A variant fighter?

[Ranger5]

A feat every level? I'd be more likley to take 20 levels in Fighter if they got more skill points. Even with a feat every level, I'd never take more than 4 levels in the class. I am a multiclass-phile, but still, I don't see how this would encourage anyone to do anything other than use Fighter as a Combat-Prowess-Injection, rather than a career path. As a character-building tool, Fighter is a great class. As a career path, it drops the ball, loses it, and then proceeds to lie about ever having seen a ball. I don't think this will address the issue, as by the time you have most of the feats you want for your character, you're at Prestige Class level anyway, even without doubled up feats.

[Rereading that, it sounds kinda hostile, but I'm not sure how to remedy that. It's not suppoded to be!]

This all comes down to how you view the classes. If you think of them as the archtype, or profession your character is a part of, then being able to take 20 levels of it is important. However, if you look at them as nothing more than tools to build the PC you want, then never taking more than 4 levels of Fighter is AOK. I don't think the problem needs to be fixed, to be honest (Though I would give Fighters 4 Skill Points a Level, regardless.) If it works for you, fantastic! It doesn't work for me, and that's okay, too. I just wanted to show another way of looking at the situation.

- Kemrain the Rog 4, Rgr 2, Ftr 1, Mag 1.

Actually no offense was taken at all. And you are right about it working for some and not others. Our group has never been a huge multiclassing party. It does seem ironic that one of the best innovations of 3.0 was the muticlassing rules, and we rarely find ourselves doing it. As an example, the last campaign I ran which started with 3.0 and ended with 3.5 just a few weeks ago went from 1st level to 21st level (and a long almost 2 years that was ). Well one of the PCs started as a 1st level ranger under 3.0 and ended as a 21st level ranger using 3.5. One of the other PCs that came late into the campaign started as a 6th level cleric and is now a 21st level cleric.

So I guess for us, we generally do not multiclass and if we do it is usually with one prestige class or one other core class. So for us, being able to play a class from 1st to 20th is important.

 

[DrSpunj]

Lots of good points here, and with only a handful of replies. That's a good sign!

This all comes down to how you view the classes. If you think of them as the archtype, or profession your character is a part of, then being able to take 20 levels of it is important. However, if you look at them as nothing more than tools to build the PC you want, then never taking more than 4 levels of Fighter is AOK.

Exactly. I view them as building blocks. What I don't like is that the Fighter is only good for 4 levels of "blockness", and the 4th really only because of Weapon Specialization; after all, what does Ftr3 give you? Nada. What does every odd level of Fighter beyond 1st offer that you can't get from a level in another class? Nothing.

Several classes offer full BAB (and nearly all of them with at least a d10 HD), every class gets at least one good save (and with the full BAB classes it's almost always Fort), and you can't do worse than only 2 SPs/lvl. Once you have "proficient with all Martial Weapons & all Armor/Shields" you don't forget it by taking a level in another class. So why continue to take Fighter levels? The Combat Feats.

So to get back to that building block concept, I wanted the Fighter to offer the same thing every single time you took a level, regardless of whether it was 1st, 4th or 13th, just like you get with one of the other base archetypes: Wizard = Arcane Spells, Cleric = Divine Spells, Rogue = Boatload 'o Skill Points. That means, Fighter = Combat Feat. Period.

@CRGreathouse: No offense taken! I've looked at some in the past and didn't think it was worth messing with...until UA came out. Using several of the variants in that book it all seemed to come together.

Now, the sheet isn't completely Core as I incorporated some things that I want to change for my next campaign. Like Kemrain, I wanted the Fighter to have 4 SPs/lvl. In fact, I didn't want any class to have less than 4 SPs/lvl, so that's my default. I like a skill heavy game (cross class ranks don't cost double IMC, either, but cross-class maximums still apply normally), so I incorporated that into this system. I also incorporated UA's fractional bonus system, a Defense bonus, Monte's "no class gets less than a d6", as well as the Weapon Proficiency groups (and similarly an Armor/Shield Proficiency group system). With all that said, none of you may find it as useful, but it's still interesting even if you don't want all or any of those variants in your game.

So here's how the various categories break down:

HD: d6, d8 or d10 (a d12 is very easy to add)
BAB: Poor (+.5), Average (+.75), Good (+1)
Defense: Poor, Average & Good (don't remember the values, but similar to BAB)
Fort Save, Reflex Save, Will Save: Each separately given Poor, Average & Good. The Average save is similar to Monte's, but actually comes from Wheel of Time d20 as it has a better mathematical progression, IMO.
Skill Points: 4, 6 or 8
Weapon Proficiency: The number of groups you know how to use. Very similar to how UA lays it out, everyone gets Basic then may learn other groups on top of that.
Armor/Shield Proficiency: Light, Medium, Heavy, Shields, Tower Shields, Exotic
Special Ability: As I said above, everything is converted into a General Feat or a Combat Feat.
Magic: Half caster like the Mage Blade, Runemaster or Witch vs a Full Caster like the Greenbond and Magister. Clerics, Druids & Sor/Wiz get Full Caster levels while all others get Half caster levels.
Restrictions: Minor = Paladin's code, Cleric's duty to their deity, Druid's prohibition against metal armor and striving to seek the balance. Major = Oathsworn's oath (since you actually lose all class abilities if you break it!)

So how much is each of those worth? You tell me!

What's more important to your character concept: A bigger HD or a better Reflex save? How much would you "pay" for both? Willing to give up extra Skill Pts this level? Or skip learning another Half level of magic?

There are two sheets in the file. The first is how the Core and AU classes stack up against themselves at each level and then vs each other at all levels (using the modifications I listed above, for instance, the Sor/Wizard has a d6 and 4 SPs/lvl, the Fighter gets 4 SPs/lvl, they all only start with one or a couple Weapon Prof groups beyond Basic and will need to invest in learning more as they level, etc.). You can alter the values at the table at the top of the sheet to your liking. Is BAB worth more (IYO) than Defense Bonus? Fine, make a good BAB "cost" more than a good Defense bonus, and alter the Average values accordingly.

Currently I've left the worst option in each category worth 0 pts (d6, 4 SPs/lvl, No Magic, Poor Defense/Saves, No Special Ability, No extra Prof groups, etc.). If you want to improve anything, then it costs you more.

The second sheet is how *I* value things, and what adjustments I would make to the classes to bring them all a bit closer together. For instance, giving a Fighter a Combat feat at each level, dropping a Cleric's Fortitude save from Good down to Average, etc. I'm not done with my tinkering by any stretch, but you can see what I've done to the Fighter.

It's important to note that most classes (including the Fighter) don't start out with too many Weapon & Armor groups (certainly not all!). Like the UA Proficiency groups, I set it up to reflect that most character would pick up a few profiencies as they leveled and adventured. I like this approach as it seems more realistic that, while he starts out with more than most others, even the Fighter needs to learn about new weapons & armor as he goes along. YMMV.

There's an Intro sheet trying to explain how it works and a Notes sheet that tries to explain why I did this at all (in a very schizophrenic sort of way ). Anyway, if you want to make your own adjustments I suggest you make a copy of the Near-Core sheet and rename it to "My Way" or something, then tinker with that one. Then the Near-Core sheet stays intact for you to refer to or mess with.

Anyway, as soon as I get home I'll try and post it, or failing that (it's probably too big to attach) send it by email to anyone that indicates they'd like a copy.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[CRGreathouse]

Like Kemrain, I wanted the Fighter to have 4 SPs/lvl. In fact, I didn't want any class to have less than 4 SPs/lvl, so that's my default. I like a skill heavy game (cross class ranks don't cost double IMC, either, but cross-class maximums still apply normally), so I incorporated that into this system.

This is interesting to me. I think of my group as very skill-intensive, but that's exactly why I'm against increasing skill points and making c/c cost less. (There was much gnashing of teeth come 3.5 skill changes, but I opted to go along with the new core rather than remove skill points/level.)

I do allow Rokugan's Versatile feat (gain 2 permanant class skills), which has turned out to be a popular choice -- the fighter in my group, for example, took Versatile (Speak Language and Survival). He's a very skilled individual, with the highest Int in the group -- it's one of his best stats, if not his best.

If skill points were more common, the character wouldn't be as special -- everyone could take all of their major class skills and then some. As it is, he's very respected for his wide-ranging abilities.

I'm not explaining myself very well, sorry. The point I'm trying to get across is that as long as skill points are rare, people who are good with skills are special; when they're common, it takes something away from that.

 

[Ranger5]

DrSpunj

Exactly. I view them as building blocks. What I don't like is that the Fighter is only good for 4 levels of "blockness", and the 4th really only because of Weapon Specialization; after all, what does Ftr3 give you? Nada. What does every odd level of Fighter beyond 1st offer that you can't get from a level in another class? Nothing.

And this is exactly why we came up with the idea of a bonus feat every level. And the funny thing is, the last fighter I played took the Education feat (from FRCS) at 1st level and thus gained all Knowledge skills as class skills. His INT was his best attribute along with his DEX and he wielded a bastard sword. Most of his skill points went to his knowledge skills. He was a fun character to play. I envisioned him as kind of a warrior-scholar without being a bard. And I got him to 12th level before the campaign ended.

And at no point did I want to multiclass him into anything else. I enjoyed being able to have almost every Knowledge skill available and the fact that I could dish out a lot of damage.

Anyway, DrSpunj count me as a yes to get a copy of your spreadsheet.

 

[DrSpunj]

Anyway, DrSpunj count me as a yes to get a copy of your spreadsheet.

Umm, it's 1.5 MB, and the board only allows something like 240 KB so I can't post it. And Ranger5, you've turned off access to your email in your profile, so I can't email it to you either. Please use my profile to send me an email so I have your address, then I'll be happy to send you the file.

That goes for anyone else who's interested: either post your request here (if your profile allows email access) and/or email me and I'll send a copy your way.

Also, I forgot to address this earlier, but I do agree that Fighters deserve some better high level feats. That's a separate issue for me, but an important one. Giving a Fighter a Combat feat every level just means it's a different balancing act for whatever high level feats you create. It's quite easy to create a super non-epic but very powerful feat that no one besides a Fighter could ever have access to simply because other classes couldn't get all the prerequisite feats before 20th level without a heavy investment in Fighter levels. It a self-correcting system if you build things with this in mind.

@CRG: That's certainly one way to make skills special. It's just not one I happen to prefer. With the "same cost for class vs cross-class ranks" house rule in place I get PCs who don't super-specialize themselves. That is, everyone has a few ranks in Spot, Listen, Search, often Tumble, Knowledge skills, Diplomacy, etc. But with the core class maximums still in place, only those people who have the right classes and have dedicated more SPs into their class skills can really shine consistently when a tough DC is out there. And that makes sense to me.

This way everyone is encouraged to roll whenever a certain skill is called for (so everyone feels involved), even if they only have a couple cross-class ranks, and with a good roll they might even do a better job than the "class skill" specialist PC who put a lot of ranks there (if he rolled poorly). But that mirrors real life; the best mathematician in the world still makes simple math errors from time to time, most people have been walking their entire lives but still stumble every now and again. Over the course of the campaign (sometimes even a single session) the specialist will beat those lower and middle DCs consistently and will often be the only one who even has a chance to beat some higher DCs. Both of those thing are rewarding and my PCs & I feel good when we can contribute to the story that way.

But this way also avoids the "well, our Elven Ranger rolled a natural 1, and none of the rest of us even bothered to put ranks into Spot (or have enough to matter), so I guess we'll just suck up the ambush waiting in that copse of trees ahead". Under Core Rules, especially with many classes having on 2 SPs/lvl, putting *any* ranks into cross-class skills has a huge opportunity cost. When those ranks actually allow you to beat the DC roll (as in, you would have failed without the cross-class ranks) then, sure, you feel good about buying them. Problem is, for me and my group, those times were way too few and far between to feel like it was a good investment. More often than not we felt like we were missing class skill rolls by a handful of ranks and since everyone in the party expected certain high skills from certain 2 SPs/lvl classes (Fighter -> Use Rope & Swim, Wizard -> Know(Arcana), Cleric ->Know(Religion)), any cross-class skill ranks purchased to make a PC more diverse ended up diffusing the party's abilities too much.

How do the Rogues, Rangers & Bards feel about everyone else getting 4 SPs/lvl? Fine. They still have a much broader selection of skills and higher maximums all around, so they "shine" on more skill rolls than the other PCs do. Also, I've combined a couple skills that affect those classes more than most others (Monte's Sneak instead of Hide/Move Silently, Open Locks absorbed into Disable Device) so they effectively wind up with "extra" SPs out of all of that whereas the other classes don't see any kind of real change.

Over all, my players and I are much happier with these changes, which is the whole point, IMO.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd like to see your spreadsheet too, DrSpunj, if you don't mind. My email is in my profile.

@CRG: That's certainly one way to make skills special. It's just not one I happen to prefer. With the "same cost for class vs cross-class ranks" house rule in place I get PCs who don't super-specialize themselves. That is, everyone has a few ranks in Spot, Listen, Search, often Tumble, Knowledge skills, Diplomacy, etc. But with the core class maximums still in place, only those people who have the right classes and have dedicated more SPs into their class skills can really shine consistently when a tough DC is out there. And that makes sense to me.

It hardly needs saying that if it works for you, it's a fine method. Personally, though, that's what I'm trying to avoid -- the idea that *everyone* would take Spot and Listen (and most would take Tumble and Diplomacy). I prefer having characters take what they think best suits them... often it's just Jump and a Craft for the low-Int fighters, but that just reinforces their role as combat masters rather than skill users. As I said, one of the most skilled characters in my current group is a fighter, between Int and skill feats (3: Versatile, Skill Focus, and Animal Affinity).

This way everyone is encouraged to roll whenever a certain skill is called for (so everyone feels involved), even if they only have a couple cross-class ranks, and with a good roll they might even do a better job than the "class skill" specialist PC who put a lot of ranks there (if he rolled poorly). But that mirrors real life; the best mathematician in the world still makes simple math errors from time to time, most people have been walking their entire lives but still stumble every now and again. Over the course of the campaign (sometimes even a single session) the specialist will beat those lower and middle DCs consistently and will often be the only one who even has a chance to beat some higher DCs. Both of those thing are rewarding and my PCs & I feel good when we can contribute to the story that way.

It's the same, of course, the way I run it, except that not everyone will have Spot (for example). Two might have it as a class skill, and another as a cross-class skill; the others try, but seldom get enough to matter.

I just don't like the idea that everyone needs to put skill points in X; I prefer them putting them in places that help differentiate their character.

But this way also avoids the "well, our Elven Ranger rolled a natural 1, and none of the rest of us even bothered to put ranks into Spot (or have enough to matter), so I guess we'll just suck up the ambush waiting in that copse of trees ahead". Under Core Rules, especially with many classes having on 2 SPs/lvl, putting *any* ranks into cross-class skills has a huge opportunity cost.

It's not that different from your system. The only difference with your system is that you get two skills at half ranks instead of one.

More often than not we felt like we were missing class skill rolls by a handful of ranks and since everyone in the party expected certain high skills from certain 2 SPs/lvl classes (Fighter -> Use Rope & Swim, Wizard -> Know(Arcana), Cleric ->Know(Religion)), any cross-class skill ranks purchased to make a PC more diverse ended up diffusing the party's abilities too much.

We've learned that typical skill allocations don't mean much... our wizards are just about as likely as the clerics to have good K (r), and fighters often have other goals... as evidenced by the character I described above.

 

[DrSpunj]

I'd like to see your spreadsheet too, DrSpunj, if you don't mind. My email is in my profile.

Done. You should have it waiting for you. Anyone else?

Personally, though, that's what I'm trying to avoid -- the idea that *everyone* would take Spot and Listen (and most would take Tumble and Diplomacy). I prefer having characters take what they think best suits them...

Well, that's just it. I figure someone who heads out into the wilderness, dungeons, alternate planes and evil beings' homes like adventurers do would really develop a sense of Awareness about their surroundings. I think it's Planesailing, IIRC, that actually automatically gives character level bonuses to Listen, Search & Spot, regardless of class types. This (I believe) is meant to reflect that any adventurer, if they survive long enough, gets naturally better at keeping their own skin safe.

I didn't want to go that far, essentially demanding that every adventurer get better at those 3 skills, but I did want the opportunity there for those that wanted to put a few points there, and with the reduced cost they don't feel like they're cheating themselves out of some other potential benefit at the 2-to-1 cost.

Now, I have to admit, everyone taking some Tumble would be a bit munchkiny, but thankfully that really doesn't happen. For one thing, with 4 SPs/lvl as standard I try and encourage skill use a lot so many players still don't feel that's enough to do everything they want. That's okay, as they're forced to make choices. Some *do* choose to put some ranks in Tumble, but then they're likely to find situations to use it, which I like. After all, I want them to feel good about the choices they've made.

Two, Medium Armor in my game doesn't reduce Base Speed, only Run speed (Heavy Armor does reduce Base Speed, but doesn't further reduce your Run speed, it is still x3). I did that so Medium Armor was actually worth wearing, and that's what happens. But those people in Medium Armor can't use Tumble, so they often only take ~5 ranks to get their Fighting Defensively bonus up (and 5 ranks cross-class can't be done until 7th level anyway) and to give them a chance at avoiding AoOs during ambushes at their campsite when they're not wearing their armor.

Three, Tumble doesn't fit a lot of character concepts, and I'm lucky enough to play with some people that won't put 5 ranks there just to get the mechanical bonuses.

I just don't like the idea that everyone needs to put skill points in X; I prefer them putting them in places that help differentiate their character.

I think that's the underlying difference in our viewpoints: I, too, believe that putting SPs into X helps differentiate their characters, but it becomes a relative difference rather than "do you have that skill at all or not". With the cross-class maximums still in place I get a good relative difference: I get Specialists that shine more often than the other characters whenever that skill is needed. But, with the reduced cross-class cost both I as the DM and the players themselves benefit from often having a couple other PCs around with similar skills who can contribute with a good roll (or at least, a bit better than the Specialists if they happen to roll poorly).

Umm, sorry for the hijack, Ranger5.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'd like the spreadsheet as well, please.

RE the alt.fighter, have you considered an extra feat every other odd level?

 

[DrSpunj]

I'd like the spreadsheet as well, please.

Done! But I got an email back from a Michael at that address asking if I had the correct address or not, as he didn't recognize what I'd sent. Did you get it?

RE the alt.fighter, have you considered an extra feat every other odd level?

You mean so the Fighter gets a feat at every level except 3, 7, 11, 15 & 19? No, I guess I haven't. While that's about a 50% improvement over feats at 1 plus every even level, I still have to compare it to a main spellcaster (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer or Wizard) who gets more spells and/or new spells at every level.

Anything less than a bonus feat every level seems like a "wasted" character level to me personally, especially when there are so many other multiclassing and Prestige Class options out there that will give either a bonus feat or an ability that is usually equal in worth to a bonus feat.

I realize I'm probably in the minority, but I have a very strong dislike against "dead levels"; those class levels that don't offer any new class abilities. That's just not "fun" to me. Why am I taking a 5th level in Fighter? Oh, right, so I can earn the right to get that extremely powerful bonus fighter feat at 6th level. Bleah.

Any major spellcaster is automatically protected against dead levels, as every time they level they always get more spells (and if an arcane caster, usually new spells as well). That takes care of the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer & Wizard.

Looking at the remaining classes we have:

• Barbarian - no dead levels (though Trap Sense comes pretty close )
• Bard - always gets more spells per day & new spells known, on top of that always gets more uses of his Bardic songs with a growing number of options; no dead levels
• Fighter - dead levels @ every odd level except 1st
• Monk - no dead levels
• Paladin - Not a lot of spellcasting here, but truly only dead levels @ 7 & 13, possibly more if your Wisdom isn't high enough to get bonus spells per day, and YMMV but increased usage of Remove Dz each week probably beats out Trap Sense for lamest recurring class ability, IMO, though I was very happy to see in 3.5 Paladin's picked up extra Smites
• Ranger - between spellcasting & abilities, no dead levels
• Rogue - dead levels @ 14 & 20, and since 2 abilities are given at levels 13 & 19, I've already house-ruled IMC that the Special Abilities at those levels are instead given at 14 & 20 to fill those holes; if someone wants to claim this change makes the Rogue "underpowered" at levels 13 & 19, please be ready to explain why they're not underpowered getting nothing at levels 14 & 20!

So, except for a few levels each for the Paladin & Rogue, the Fighter ends up spending nearly half his lifetime over 20 levels watching all the cool stuff the other classes get to play with. Uh uh. Sorry, not interested.

Does anyone really feel that those feats on the Fighter's bonus feat list are so overwhelmingly powerful that he has to earn the right to get one bonus fighter feat by taking two levels of Fighter?

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[SSquirrel]

Hook me up with a copy DrSpunj. Also, I live in West Branch. Drop me a line when ya drop the file. Looking for another group member for Arcana Unearthed possibly.

In case my profile isn't showing it, hagen_kirk at yahoo.com is my email.

Hagen

Slappy Squirrel on ISCABBS (telnet://bbs.isca.uiowa.edu or http://www.iscabbs.com)