High Level Feats (especially) for Fighters

[Roman]

Arcane Runes Press - what you say certainly makes sense - especially players 'peaking' in their character concept and finding themselves bored with what to concentrate their feats on next.

Particle_Man - good ideas, but I think they overcompensate the fighter being underpowered at higher levels just a little. Perhaps simply combining of whirlwhind attack and cleave would be sufficient - extending it to double the fighter's movement range seems a bit excessive, but the idea is good.

Sejs - not a bad high level feat idea for fighters at all.

I think the solution is more (and more interesting, high-level-fighter only) feats. New chains, chains that build off of old chains, extensions of existing chains... more feats, more feats, more feats. Ones to make lame feats better. Ones to expand on cool ideas. Got some imc.

Got some iyc? Which ones?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think ideas of armour mastery and shield mastery to compliment weapon focus, specialisation and the greater versions of each are well in order.

I think that feats which allow you to get some benefit vs magic from mundane equipment would be good (I'm sure you can remember one of those heroic scenes where someone shrugs off a spell by interposing his shield?).

I think some rules for the fighter skills that make them useful at high level would be good - as is jump, swim and climb are basically useless past level 10 or so, and often are worthless before then (due to a fighter typically needing equipment that makes the skill impossible to use, or by the scenario of the skill use making his equipment impossible to use). Intimidate is all-but useless at all levels, especially the combat variety.

I think that feats allowing the creation of better arms and armour without the need for magic would be a good idea (if a fighter could take craft magic arms and armour, and then use craft checks to duplicate the necessary caster level for +x items, that would be great).

Finally - I'd like to see some breadth injected into the fighter. I think the addition of intimidate was a good one (it allows him to occasionally influence a social scene), but we need more. The problem with a fighter at all levels is that he can do nothing but fight.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think ideas of armour mastery and shield mastery to compliment weapon focus, specialisation and the greater versions of each are well in order.

You mean like ...

http://www.giantitp.com/Func0004.html

... ? I think some of them need some work (specifically all the Armor Check Penalty lowering feats - I'm a mithral chain shirt fan, myself, so ...)

 

[Sejs]

What would the armor equivalent of Improved Critical and Weapon Finesse be?

 

[Whimsical]

Improved weapon defense: You take one less critical multiplier from any attack from a weapon that you have weapon focus in.

 

[Amaroq]

Linear progression vs Exponential progression

Fair enough - the notion is pretty universal in our wargamers club, so there must be at least some basis to it.

There is, in fact.

Consider a fighter's primary gains: BAB, Hit points, and Feats. These all progress linearly through the levels, so a 10th-level fighter has about double the gains that a 5th-level fighter does. (2 attacks instead of 1, +10 instead of +5, double the hit points, etc.)

Consider a spell-caster's primary gains: More spells, more damage per spell. # of spells doesn't advance linearly, in fact when you see a 'magic-point' style system, to balance with the base wizard, it needs to increase dramatically, a.la 'Elements of Magic's' progression: 2, 3, 5, 9, 14, 22, 30, 40, 52, 66... This is because the core classes progress towards a point where, at 20th level, the caster can cast 4 spells at each level (rather than, say, a pyramid-style where they can cast 8 1st-level spells but only 1 9th-level spell). Using that as an equality-point, we see that the 10th-level wizard is about 4.7 times 'stronger' in terms of number/quality of spells cast compared to a 5th-level wizard. Since the 'damage per spell' has also increased (Fireball is now 10d6 instead of 5d6, for example), the 10th-level wizard has become significantly more powerful compared to a wizard of half his level.

When you draw out an attempt at a 'balance curve' for the classes, you'll wind up finding that the fighter is, in fact, more powerful than the wizard at low levels, and that there is a point where they are near equals, and that there is a point where the wizard has become stronger. Where you declare that point to be depends on your assumptions about how to draw the curve.

Does this mean the game isn't 'balanced'? No, not at all - it means that these two classes are not perfectly balanced against each other at each level; they ARE balanced over the course of an extended-play campaign in which it is reasonable to expect the player who wants to become the world-shaping wizard to slog through some levels of very weak power ("Shoot, I've already cast my one spell for the day!") to 'earn' the right to have the world-shaking power later in the game. There are other balancing factors as well, among them the idea that the fighter can deal his damage all day, while the wizard still has the 'I ran out of spells' problem.

I'm sure a number of people will disagree with that; I'm not trying to start a controversy, merely to offer a possible explanation why the initial poster's group finds the fighter to be so strong, and the arcane classes weak, while other posters observe the opposite: both may be true, depending which level you do the analysis at.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Improved weapon defense: You take one less critical multiplier from any attack from a weapon that you have weapon focus in.

The incompleteness in this approach is that weapons are balanced for both multiplier and range. So if this feat lets you reduce the axe critical from x3 to x2, it should let you reduce the sword critical from 19-20/x2 to 20/x2.

As to Saeviomagy's point about mundane materials beating magic in some cases, I've always been in favor of adding some more rules and an entire skill on this. A skill to know that a line of salt across the doorway keeps undead foes out, a gold crown helps resist mind control (which explains why kings wear them), silver hurts lycanthropes, lead blocks divinations, plants block ethereal travel, iron breaches some magical defenses, and wood breaches others. Just an extrapolation of the existing rules.

 

[beaver1024]

I'm sure a number of people will disagree with that; I'm not trying to start a controversy, merely to offer a possible explanation why the initial poster's group finds the fighter to be so strong, and the arcane classes weak, while other posters observe the opposite: both may be true, depending which level you do the analysis at.

Doesn't this mean that if you start giving martial characters powerful high level feats it will upset the balance?

 

[Christopher Lambert]

We currently have four short PDFs of feats.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3809

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3825

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2816

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2723


Do you want more than that?

Oh nice! They're all for fighters. All put together they're just under the limit. (Assuming they're all the same price.)

I'll probably buy an adventure to round up the price.

I think you will find that this is quite a popular opinion not just in your wargamers club.



I think the cause of the discrepancy is because most board posters don't actually play by most of the rules of DnD, if they play at all. They insert a lot of house rules into their game to enhance roleplaying. However these house rules tend to enhance arcane spellcasters but they blame the system rather than looking at their gaming style.

Isn't that a bit presumptuous? Can you prove that?

I can only tell you about my gaming experiences. The main house rules favoring wizards I've seen are the following:

1) DMs aren't strict on adding new spells to spellbooks. IMO being strict here is unfair to wizard players anyway. I'm not strict on this as a DM, and I would hate it if a DM were strict to me on this as a player.

2) Some DMs are "nice" on spellcasters, at least when it comes to melee. I'm not, but DMs often feel like they're being "killer DMs" if they use tactics that will chop up a mage (eg mobile creatures, flying creatures, etc). My players were quite annoyed for some reason the first time I used the readied action-direct damage combo on the party cleric.

I found fighters are pretty bad at killing wizards, but a lot of other classes, especially clerics, are good at it. (Targeted dispel, ready action for flame strike upon spellcasting [and half is non-elemental], spell resistance, and so forth...)

3) DMs don't keep track of spell components that aren't expensive, and neither do players. It's too much to bother with.

4) DMs not adjudicating scrying well. IMO greater scrying can easily break a campaign, but the regular spell only scries on an opponent for a short period of time. They're not likely to be discussing "evil plans" at the time. Actually, lots of DMs have problems with Divinations in general. I have problems with those that reveal information or see the future.

IMO the biggest problem with wizards are the gap between high and low saves. It's way too easy to drop an Otiluke's resilient sphere on the raging barbarian. Maybe the barbarian has Indomitable Will and Iron Will, plus up to +4 to his Will save from raging, but that doesn't matter. He's still bottled up, and he can't free himself. Plus some busted spells.

Their main weaknesses applies to defense. You have low hit points, lame saving throws and low AC. If you get caught in melee or by surprise (sneak attack, breath weapon, that kind of thing) you're dead. Too bad you've got spells like greater invisibility and nondetection to keep any fighter with a potion of see invisibility from seeing you. I wish wizards had some more general-purpose defensive spells (along the lines of spell resistance) and balanced AC-boosting spells (something better than mage armor but not as cheesy as polymorph or 3.0 shield) so they wouldn't have to act paranoid all the time. Unless you're surprised, however, generally only a spellcaster can deal with a mage.

 

[iksander]

Id also say that unless your using various rules supplements to help spice up spell selcetion besides the PHB, arcane casters spells dont get truly nasty until ya hit 7th level spells. Then ya get spells like Forcecage which will screw anybody without tport or a disintergration effect (it also lasts min 26 hrs). Waves of exhastion is another spell that makes melee monster cringe and whine like the dickens.

Some players also dont take advantage of the big advantage wizards have over fighters...movement. If a wizard is chilling at 400 feet in the air, sipping pina colodas while chucking fireballs, there is nothing that most other classes can do except take the abuse.