Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
Not liking ToB doesn't imply that the highlighted problems (full-attack reliance, inability to protect himself against debuffs, etc.) aren't more problematic for the fighter than lack of straight numerical benefits.
I think it Might be the Mage; Not the Fighter that's broken
Not liking ToB doesn't imply that the highlighted problems (full-attack reliance, inability to protect himself against debuffs, etc.) aren't more problematic for the fighter than lack of straight numerical benefits.
I didn't say they were- I'm just saying that I don't like the way the Warlord (and other ToB classes) address such things- namely the stances.
In addition, some of the Warblade's powers are just variations on Feats or are lifted from other classes.
Color me unimpressed.
Some of what is cited aren't necessarily even inherent flaws of the Fighter. Consider debuffs.
Fighters- like Warblades- have Fort as their highest save. Any Fort based debuff is going to have problems affecting or lasting against either class. Debuffs that target Will, however, are equally bad for either.
IOW, if the problem is perceived that Fighters are too easily debuffed, perhaps its because too many debuffing effects don't work against Fort (a possible metadesign issue).
If this is indeed the case, then the question may be one of design of the system as a whole: should debuff effects work only against one particular save, or should there be some (or many) instances in which the target chooses which save should apply?
OR
Perhaps save quality should be partially or entirely divorced from class, with each player deciding (via build points, level dependent benefits, feats or some other mechanic) for each PC which save is his PC's best. In this case, one Ftr might have a high Fort save (traditional), while another may have a high Ref save (a mobile warrior) and a third a high Will save (grim & determined).
The "dependency" on the full attack could be rewritten by a class specific level dependent benefit- being able to do combat "full attacks" as a standard action (and perhaps swift or free) after a certain level, perhaps. In that, it would be similar to the ToM's Shadowcaster who gains increased and eventually unlimited access to their low-level abilities.
In such a case, perhaps a high-level warrior could even do certain things like initiate a grapple as a free action- meaning that if he somehow failed to do so, he could still execute a full attack.
Last edited:
The problem of being too easy to subdue with debuffs could be partially tackled in a very simple way: Changing the save calculation method. Overall, I think there is too big difference between good and bad saves, especially at high levels.
Instead of giving good saves 2+(CL/2) and bad saves CL/3, you could calculate all saves by total character level/2, with +2 base save if any of the characters classes has it as a main save. So at level 10, instead of base saves 7/3/3, the fighter would have 7/5/5. At 20 he would have 12/10/10 instead of 12/6/6.
Reduces the difference between good and bad saves and solves the multiclass saves issue.
Obviously, this increases the power of one good save classes, effectively nerfing those with several good. Cleric and druid can take it I think, but ranger, bard and especially monk are already quite weak classes.
-----------------
Another way to solve it might be to make a couple of medium to high-level feats that improve save chances. This would obviously benefit fighter more than the other classes, as he has more feats to put into such things, and as said before another problem is that fighters improve linear while wizards improve exponentially. An example:
Unbending Resolve (Combat Feat)
Prerequisites: Iron Will, BaB 7+
Benefit: Whenever the character fails a saving throw against a mind-affecting spell or spell-like ability, the character may postpone the effects of said ability for up to two rounds. Should the character or monster using the ability or spell be slain during that time, the character with Unbending Resolve gets a +4 bonus on the save.
(I know the wording is kind of crappy, sorry).
Instead of giving good saves 2+(CL/2) and bad saves CL/3, you could calculate all saves by total character level/2, with +2 base save if any of the characters classes has it as a main save. So at level 10, instead of base saves 7/3/3, the fighter would have 7/5/5. At 20 he would have 12/10/10 instead of 12/6/6.
Reduces the difference between good and bad saves and solves the multiclass saves issue.
Obviously, this increases the power of one good save classes, effectively nerfing those with several good. Cleric and druid can take it I think, but ranger, bard and especially monk are already quite weak classes.
-----------------
Another way to solve it might be to make a couple of medium to high-level feats that improve save chances. This would obviously benefit fighter more than the other classes, as he has more feats to put into such things, and as said before another problem is that fighters improve linear while wizards improve exponentially. An example:
Unbending Resolve (Combat Feat)
Prerequisites: Iron Will, BaB 7+
Benefit: Whenever the character fails a saving throw against a mind-affecting spell or spell-like ability, the character may postpone the effects of said ability for up to two rounds. Should the character or monster using the ability or spell be slain during that time, the character with Unbending Resolve gets a +4 bonus on the save.
(I know the wording is kind of crappy, sorry).
It is not so much an inherent flaw per se, but more of an inability to deal with the rammifications.
True, both a fighter and a warblade are going to be equally affected when an enemy wizard catches them both in a cone of exhaustion, but at least the warblade is able to negate that on his next round with iron heart surge. Ditto for other effects such as maze which can remove you from combat altogether. And if he is able to acquire shadow jaunt, even forcecage cannot contain him.
Notice that I am deliberately using spells that do not allow saves, which will affect you all the same regardless of how high your fighter may be able to crank them.
Worst comes to worse, should the enemy be able to shut down the warblade somehow, he can still contribute meaningfully by using those white-raven maneuvers like white raven tactics to "buff" his allies. The fighter just stands there impotently like some glorified doorstop.
The warblade also has those diamond mind maneuvers that let him sub a concentration check for a save, which makes him more resilient to save-based effects. This is all the more crucial when you realize that fort and will save effects tend to be save-or-die (or worse, as is the case for domination-based spells), so you can't afford to fail even one.
Simply put, I feel that a fighter is too vulnerable to these debuffs. A warblade has the advantage here in that it is harder (though not impossible) to shut him down.
This is why I cite the warblade as being the answer to the fighter's flaws. He has a multitude of options, each of which seems designed to answer to a fighter's traditional shortcomings.
I admit that someone could probably design a new fighter class from the ground up. But I am lazy, and I personally see little need to invest so much time and effort when the answer (in the form of a warblade) is already standing right in front of me.
To add insult to injury, wotc even gave him 4+int mod skill points/lv and a vastly expanded skill list.
Sadrik
First Post
First of all the Fighter is illustrated as having these problems but note that these are also problems for the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Bard. It seems pretty universal.
The Fighter is getting a lot of heat in the area of full attack dependence but lets face it that is a design feature of the game. To change that is to change the game.
Countering debuffs is a joke too, what do you expect these classes to have? I agree with the common house rule that Stringburka puts forth with the altered save progression (it is in my house rules). I see this one as a no brainer because at upper levels DC for spells outstrips save bonuses by quite a large margin for single classed characters. At +1/2 level you simplify multiclassing too. But really what do you want them to do to debuff? Give them evasion, mettle or once-per-battle Concentration checks that cancel the first Will save thrown against them? No, that is not their flavor. If you want to get evasion multiclass it is easy enough.
The only argument that I have seen worth its salt, that is leveled directly at the fighter is that it is a 2 or 4 level class. This is not to say that a level 15 fighter cannot be effective but more that the fighter is suboptimal when built that way. This is two problems that the fighter has: it is very easy and effective for Full BAB characters to multi-class, and fighter abilities do not scale or get better so there is no reason to keep leveling with them.
I tackle both problems in my House rules.
First, in a round about way I keep the fighters effectiveness even after you multi-class (bonus fighter feats) by allowing you to add bonus levels similar to how "initiator levels" stack (+1/2 level). I require a feat to be spent to get that bonus but at that point fighters class features (bonus feats) stick around and become better even while advancing in another class.
Second, I remove the weapon specialization feat chain and instead make them a class feature for the fighter that scales. Any weapon you have weapon focus with also gives a damage bonus equal to 1 + 1/4 your fighter level. This gives a reason to continue to gain fighter levels and it lowers their feat tax and improves their combat effectiveness all in one fell swoop.
I have played Bo9S extensively in several campaigns and have designed several other characters out of that book. I feel it is the most broken book ever published for 3.5, it even beats out the expanded psionics handbook. I know you and many others do not feel this way but from my experience with it I do. I felt like I was cheating... Conceptually it has some neat ideas, however its implementation is way out of whack.
Now I do feel that the upper level spell effects are a bit overwhelming and that they could be in the epic range 21+ level. The fighter and all of the other classes I noted can be more combat ready for their effects at those levels.
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
Generally, when the debate is about "fighter vs. wizard" it means "primary martial types vs. full casters," so "fighters can't have nice things," "fighters have issues without lots of magic items," etc. includes other full BAB classes.
Not all that much. In 1e and 2e, you could make all your attacks and still move, and only fighters (and in this case I do mean just the fighter and its subclasses) could make multiple attacks. Changing the game to require full attacks in 3e was a step backwards.
Not their flavor? It used to be (again, 1e and 2e) that by the time you got past, say, 13th level, fighters made pretty much every save on a 2+. Fighters were just as much the "Puny wizard, your spells cannot stop me!" type as the "I'm going to bash your head in with a blunt object!" type. Mettle, evasion, save bonuses, and other ways to avoid/ignore debuffs are right up their alley.
Both are good ideas; more feats are always helpful, and taking the normal Focus/Spec chain is usually worthless.
Having seen your arguments and houserules, I don't see how this is the case. Maneuvers could just as easily be feats, you let fighters gain feats via a version of IL, and so forth...yet warblades are horribly broken? Steel Wind is Cleave, but you don't have to drop an enemy for the second attack. Wolf Fang Strike is TWF, but you don't take the -2 penalty on each. The entire Setting Sun discipline is "I can do combat maneuvers against bigger foes without sucking." All of these "broken" maneuvers are basically taking the sub-par feats and making them usable.
If you consider core melee to be mostly fine and ToB and XPH (some of the most balanced books in 3e) to be broken, I don't know if any conversation about the fighter's (= core melee's) problems can have a common balance point.
More of a bug, IMO. If fighters move more than 5-ft, they are restricted to only 1 attack (unless you splash 1 lv of barb for pounce). Which severely limits their damage output. Compare this to a spellcaster, who has no problems moving, firing off an attack spell and another quickened spell each round. And he can still abrupt jaunt as an immediate action if the enemy comes too close.
The warblade improves the fighter along this line. Like a spellcaster, he can now move, initiate a boost (swift action), followed by a strike (standard action) and hold a counter (immediate action) in reserve. Or move as a swift action (quicksilver motion) followed by a full-attack (or full-round action maneuver such as time stands still).
You are able to make more meaningful use of your actions every round, which in turn makes the warblade fun and engaging to play. Not just stuck with deciding whether to move+attack or 5-ft step+full attack (which is actually more or less dictated by where your enemy is, now that you think about it).
Though I admit that with PHB2, the fighter has some options to improve his mobility, along the line of the bounding asasault feat tree (which lets you make extra attacks when you spring-attack) and slashing flurry (between them, you can move and still make up to 4 attacks, albeit at a -5 to-hit penalty). Still, this benefits only the fighter and is extremely feat intensive to acquire, so the other melee classes are still left in the cold.
I am not sure of the impact of this feature, given that the more effective fighter builds (most notably chain-trippers) don't even bother taking the weapon-spec feat tree. I guess I won't mind it as a free feature, but it really won't do anything to improve the fighter, IMO.
Sadrik
First Post
So what are the ramifications of simply adding in the ability of making full attacks as a standard action? Tell me.
Agreed, it is not much but the specialization chain is simply no good because it costs a crap load of feats, feats that could have been spent elsewhere on improved trip or combat reflexes. So, I think that something like this is the right direction, it scales and that could keep them in the class for longer and most importantly it keeps the class within core flavor.
Agreed, we have different expectations from the system and I think that we will not be able to see eye to eye on how Bo9S and XPH balance unto the core system. I see them on one end of the spectrum and yourself the other.
Not that this is without value, but could we get back to discussing ways to work the perceived imbalance issue from the spellcasting side?
Make the fighter's damage output more consistent and superior to that of the warblade's? Considering that with standard action strikes, you are actually doing less damage than a full attack, since weapon-specific properties such as str mod, enhancement damage bonus, power attack and other misc pluses are applied only once. Of course, dr applies only once for a warblade...
It is already theoretically possible to full attack as a standard action (MIC has this pair of boots which lets you charge as a standard action, barb1 lets you pounce when you charge, put the 2 together...). But I haven't personally tried out this combo, so I can't say for sure if it is as game-breaking as it sounds.
Of course, the key advantage of maneuvers here is that it is typically faster to resolve, since only 1 attack/damage roll is required, as compared to a fighter's full attack, which involves 5+ attack/damage rolls.
I dunno...I just find the overall concepts of maneuvers fairly elegant. Care to elaborate on why you detest ToB so much, Sadrik? I am not criticizing your choice (in a negative sense), but I would like to know more of your experiences with it.
