Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Changing the high-level fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 2259588" data-attributes="member: 278"><p>That's a consideration, yes. The levels in the example were relatively arbitrary - wanted to space it evenly, and I <em>really</em> wanted them to get the final iteration of the ability at level 20.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is true. Which, I think, means that it's probably better to just focus on the feats where it's most significant, and go from there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a reasonable argument. It'd be a strange sort of metafeat, but it's reasonable. I'd also considered just replacing the feats they get at the iteration levels with this ability, but I'd decided against it.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Seems that more people feel the fighter is balanced than I'd thought. Not that I mean to say "prove it!", but anyone defending high-level fighters have an example or two I could look at? Always easier to see it out, and I've found, well, what I said in my original post.</p><p></p><p>Also, both of you mentioned that the problem is, as suspected, the relative dearth of high-level combat feats. Jester, you said you've created a list - care to share? I always like more feats! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Odysseus, you say more feats that reduce their equipment dependancy - this one strikes me as odd. If Weapon Focus, for a fighter, gave +5 instead of +1, doesn't that go a ways towards replacing their need for that +5 sword? (Repeat example with Weapon Specialization, Dodge, etc.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hm. I thought about applying it to a specific feat, but decided not to for a few reasons. First, I've heard a number of people complain that they don't take the Focus/Specialization feats, because they're too specific. Second, I wanted to strengthen the fighter's role as being skilled at multiple forms of combat.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can see an argument for not allowing Combat Expertise or Power Attack, but I specifically <em>wanted</em> to include Combat Reflexes - normally limited to characters with a high Dexterity, I liked the idea that skilled fighters could pull off more attacks of opportunity even without being preternaturally quick. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p> If, as-written, it says that, then I'll need to tweak the wording. I did <em>not</em> intend for penalties to gain the +1 bonus - meaning Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, and the like would <em>not</em> end up at +2 instead of -2. As for Weapon Focus making Greater Weapon Focus useless, I addressed that in my first post.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hm. Not counting in penalties turned to bonuses, which, as stated, are not to be modified by this ability, I can't get anywhere near +12. In the most favorable of conditions, I can get +5 (Weapon Focus) +5 (Point Blank Shot), for a total +10, which is a net of +8 bonus total. (If you've been watching Malhavoc's <em>Iron Lore</em> previews, by the way, the archer there has a +25 BAB at 20th level, so it doesn't bug me <em>that</em> much. I realize, however, that <em>Iron Lore</em> will be a <em>very</em> different game from core D&D.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>And <em>this</em> is specifically what I'm trying to <em>avoid</em> with this change. I'm a fan of prestige classes living up to their name - being prestigious. I'm silly like that. I'm never happy to see that a character with 10 levels in a core class and ten in a PrC is stronger than a character who stayed with the core class for the full twenty levels. As such, I'm definitely trying to provide some reasons for someone to take levels 11-20 of fighter <em>instead</em> of a prestige class.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This, I can't feel. Either the idea behind it from a non-mechanical view, or the mechanics of it. Sure, a Fighter 10/Assassin 10 could be nasty, but again, PrC. What I'm trying to avoid - and this ability does the exact opposite of what I'm trying, and what you state ("a reason to become a high-level fighter.") It gives you a reason <em>not</em> to be a high-level fighter - if you use the ability, you're obviously in a PrC, and if you don't, you didn't gain anything. And the second ability is only useful if you run an epic game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All around, I'm still interested in feedback, and looking at refining it. What if the ability capped out at +3, instead of +4? More reasonable?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Terraism, post: 2259588, member: 278"] That's a consideration, yes. The levels in the example were relatively arbitrary - wanted to space it evenly, and I [i]really[/i] wanted them to get the final iteration of the ability at level 20. This is true. Which, I think, means that it's probably better to just focus on the feats where it's most significant, and go from there. That's a reasonable argument. It'd be a strange sort of metafeat, but it's reasonable. I'd also considered just replacing the feats they get at the iteration levels with this ability, but I'd decided against it. Seems that more people feel the fighter is balanced than I'd thought. Not that I mean to say "prove it!", but anyone defending high-level fighters have an example or two I could look at? Always easier to see it out, and I've found, well, what I said in my original post. Also, both of you mentioned that the problem is, as suspected, the relative dearth of high-level combat feats. Jester, you said you've created a list - care to share? I always like more feats! :D Odysseus, you say more feats that reduce their equipment dependancy - this one strikes me as odd. If Weapon Focus, for a fighter, gave +5 instead of +1, doesn't that go a ways towards replacing their need for that +5 sword? (Repeat example with Weapon Specialization, Dodge, etc.) Hm. I thought about applying it to a specific feat, but decided not to for a few reasons. First, I've heard a number of people complain that they don't take the Focus/Specialization feats, because they're too specific. Second, I wanted to strengthen the fighter's role as being skilled at multiple forms of combat. I can see an argument for not allowing Combat Expertise or Power Attack, but I specifically [i]wanted[/i] to include Combat Reflexes - normally limited to characters with a high Dexterity, I liked the idea that skilled fighters could pull off more attacks of opportunity even without being preternaturally quick. ;) If, as-written, it says that, then I'll need to tweak the wording. I did [i]not[/i] intend for penalties to gain the +1 bonus - meaning Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, and the like would [i]not[/i] end up at +2 instead of -2. As for Weapon Focus making Greater Weapon Focus useless, I addressed that in my first post. Hm. Not counting in penalties turned to bonuses, which, as stated, are not to be modified by this ability, I can't get anywhere near +12. In the most favorable of conditions, I can get +5 (Weapon Focus) +5 (Point Blank Shot), for a total +10, which is a net of +8 bonus total. (If you've been watching Malhavoc's [i]Iron Lore[/i] previews, by the way, the archer there has a +25 BAB at 20th level, so it doesn't bug me [i]that[/i] much. I realize, however, that [i]Iron Lore[/i] will be a [i]very[/i] different game from core D&D.) And [i]this[/i] is specifically what I'm trying to [i]avoid[/i] with this change. I'm a fan of prestige classes living up to their name - being prestigious. I'm silly like that. I'm never happy to see that a character with 10 levels in a core class and ten in a PrC is stronger than a character who stayed with the core class for the full twenty levels. As such, I'm definitely trying to provide some reasons for someone to take levels 11-20 of fighter [i]instead[/i] of a prestige class. This, I can't feel. Either the idea behind it from a non-mechanical view, or the mechanics of it. Sure, a Fighter 10/Assassin 10 could be nasty, but again, PrC. What I'm trying to avoid - and this ability does the exact opposite of what I'm trying, and what you state ("a reason to become a high-level fighter.") It gives you a reason [i]not[/i] to be a high-level fighter - if you use the ability, you're obviously in a PrC, and if you don't, you didn't gain anything. And the second ability is only useful if you run an epic game. All around, I'm still interested in feedback, and looking at refining it. What if the ability capped out at +3, instead of +4? More reasonable? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Changing the high-level fighter
Top