A Fighters skill points....

[Crothian]

double post

 

[Crothian]

AEG has good material? Please. After I looked over a few feats from Swashbuckling Adventures, I became convinced that AEG is the last company I should ever buy material from. Outside companies rarely have the standards WoTC does, and it really is a matter of preference whether or not you think it is worth it. Most DMs are not going to allow non WoTC material, and those that do usually want to look over every rule you want to apply from such books. And for good reason.

AEG has done some great books. All companies, even Wizards, has put out some books that were not that good. And actually, most DMs have an open mind and do allow none wizards material. Wizards is the reason this thread exists. If Wizards was so good with their standards the Fighter would be seen to everyone as balanced. Wizards however screwed that up, so we need to go to outside sources to fix it.

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Damn, I can’t believe this thread is still going. Maybe I should keep my thoughts to myself next time, lol. Anyhow, this all comes down to individual house rules, and that’s the bottom line. As we can all see (I hope), people agree that fighters are getting shafted, others don’t.

I don’t favor one class as opposed to the other but again I do believe fighters’ need a boost at higher levels (so does the rouge, sorcerer, and barbarian need class adjusting). I’ve found my own solution for my own games.

Regardless, I should point out that many people feel that the classes need some modifying be it fighter or otherwise. Even if only 25% of peeps felt that classes needed some type of modifying, that’s a lot of peeps. If so many people feel that way and adjust their game accordingly (house rules), then I would say some thing is not 100% right with the core classes, and thats my main point all along.

I'd be intrested in seeing what classes peeps thought needed adjusting and how and why. Perhaps I'll start another 11 page + topic again soon.

DA

 

[The_DarkAngel]

Damn, I can’t believe this thread is still going. Maybe I should keep my thoughts to myself next time, lol. Anyhow, this all comes down to individual house rules, and that’s the bottom line. As we can all see (I hope), people agree that fighters are getting shafted, others don’t.

I don’t favor one class as opposed to the other but again I do believe fighters’ need a boost at higher levels (so does the rouge, sorcerer, and barbarian need class adjusting). I’ve found my own solution for my own games.

Regardless, I should point out that many people feel that the classes need some modifying be it fighter or otherwise. Even if only 25% of peeps felt that classes needed some type of modifying, that’s a lot of peeps. If so many people feel that way and adjust their game accordingly (house rules), then I would say some thing is not 100% right with the core classes, and thats my main point all along.

I'd be intrested in seeing what classes peeps thought needed adjusting and how and why. Perhaps I'll start another 11 page + topic again soon.

DA

 

[KarinsDad]

All companies, even Wizards, has put out some books that were not that good.

Agreed.

And actually, most DMs have an open mind and do allow none wizards material.

Not in my experience and probably not in reality. Most DMs I have played with have allowed non-Wizards adventures, modules, creature books, etc.

But not non-Wizards books which mostly contain feats, spells, and PrCs.

4 million+ people bought the 3E version of the Players Handbook.

But I doubt Mongoose sold 50,000 copies of The Quintessential Fighter while WotC probably sold more than 500,000 copies of Sword & Fist.

If Wizards was so good with their standards the Fighter would be seen to everyone as balanced. Wizards however screwed that up, so we need to go to outside sources to fix it.

Balance is a very difficult thing to judge and everyone judges it differently.

I can make a case that Sorcerers are too powerful.

I can also make a case that Sorcerers are too weak.



Personally, I do not think Fighters are too wimpy at high level. I do think the clase is not versatile. But, some people either like that or are comfortable with that.

Others are not.

From my experience, however, Fighters do great at higher levels. It is all a matter of what the player wants out of the character. You want versatility? Do not pick a fighter. You want to kick butt in combat, even over many other combatant classes and PrCs, pick a fighter.

Sure, people can come up with spell/feat/PrC/magic items combos that are uber. But if your DM is on the ball with this type of stuff, a normal fighter can do just as good if not better in combat.

 

[reapersaurus]

KarinsDad - I just gotta say, it's nice seeing your posts again.
I respect your opinions, and I didn't see you on here for a long time.

In my perusal of D20 publishers, I really like the extra feats that are out there, and they are universally more creative than the (mostly) crappy feats WotC has put out.
Really, I think an unspoken problem with 3E is that WotC feats are just too weak, for the most part.
If they had more flexibility in USEFUL feat selections, than more people would value the Ftr's bonus feats.

But I think an unconscious awareness we all have in this thread is that besides a handful of WotC feats, most of them wouldn't be that useful to a higher-level FTR.
THAT's the problem with the Ftr - it's that WotC's feats are underwhelming.

 

[Ketjak]

That's a bold claim that you have yet to actually back up in any way.

I came out with two builds: one was a mounted/ranged/melee character and the other was a straight hitting machine. They both had more relevent abilities than a single classed Fight could. One was focused in one area and the other was spread between several areas of expertise.

So let's see these supposed "specialists" or these characters "good at several things". I already showed one character who specialized, one who diversified. The 16th level "Fighter" would have less total abilities and would definitionally fulfill either the diversified or specialized roll worse. And that's not even counting the fact that both had a huge pile of skill points - many of which could be in combat skills like Spot - which in turn account for additional powerful combat abilities that the "Fighter" could not match.

So rather than hand waving - let's see you throw down.

Put up or shut up.

-Frank

Frank,

You still ignore that Crothian and I pointed out that you were citing straight-up Fighter class characters as examples of when describing what a Fighter should be. So... are those still examples of what you want from a Fighter or are they suddenly unacceptable.

You also never addressed that the character concepts you illustrated use PRESTIGE classes. By definition, Prestige classes are better than a core class, usually in specific areas. By using FOUR different prestige classes with a total of 9 of 16 class levels, OF COURSE that character is going to be better at each of the things those PRESTIGE classes do!

You insist that those builds should somehow be equaled by the Fighter class. That is stupidity, plain and simple.

Your failur to acknolwedge those points speaks to either a psychotic break in which you don't recognize the bits of reality that don't appeal to you OR that you're deliberately avoiding recognition. Either one speaks to a bad problem, but the psychotic break is at least acceptable. When you acknowledge those two points I'll engage your arguments head-on. Until then, you're not actually arguing, you're whining.

Finally, your constant stream of insults is unacceptable. Defend your position without them, because it marks you as the biggest a-hole posting here. When you can engage in a debate without using insults, and when you can acknowledge when another person has a valid point, then you'll be the debater you would like to be.

Of course, if you respond the way I expect - with an insult, or not at all - then we know what you're really made of. Chalk it up to a nice troll and be done.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad - I just gotta say, it's nice seeing your posts again.

Thanks.

In my perusal of D20 publishers, I really like the extra feats that are out there, and they are universally more creative than the (mostly) crappy feats WotC has put out.

I call this the bigger, better, badder syndrome.

To me, the #1 flaw of 3E was the introduction of feats. The reason is that:

1) They are rarely that balanced. Hence, there will be some that nearly everyone wants to take and others that will almost never get taken.

2) They reinforce the behavior of min/maxing.

3) They did not introduce most special abilities of some classes as "feats". So, there are skill, there are special abilities, there are feats. To get some abilities, you have to multiclass. To get others, you have to spend a feat. To get others, you have to purchase a skill. A nicer system would have been to make them all skills and just have different skills more or less difficult for different classes to acquire.

Really, I think an unspoken problem with 3E is that WotC feats are just too weak, for the most part.
If they had more flexibility in USEFUL feat selections, than more people would value the Ftr's bonus feats.

But I think an unconscious awareness we all have in this thread is that besides a handful of WotC feats, most of them wouldn't be that useful to a higher-level FTR.
THAT's the problem with the Ftr - it's that WotC's feats are underwhelming.

Possibly.

I think, however, that when you have 74 feats in the core books, another 100 or so in other WotC products, and another 200+ in non-WotC products, it is just a matter of probability.

A player of a fighter gets to pick 2 to 13 feats in the lifetime of the character. Some of the feats in the core rules he already has and 18 of the core rules feats he cannot take unless he multiclasses. That leaves about 50 feats that are usable for him.

Those 50 compared with the 50 more he can use in the non-core WotC books and the 100 more he can use in the non-WotC books means that there are probably just as many feats outside of the WotC books that he can take as there are in third party products.

On top of that, WotC is (at least) attempting to balance their feats (they sometimes fail, but that is a different issue). I think most third party feats I have seen are slightly more uber, just in order to get people excited over their books (and hence, buy them).

Again, the bigger, better, badder syndrome.


So, my conclusion is not that there are not 13 good feats that a high level human fighter can pick out of the PHB. Rather, there are hundreds more intentionally designed "better ones" that the player can find elsewhere which lure him into thinking that the feats in the core rules are crappy. JMO.

 

[reapersaurus]

So, my conclusion is not that there are not 13 good feats that a high level human fighter can pick out of the PHB. Rather, there are hundreds more intentionally designed "better ones" that the player can find elsewhere which lure him into thinking that the feats in the core rules are crappy. JMO.

Whoa.
You've just opinioned yourself into a corner there, KD.

So can I paraphrase your opinion to this: "The PHB feats are not underpowered."

In the context of this discussion (the Ftr being underpowered), you have just set yourself up to support the following statement:
One fighter feat, 6 HP's and +1 more BAB is equal in power to 2 levels of spellcasting and familiar progression and 2/5ths of a metamagic feat.

This is easily derived from comparing the class benefits of 2 levels of wizard vs 2 levels of Ftr.

I just simply don't think that the benefits are comparable, in even any slightest notion.

I can prove this by comparing an Eldritch Knight with a Wizard and a Ftr.
The EK loses +3 BAB compared to a Ftr, and loses 2 spellcasting levels to the wizard. Roughly, that's +3 BAB and 2 HP per level vs 2 spellcasting levels.
Therefore, WotC seems to be prove by their own 3.5 rules that spellcasting levels are worth significantly more than BAB and HP.

This leaves us with the only Ftr benefit of 1 feat per 2 levels.
I find it hard to believe that feats are stronger than spells.
I guess you could view feats as a kind of a Persistent, non-magical spell.
The only problem is, they pale so badly in comparison to even 1st level spells, it's ridiculous.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But I think an unconscious awareness we all have in this thread is that besides a handful of WotC feats, most of them wouldn't be that useful to a higher-level FTR.
THAT's the problem with the Ftr - it's that WotC's feats are underwhelming.

Hmm...I tend to agree.

It seems to me that the Fighter could use some bigger, badder feat chains that would really enhance the longterm value of gaining extra feats. Instead WotC has given us PrCs with a sprinking of weird class abilities that are usually better than any PHB feat; that has quite the opposite effect.