Brutal Fencer (A Fighter Build)

Cadfan · Oct 14, 2008

Now in PDF form! Its an expanded version of the material from my Versatile Fighter Build thread.

cmbarona · Oct 14, 2008

I like it! It encourages a new kind of Fighter stickiness through grabbing; essentially, the Defender role is focued on single enemies at a time.

Did you mean to leave out the Shield Bonus to AC/Reflex? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there might be other sources of Shield Bonuses that don't require holding either a shield or a weapon in the off-hand.

Cadfan · Oct 14, 2008

What do you mean?

I just gave the ac and damage adjustment in order to balance out the fact that this build basically requires you to leave one of your hands empty- normally that's a complete waste, so something had to be done to rebalance it.

cmbarona · Oct 16, 2008

Sorry, that was worded poorly. I mean, did you intend the bonus to AC & Reflex while holding a versatile weapon to be untyped? For example, even the two-weapon defense feat is a shield bonus. I don't see immediately where this could be a problem, but if, for example, a set of bracers would give a shield bonus (not looking at books now, not sure if that even exists), then the two could stack.

Cadfan · Oct 16, 2008

cmbarona said:
Sorry, that was worded poorly. I mean, did you intend the bonus to AC & Reflex while holding a versatile weapon to be untyped? For example, even the two-weapon defense feat is a shield bonus. I don't see immediately where this could be a problem, but if, for example, a set of bracers would give a shield bonus (not looking at books now, not sure if that even exists), then the two could stack.

Oh, I see. Yeah, if the Tempest types their defense bonuses, I'll type these as well. I'll update the pdf tomorrow.

I can't think of anything that would create a problem, but it doesn't hurt to be certain.

cmbarona · Oct 21, 2008

Another question that didn't at first occur to me:

Did you mean to leave Small characters out of this build? I doubt this was the intent, and I'm sure we can all appreciate the image of a battle-crazed halfling clinging on for dear life while gutting opponents. I get the feeling you can modify the versatile keyword requirements to better reflect Small characters opting for this build. Of course, this would also impact the text for many powers, if by "Large" you meant "one size category larger than you".

Of course, if you didn't want halflings taking this, you should probably make a size requirement for taking Brutal Fencer.

Alternatively, this could be a nice start for a slightly different form of Brutal Fencer, perhaps in a Paragon Path: rather than throwing opponents around, you actually climb onto them to deliver fatal blows.

Cadfan · Oct 21, 2008

Hmm. I had thought about halflings.

I don't know what to do for them, since the whole idea hinges on the use of versatile weapons as both two handed and one handed weapons.

If I were you, and I wanted to use a halfling and these rules, I'd toss together an ad-hoc versatile weapon with the Small descriptor.

cmbarona · Oct 21, 2008

As a quick caveat, I don't know why they didn't provide better small-character rules. I understand they wanted them to be able to use one-handed weapons without the weapon shrinkage gimp of 3.5, but from there things really get complicated.

Cadfan · Oct 21, 2008

I don't know. I think the rules get the job done.

The real problem is that its a real bear to come up with a fair way to make rules for small sized fighters and other strength based melee combatants. In a way, they almost need their own powers or class.

sozomai · Oct 21, 2008

The idea rocks, but Brutal Fencer? I mucked around with fencing for a few years and it seems more of an elegant, precise way to slaughter somebody than say bashing them to death with a fire extinguisher, which is the kind of thing I reserve 'brutal' for.

Yeah not very constructive, I know. I like it though, and I might use this class in my groups. (maybe renamed as the Lethal Fencer or some such : D)