idea of a "perfect fighter fix" isn't going to be like everyone elses. It can still be a good fix, but trying to make a class that suits everyone and address every universal problem is likely to fail, since what is considered a "problem" for some means nothing to others. As said before, your woudl be best to just attempt to fix the common issues seen with the fighter, and Djinn did provide a good list.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

1. It makes ToB maneuvers, in comparison, seem very credible IRL.

Name one ability that class gets that's less believable than a ToB maneuver.

That "huge" wall o' text is quite easy ho manage.

Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Name one ability that class gets that's less believable than a ToB maneuver.

I must agree. Your "Through the Haze" ability is actually less believable than 90% of the abilities that particular fix gets. And "Through the Haze" was one I was willing, with a little bit of effort, to accept, so I see nothing wrong with the other class.

Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

Indeed. Well said, Dice.

[Ashtagon]

Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've seen him promote it on three different sites now. I kept quiet here so as not to be accused of "poisoning the well", but it's obviously badly presented. It could well be good. But I honestly can't tell because of the way it has been formatted.

[Dienekes]

boss, if you have a good fighter fix, why don't you act like everyone else and simply open up a new thread to post it and give some descriptions. Making people open your link to find another link to search through random stuff for your fix is inefficient to say the least.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Alright...looking further into your suggested changes. Here's a list of the changes you need to know to include your improved Fighter into an existing game. Note that these are things that a game must change to use your Fighter as intended. Also, I skipped a few minor inclusions, and may have missed some stuff.

• Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
• Ability Scores: Agility and Perception are added.
• Skills: For Tumbling, Combat Diplomacy, and Combat Evaluation.
• Weapons: Add Weapon Groups
• Weapon Attacks: Include size and speed into calculations.
• Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
• Weapons: Add ideal pairs, the deflect maneuver, and restrict special actions to certain weapons. Why can't I disarm someone with a staff? I can IRL, so why not in your system?
• AC: Change modifiers across the system. Completely alter balance with Deflection bonuses and stacking, lowering AC across the board.
• AC: Add new Armors, raise Shield bonus, worry about Helmets. Can Helmets be enchanted?
• AC: Add 1/2 Reflex as a Dodge bonus to AC.
• Ability Scores: Grant bonuses each level.
• Ability Scores: make 33-40 point buy default.
• Attacks: Change critical hit mechanic, making them very common on high attack characters. Add death mechanic for still reliable second attack, which will trigger often.
• Attacks: Change Coup de Grace mechanic, alter most other mechanics.
• Attacks: Completely rewrite Feinting.
• Attacks: Completely rewrite Grappling.
• Defenses: Change flat-footed, hurting high Initiative Rogues.
• Defenses: Redefine DR, arbitrarily requiring a special material for no discernible reason.
• Armor: Bows give -ACP, for little reason. A shortbow isn't any more cumbersome than dual-wielding Greatswords with a 23 Strength...which you can do without penalty in your system.
• Attacks: Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
• Rolls: Change the meaning of a natural 1 and a natural 20.
• Rolls: Add fumble mechanic, meaning that skilled combatants drop their weapon, attack a friend or ally, or fall prone one out of every 20 attacks. That's ridiculous, and further nerfs any character relying on attack rolls.
• Attacks: Rewrite Overrun.
• Attacks: Further nerf unarmed combat for no apparent reason (I could still dodge an attack if I'm unarmed), making warriors even more dependent upon equipment.
• Races: Completely change races.
• Feats: Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.

I also notice that you fail to change many incredibly powerful spells and effects...why, I'm not certain. Some of your changes are very well thought out, but others are abysmal. Working on just the matter at hand (the Fighter fix you offered), the above list is what would have to change. Most of those changes will alter every character and monster in the game, and, as such, most DMs would never touch them. It's also mountains above and beyond what is required for any other fighter fix I've seen: even ToB only requires learning a new system. What you offer involves rewriting the entire game.

Finally, none of your changes address the points I made previously.

I'd need a lot more convincing from your fix before I'd use it in a game of mine. Color me unimpressed so far: the work/benefit ratio is way out of line. Your Fighter is more complex than any I've encountered (as it's a class bringing a system change along for the ride), and isn't hundreds of times more impressive than any I've encountered. Which it would need to be.

[Eurus]

I'm a fan of RoC's fighter fix myself; it's not perfect, but it seems to be headed in the right direction, and it revolves around a unique but relatively simple mechanic. Plus, modular classes are neat.

Still in the progress of reading your fixes, as there's a lot of material there, but it's clear that you've definitely put a lot of work into it. I'm somewhat worried, though, that the sheer level of massive changes that you're making to the core rules will discourage people from wanting to use them. At that point, you're essentially learning an entirely new system, and not everybody has the time or energy to do that.

[nonsi]

Hey Djinn,

You know, there was a darn good reason I “spilled” so much text before and after the link to my house rules.

• Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
• Ability Scores: Agility and Perception are added.
• Skills: For Tumbling, Combat Diplomacy, and Combat Evaluation.
• Weapons: Add Weapon Groups
• Weapon Attacks: Include size and speed into calculations.
• Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
• Weapons: Add ideal pairs, the deflect maneuver, and restrict special actions to certain weapons. Why can't I disarm someone with a staff? I can IRL, so why not in your system?
• AC: Change modifiers across the system. Completely alter balance with Deflection bonuses and stacking, lowering AC across the board.
• AC: Add new Armors, raise Shield bonus, worry about Helmets. Can Helmets be enchanted?
• AC: Add 1/2 Reflex as a Dodge bonus to AC.
• Ability Scores: Grant bonuses each level.
• Ability Scores: make 33-40 point buy default.
• Attacks: Change critical hit mechanic, making them very common on high attack characters. Add death mechanic for still reliable second attack, which will trigger often.
• Attacks: Change Coup de Grace mechanic, alter most other mechanics.
• Attacks: Completely rewrite Feinting.
• Attacks: Completely rewrite Grappling.
• Defenses: Change flat-footed, hurting high Initiative Rogues.
• Defenses: Redefine DR, arbitrarily requiring a special material for no discernible reason.
• Armor: Bows give -ACP, for little reason. A shortbow isn't any more cumbersome than dual-wielding Greatswords with a 23 Strength...which you can do without penalty in your system.
• Attacks: Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
• Rolls: Change the meaning of a natural 1 and a natural 20.
• Rolls: Add fumble mechanic, meaning that skilled combatants drop their weapon, attack a friend or ally, or fall prone one out of every 20 attacks. That's ridiculous, and further nerfs any character relying on attack rolls.
• Attacks: Rewrite Overrun.
• Attacks: Further nerf unarmed combat for no apparent reason (I could still dodge an attack if I'm unarmed), making warriors even more dependent upon equipment.
• Races: Completely change races.
• Feats: Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.

First thing’s first, let’s narrow down the above list to the issues that warrant attention.

• Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
• Weapons: Add Weapon Groups
• Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
• Weapons: Add ideal pairs, the deflect maneuver, and restrict special actions to certain weapons. Why can't I disarm someone with a staff? I can IRL, so why not in your system?
• AC: Change modifiers across the system. Completely alter balance with Deflection bonuses and stacking, lowering AC across the board.
• AC: Add new Armors, raise Shield bonus, worry about Helmets. Can Helmets be enchanted?
• Attacks: Completely rewrite Feinting.
• Attacks: Completely rewrite Grappling.
• Attacks: Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
• Attacks: Rewrite Overrun.
• Feats: Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.

The other issues were either not included in the post linked to in the OP of this thread or specifically were mentioned to be disregarded.


Now for the relevant issues.


>> Class: Change the Fighter class completely.
Definitely.
A Fighter without a massive amount of features that top feats is a worthless fix.

>> Weapons: Add Weapon Groups.
1. Which make a lot more sense than UA’s version (I mean “Druid weapons”? C’mon, man, give me a break).
2. With my rules you have a lot more customization options – and you don’t have to spend feats for that.
3. A lot more options to most weapons.

>> Weapons: Completely revise weapons stats.
Not exactly.
- I just removed some stupid double weapons and the spiked chain – both because they never existed and because the latter is really a no-brainer.
- The other weapons that were changed were simply made better, which is how the really were IRL.

>> Why can't I disarm someone with a staff
Actually, Quarterstaff is already there, but it was supposed to be both types of staffs from the get go.

>> AC: Change modifiers across the system.
Yes. The intent was to focus the attention just on shields, but I didn’t find a better place in the meantime. The other issues should be ignored as far as just assessing my Warrior class and not the entire system.
I’ll see what I can do about it in the near future.

>> Can Helmets be enchanted.
I don’t think they should. By RAW, a helmet is a part of the armor and I’m fine with that.

>> Completely rewrite Feinting
Definitely. Putting it back where it belongs. In the primary martial dude’s turf.

>> Completely rewrite Grappling.
Definitely.
A simpler mechanics with a lot more options that affects everyone equally.

>> Redefine a full attack, with new rules.
Absolutely.
This makes way more sense than the core mechanics, grants at least 3 core feats for free and keeps the space vacant for yet more features.

>> Change an incredibly large list of feats, which still don't scale well.
1. I did mention “(take whatever you feel like)”.
2. They may still not scale well, but they do scale a bit better and allow a wider range of options. Furthermore, feats scaling way better pose no bonus for the Fighter remake, since most all are available to everyone.



Also, I’m sorry for the delay, but life has other duties that take precedence. I respond as fast as I can.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Ah. That particular list wasn't a list of negatives or questions...it was merely a list of everything that a DM would have to change in his or her campaign to use your fix, as I was demonstrating that the immense amount of changes makes this not so much a Fighter fix as a completely new system. I personally like much of that list.

It's the first list I gave that has the problems in it.

Sorry for the confusion.

[nonsi]

First thing first, sorry for not replying to you in the fighter manifesto thread. I saw it and wanted to comment on it, but got up in the conversations there and forgot about it.

I didn't read everything (it is a lot to take in in one shot), but I did read the feats, game mechanics and the warrior class itself. I still have trouble balancing my creations, so i wont try to determine if your stuff is or not. But I will give you my opinion on it, for wathever it's worth.

I like what you did with the feats. You went there and used common sense to clean them up and made others to fill the gaps. I like that.

You also did the same thing with the game mechanics wich is a good thing in my opinion. I think I'll use a few of tham myself. Critical hits in particular, now give more use for a high BAB, which I like. Feint seems interessting, not too good but not too bad. Giving HP to force effects is really great. The simplified grapple rules are great. Shield another can finally give a tank the possibility to, well, tank!

For the warrior, I prefered the name fighter. I know it is really generic and vague, but that's what is great about it: you are not pushed into any archetype, you decide what you are by how you build your character (at least, it should be like that). The class itself looks really good.

All in all, I really liked what I saw.

Thanks. At least you're getting where I'm aiming at.

Read the other stuff you skipped. Whatever you choose to adopt (or not), I'm sure what you find there will inspire some ideas.

And stay tuned. I'll be handling most issues and attemp to mend the one I won't, hopefully things will make more sense to everyone with time.

[togapika]

Flying monsters?
A really wide chasm with no bridge you have to cross...?

[nonsi]

Your "Through the Haze" ability is actually less believable than 90% of the abilities that particular fix gets.

Ok, think of it like this: Combat Focus is basically a higher state of combat awareness, driven by a powerful adrenaline surge. With level progression, a Warrior learns to see things about the combat arena that others are simply not trained to:
- Find that pin-point timing to seize the moment and take an unexpected action.
- Notice a hazardeous situation just before it occurs
- Filter out facts from falsehoods.
The surge also makes a Warrior hardier than others, both physically and mentally.

This is basically a maintained Combat Focus state as it evolves with level progression.

Also, think of "expend" options as a breakdown of a capacitor. You put everything you've got in order to be able to seize a valuable opportunity that others just don't have the means of exploiting even if they did have the means of noticing them (which they don't), or even to pump yet more adrenaline in order to compensate against certain on going conditions.

Now, when you focus all your attention on that one critical effort, you narrow your attention and no longer benefit from a wide angle of battlefield perspective you had just a fraction of a second ago.


This serves yet another purpose - real combat strategy - when to conserve and maintain lastability and when to put your foot down and expose yourself, hoping your effort was enough and you timed yourself not to be too exposed.



So, to expand "Realms of Chaos"'s claim, there's absolutely no suitable analog in mythology for what a level 20 Warrior should be, and I doubt there are for level 14.

Given that and the explanation above, "Through the Haze" doesn't seem that too far fetched.

[Temotei]

Ok, think of it like this: Combat Focus is basically a higher state of combat awareness, driven by a powerful adrenaline surge. With level progression, a Warrior learns to see things about the combat arena that others are simply not trained to:
- Find that pin-point timing to seize the moment and take an unexpected action.
- Notice a hazardeous situation just before it occurs
- Filter out facts from falsehoods.
The surge also makes a Warrior hardier than others, both physically and mentally.

This is basically a maintained Combat Focus state as it evolves with level progression.

Also, think of "expend" options as a breakdown of a capacitor. You put everything you've got in order to be able to seize a valuable opportunity that others just don't have the means of exploiting even if they did have the means of noticing them (which they don't), or even to pump yet more adrenaline in order to compensate against certain on going conditions.

Now, when you focus all your attention on that one critical effort, you narrow your attention and no longer benefit from a wide angle of battlefield perspective you had just a fraction of a second ago.


This serves yet another purpose - real combat strategy - when to conserve and maintain lastability and when to put your foot down and expose yourself, hoping your effort was enough and you timed yourself not to be too exposed.



So, to expand "Realms of Chaos"'s claim, there's absolutely no suitable analog in mythology for what a level 20 Warrior should be, and I doubt there are for level 14.

Given that and the explanation above, "Through the Haze" doesn't seem that too far fetched.

Which doesn't explain why you said the other fighter wasn't believable.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Given that and the explanation above, "Through the Haze" doesn't seem that too far fetched.

And if I can provide reasonable explanations for the other "unrealistic" abilities that other Fighters get? Or for Tome of Battle maneuvers? 'Cause it's possible.

And, to restate my previous post...what about the following?

• Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.
• Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
• Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.
• Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.
• Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.
• Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.
• Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.
• A large amount of further houserules are necessary in order to fully use your changes, making the solution incredibly impractical for the majority of DMs and players.

[Lapak]

Nonsi, ever since you first posted this on WotC, every single thread where you post it has involved multiple people telling you that the formatting sucks, yet you're still using the saved WotC thread and telling people it's easy to read. If tons of people are telling you they can't read through it efficiently, fix the damn thing instead of telling the people whose opinions you want that they're wrong! No one's going to put in the effort to "get to know their way around your house rules" if you act like your house rules are the be-all and end-all of house rules and ignore criticism directed at them.

Just throwing in my two cents in support of this. I was interested by your original post, clicked the links provided, and pretty quickly ran out of steam while attempting to follow the multiple trains of argument you set off running in different directions. It really would be worth your while to reorganize the presentation of your fix if you want it to gain any kind of wider acceptance, quite apart from whatever actual issues people have with the mechanics of it.

[Oslecamo]

And if I can provide reasonable explanations for the other "unrealistic" abilities that other Fighters get? Or for Tome of Battle maneuvers? 'Cause it's possible.

Explain Iron Heart Surge please. Can shut down an AMF but can't do anything if you're paralyzed.

[list][*]Fighters still rely on direct weapon damage, with no ability to increase damage by large amounts, and no ability to inflict serious status conditions.

Hmm, power attack? Spirited charge? The fighter dealingbutloads of damage isn't that hard.

Also there's some feats that allow limited stunning/dazing if I'm not mistaken. Ok, not that effecient, but the ToB maneuvers that inflict status conditions aren't that hot either, mainly due to low save DCs.

[*]Fighters still rely on immediate proximity to opponents, which is often very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

Well mounted charger and archer don't have much issues with that. And this being dungeons and dragons a good chunk of the combat is suposed to happen in more closed spaces where the enemy doesn't have much space to run.

Not to mention that melee enemies will make this issue redudant by aproaching you.

If you are fighting in the featurless desert of openness where wizards can drop rocks on you from 1000 foot away and the DM actualy uses those... Well, then even ToB is screwed.

[*]Fighters cannot ensure that foes will remain close.

Again, are you only fighting skirmisher enemies with high mobility and ranged attacks in open spaces?

Plus, why do you want to keep them close when you can keep them dead?

And even then, what can ToB do in those situations? There's some imobilizing powers, but those demand the ToBer geting close to the oponent and hiting them. Wich will be kinda hard when you're fighting the hypothetical flying wizards droping rocks from a 1000 foot away.

Mind you, since the casters are so good at protecting themselves, why does the fighter needs to care with their safety? It's everybody by themselves land!

[*]Fighters cannot deal with the effects of a large variety of common spells and effects.

You know, not all DMs make ecounters consisting of mainly save or die spells/effects.

And then, who can do it besides fullcasters? Not even Iron Heart Surge can save you when you're paralyzed!

[*]Fighters are completely dependent upon equipment to contribute in a fight.

Or party members buffing them. But teamwork seems to be heresy nowadays! Again, "everybody by himself" mentality, wich is kinda the oposite idea of D&D party.

Wizards need spell component pouches. And eschew materials won't save them, because it only replaces material component, not material focus.

And what's the alternative again? Should a swordless swordman cleave enemies in half with his bare hands? Should a bowless archer somehow shoot lazers out of his hand to hit far away oponents?

[*]Feats still do not scale as well as they would have to in order to be a valid class feature across 20 levels.

Well that I'll agree 100% with you. We need some damn good high tier feats. I've made some myself.

I'm particularly proud of my item chain feat that makes poisons actualy viable for the fighter!

[*]Since many "combat fixes" are not tied to feats or to a class, a spell-caster using spells to enter melee is still as effective, if not more so, than the Fighter, as that spell-caster still gains the benefits of the altered rules.

Also true. Damn wizards stealing stuff from everybody!

Aka, the problems you listed can be said of pretty much all noncasters, not just the fighter. ToB at best scratches those problems but a cheesed out caster still wipes the floor with them.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Explain Iron Heart Surge please. Can shut down an AMF but can't do anything if you're paralyzed.

I didn't claim to be able to explain all of them. That one's just poorly written and poorly designed.

Hmm, power attack? Spirited charge? The fighter dealingbutloads of damage isn't that hard.

He claimed, in a roundabout manner, that his class was easier to use than Tome of Battle. This means you have to be able to get damage easily, if you're new to the system. Those people likely don't know the ways to do that.

Also there's some feats that allow limited stunning/dazing if I'm not mistaken. Ok, not that effecient, but the ToB maneuvers that inflict status conditions aren't that hot either, mainly due to low save DCs.

Right. His fix doesn't address this need. I'm not claiming ToB is the solution.

Well mounted charger and archer don't have much issues with that. And this being dungeons and dragons a good chunk of the combat is suposed to happen in more closed spaces where the enemy doesn't have much space to run.

Not to mention that melee enemies will make this issue redudant by aproaching you.

What makes them approach you over your squishy teammates? How can you STOP them approaching your squishy teammates?

If you are fighting in the featurless desert of openness where wizards can drop rocks on you from 1000 foot away and the DM actualy uses those... Well, then even ToB is screwed.

Again, are you only fighting skirmisher enemies with high mobility and ranged attacks in open spaces?

Plus, why do you want to keep them close when you can keep them dead?

My point is that he hasn't addressed the fighter's weaknesses as thoroughly as he thought he had. That's all I'm saying. Everything I stated is a weakness of the core fighter (and many of them are weaknesses of ToB, which, while it might help, doesn't completely fix the issue). They're also issues that he hasn't addressed in his fix.

[Temotei]

Oh, and it's not that hard.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Oh, and it's not that hard.

I've been using that. It's still hard to find all the changes that the fighter would require to function as he suggested.

[Temotei]

I've been using that. It's still hard to find all the changes that the fighter would require to function as he suggested.

I was referring to his linking to a random post in another thread, leading us to click on a link to go to that site and click and download another thing...etc.

It's not that hard to link to the quicker page, methinks.