Fighter 'spells'

[DiFier]

You are giving fighters spells based off of not a stat but their BAB which is high already if they had to cast spells based on Int or Wis or even Cha I would have less of a problem with it. Becasue those are dump stats for fighters, just like strength is for a wizard.

It would be like saying that for one feat a wizard gets an extra attack for every 10 caster levels. and adds his spell level/3 to his attacks and damage.

Why would you not take that feat? fighter's get so many feats that they might as well pick up a feat that gives them powerful spellcasting based off of their BAB and only at the loss of a few feat slots. Why wouldn't a wizard take the feat I suggested? he gets less feats overall but now he can attack better.

These feat are too powerful. Name me one other feat that progresses as you level. There may be some but I bet they are very far from core. Feats in general get less powerful as you level. That +2 to spot and listen was great at 1st level but at 20th when you have 23 ranks of spot and listen and a wisdom of 20 it is nice but the difference in rolling a +3- or a +28 isn't as great as +7 to +5.

The feat(s) you suggested seems designed to bypass multicalssing. give the fighter spells with out the disadvantages of multiclassing.

Edit: you are alos saying that the only advantage a fighter has is his BAB I diagree. You forget arcane spell failure and HP. Fighters have way more survivability than wizards or even wizard/fighters do. Sure a wizard/fighter can wear full plate but he's not going to be casting many spells in it. how much damage does a fireball do when it fails? none. Your fighter spells don't take into account spell failure.

Fighters only need 2 good stats, Strenght and Constitution. Heavy armor takes care of low dex, and the mental stats are almost useless for a fighter. Wizards Need Intelligence, Dex and Con. A fighter wizard needs Intelligence Dex, Strength and Con. only cha and wis can be low. :end edit

 

[reapersaurus]

fair enough - now we're talking about simply honing the mechanic, and that's certainly do-able.

The use of their prime attribute is a good point as far as cost - I think I'll use CHA, being a hero's force of will.

However, these feat(s) are nothing like granting a wizard an extra attack a round - these can n ot be used when normally attacking - that's an opportunity cost.

As far as them being more powerful than oither feats - I really don't want to go down that line of discussion too far, because feats are completely underwhelming to me, and I'm not trying to balance them in regards to something as silly as a 3 hit point feat (Toughness, of course). I would prefer that fighters just get this ability straight out - "limited spellcasting" for damage - but that's a world change that I don't think many people would grok., so I forwarded the idea of Heroic Feats.

If anyone has a recommendation on how to split this up into 2 or 3 feats, I'd be interested.
I've got an idea, that I'll add in when I get the chance.

Btw: here's one of the comparison points:
Mages get their damage-dealing spells for 'free' when they advance in spellcasting (and they get many other spells in addition) - therefore I wished for fighter-types to get their spellcasting for 'free' while they level up.

The spell failure chance is a good point - I think I'll add that in, as well.

 

[Michael Morris]

Reaper, you've got a long way to go.

 

[jlhorner1974]

I agree with the opinions of the majority here.

There are no core feats that grant non-spellcasters any spells higher than level 0 spells, that I know of. Spells, especially damage dealing spells, are the major class feature of a sorceror/wizard. By creating feats that allow damage/dealing spells, you are short-changing the wizards and sorcerors of your world. Sorcerers and Wizards gave up fighter BAB and a d10 hit die and bonus feats and weapon/armor proficiencies in many cases specifically so that they can cast arcane spells to do tremendous damage. With these feats, the fighter/monk/ranger/paladin classes all get a huge boost in power. What are you giving all the other classes in return? If I were playing a wizard or sorc in your campaign, I would be majorly pissed off (and rightfully so).

Generally the designers avoid granting special class abilities like evasion, sneak attack, weapon specialization, turn undead, rage, and spells (other than a couple of cantrips) as feats. If you start allowing this, then you are preventing these things from being "special" to the class. In my view, I feel that these feats are unbalanced because they are unfair to the other classes, and I don't feel there is anything you can do to hone the mechanic to solve the problem.

Actually, though, I support allowing fighters to cast a few spells every day to increase their flexibility. I encourage Fighters to have other options besides "I'll hit him again". But feats are not the way to do it. Fighters have a lot of feats and taking something as a feat is not as much of a commitment to a fighter as it is to other classes, because they get so many.

I recommend that you allow your fighter to purchase or acquire magic items that grant a spell like effect (maybe 1/day or 3/day) and price it according to the DMG rules. Or provide disposable damage items like blast globes, helm of brilliance, javelins of lightning, or so on. If the party is higher level, a ring of spell storing (greater) is a nice fighter item to allow them to cast a damaging spell or two, a healing spell, or maybe even a dispel magic. This could be a wonderful way to bring a fighter closer to another party spellcaster as they work together to decide which spells to use, and an opportunity to roleplay the fighter being "mentored" in the ways of magic (such as targeting spells, etc.) by the caster. It could even be a great reason to begin taking wizard/sorc levels to qualify for the Eldritch Knight PrC.

Making a new feat is not the best solution to every problem, and in my humble opinion, it's definitely not the solution to *this* problem.

 

[reapersaurus]

Making a new feat is not the best solution to every problem, and in my humble opinion, it's definitely not the solution to *this* problem.

I agree - it should be fixed by the core rules, IMO, but it isn't.

So a feat (chain?) is the only rational substitute, even tho it sucks.

Your comments are noted, but I think you missed how radical my opinion of mages is.
I don't believe they SHOULD do much damage.
They should very rarely be the character that does the most damage. In fact, if I had my druthers Evocation would probably not exist as a core school. If a mage wanted to do physical damage, he'd have to specialize something fierce.
The reason someone would play 'my' restricted mages would be for flavor, not for power. They still would have all the information-gathering etc spells, plus Charm and Hold, etc - they simply would not be the ones you'd look for to bash down the gates of a town, or blow up the horde or orcs.

IMO, it's absolutely absurd for a specialist class such as the wizard to be able to be so flexible in his spell choices, and what he can do. He should NEVER be able to get the special features of other classes and races (Darkvision, Blindsight, unblockable damage, etc). With every spell that co-opts an ability of something/someone else, D&D marginalizes that other class (an example: R&R's Smite spell for clerics pisses all over the Paladin).

So I'd actually rather that mages have their damage-dealing spells taken away from them, than fighter-types get Feats that co-opt the mages' schtick, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

 

[jlhorner1974]

You're right, I did miss how radical your opinion is. I disagree with you, but I believe people are entitled to their own opinions. I think it is good that you explore ideas beyond the norms. To me, it's such a big difference from the D&D philosophy that I don't know how you can get the vision you want with a few feats and keep things balanced.

I prefer to stay reasonably close to the core rules, and what you propose really shakes things up quite a lot. That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's different.

I think that to implement your vision properly and maintain balance between the classes would involve a sweeping rewrite of the class system. I prefer a game heavy on role playing myself, but game balance ultimately comes down to combat ability. One thing I think is that if you give damage dealing spell-like feats only to the fighter-type classes, it has a huge effect on game balance. Taking away direct damage from the sorceror/wizard, is an even bigger change. Not every wizard needs an Evocation-heavy spellbook, but no damage dealing spells at all?

If it works for you, so much the better. I think a lot of people feel that wizards and sorcerors are a little more powerful than fighters at high levels. Even the 3.5 revision agrees, and has toned down the arcane casters somewhat. But this is a major difference from your ideas.

Do whatever works for you and your players, but I doubt that you will find many supporters here. I wish you luck.

 

[Trainz]

As for rogues/assasins and sneak attack being too powerful, I think thats silly also. Sneak Attack is hard to get every round, or on full-attacks as it usually places the rogue in quite a bit of danger.

Minor Hijack: IMC, if a beast is flanked by the fighter and rogue, after a few sneaks, you can bet he will turn around and starts hacking at the rogue, and his puny d6 hit points won't last long.

A year or so ago, the rogue IMC died twice because of that.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In order (almost):

Saeviomagy - your comment about "utterly flavourless and unjustified" is quite hilarious though, in light of the EK.

The EK gets his flavour from the two base classes - ie wizard + fighter. The wizard casts spells (all of which have interesting little things like required components, focii, gestures, as well as a detailed account of what the spells actually do - be it conjure a pellet which explodes, or call a demon from another plane).

Your feats "do some damage to X targets". That's it. No explanation of how, or why, or what the fighter is doing, or what it looks like etc. etc.

Flavour is more than "this class can only be taken by characters who've joined the eternal order of extremely boring background text writers who have no idea what organisations are present in my campaign, or what such organisations require of members".

 

[I'm A Banana]

For something similar, take a look at some Final Fantasy d20 classes, namely the Samurai, the Pearl Knight, the Black Belt and the Shadow Knight. They're mostly-fighters who gain some impressive 'techniques' that give them psuedo-magical abilities, without 'freebie spells'. These are very similar to spells, however.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Hmmm... I think that fireball is the signature sor/wiz spell-when I think mage, I think fireballs flying from the hands. If you are going to give fighters the highlight of the 5th level wizard, are you also considering a feat to raise a sorceror or wizard's BAB by 5 permanently? Sorry if this sounds like i'm pontificating, and I think I understand your view of spellcasters, but if you give much of the spellcaster's oomph to another class, and give them nothing, that really doesn't look right. At least to me, and IMHO.