Martial artist updated for 3.5E

[totoro]

A 1st level MA will have a poorer AC than a fighter, one less feat, and 2 less hit points.

At higher levels the fighter still outpaces the MA on feats, hit points and AC.

The MA makes a slightly better unarmored and/or unarmed warrior than a fighter does, but I think that is the point of the class.

I hear you.

Fighter advantages: 2 hp, 1 feat, can wear armor
MA advantages: 8 skill points, better skills, +2 Reflex save, WIS bonus to AC, +1 AC

+2 reflex save is better than 2 hp, but let's call it even;
WIS bonus (+1) to AC is *far* better than 1 feat, but let's call it even;
8 skill points and better skills is roughly equal to ability to wear armor.

Assuming a 1st level fighter can afford scale armor, the WIS bonus (say +3) and +1 AC of the martial artist gives them the same AC, but doesn't have to pay anything for it and has faster movement.

Personally, and in the games I'm involved in, I believe the MA is far better. Using the above formulae, I suppose you could argue they are balanced at 1st level.

At 10th level, additional advantages:
Fighter: 9 hit points
MA: 18 skills, +2 more Reflex save, +2 AC bonus, lots of cool abilities that are worth more than feats (uncanny dodge, huge jump/tumble bonuses), more variety of feats to choose from than fighters

Assuming you can buy magic in your campaign, all this time the fighter will be investing more money in armor while the MA invests more money in bracers of armor, so that they will have roughly equivalent ACs. Also, the MA can buff his DEX or WIS to improve AC, but the fighter can often do neither (max DEX penalty). So, not only are MA cooler than fighters, they are also better than fighters.

As for a MA is "slightly" better than a fighter when unarmed and/or unarmored, are you sure you want to say "slightly"?

Disclaimer: I should mention that I don't like monks (an arguably balanced class in the core rules) because I think they are too powerful for someone in no armor with no weapons. So, undoubtedly a person who believes that monks are not powerful enough could argue with me for quite some time and neither of us would budge in our opinions.

 

[Voadam]

I hear you.

Fighter advantages: 2 hp, 1 feat, can wear armor
MA advantages: 8 skill points, better skills, +2 Reflex save, WIS bonus to AC, +1 AC

+2 reflex save is better than 2 hp, but let's call it even;
WIS bonus (+1) to AC is *far* better than 1 feat, but let's call it even;
8 skill points and better skills is roughly equal to ability to wear armor.

Assuming a 1st level fighter can afford scale armor, the WIS bonus (say +3) and +1 AC of the martial artist gives them the same AC, but doesn't have to pay anything for it and has faster movement.

Personally, and in the games I'm involved in, I believe the MA is far better. Using the above formulae, I suppose you could argue they are balanced at 1st level.

At 10th level, additional advantages:
Fighter: 9 hit points
MA: 18 skills, +2 more Reflex save, +2 AC bonus, lots of cool abilities that are worth more than feats (uncanny dodge, huge jump/tumble bonuses), more variety of feats to choose from than fighters

Assuming you can buy magic in your campaign, all this time the fighter will be investing more money in armor while the MA invests more money in bracers of armor, so that they will have roughly equivalent ACs. Also, the MA can buff his DEX or WIS to improve AC, but the fighter can often do neither (max DEX penalty). So, not only are MA cooler than fighters, they are also better than fighters.

As for a MA is "slightly" better than a fighter when unarmed and/or unarmored, are you sure you want to say "slightly"?

AC, I think armor and shield generally outpaces bracers.

IF the MA has a 16 wisdom to start that is less points to the physical stats if using a point buy. The MA is more dependent upon wisdom than a fighter, but just as dependent upon the three physicals.

An unarmored and unarmed fighter with feats geared that way will be down by the wisdom and bonus AC, and the MA only monk natural damage feat, but if d20 modern feats are allowed, there are a lot of cool ones that can be taken with the fighter's normal feat options and supplemented by the fighter bonus feats.

 

[totoro]

AC, I think armor and shield generally outpaces bracers.

IF the MA has a 16 wisdom to start that is less points to the physical stats if using a point buy. The MA is more dependent upon wisdom than a fighter, but just as dependent upon the three physicals.

An unarmored and unarmed fighter with feats geared that way will be down by the wisdom and bonus AC, and the MA only monk natural damage feat, but if d20 modern feats are allowed, there are a lot of cool ones that can be taken with the fighter's normal feat options and supplemented by the fighter bonus feats.

True enough. However, shield doesn't really count. Using 2 weapons or using a two-handed weapon (available to either fighter or MA), is equivalent.

I hope you understand, I am not saying you are wrong about MA balance vis a vis fighter. I am saying your opinion is different from my own.

 

[ruemere]

Hong,

Hmm. It seems to me that I was too vague. Allow me to clarify (to attempt to clarify):

The level of abstraction of D&D combat doesn't facilitate the representation of individual martial arts styles. You have no idea how many styles a 30th level epic MA might know, because the game doesn't explicitly say one way or another. It could be just one, or it could be hundreds. It's all rolled up into BAB, hit points, and feats.

Obviously, our approaches differ here as I prefer the feats and skills to reflect details of the character knowledge, not an abstract resultant of aforementioned.
And, since both ways are equally viable, I withdraw my criticsm of your class.

That would have worked a lot better if you hadn't started assigning D&D levels to actual people.

Not necessarily directly levels. Rather feats and skills, and, as a consequence levels.

You're new here, aren't you?

I lurk therefore I am.

I think you underestimate how broken ranged power attack can be (although they've fixed this somewhat in 3.5E).

Any feat can be deemed broken if used in a combo. Since I know nothing about your campaign, I can only use SRD for my arguments. Hence, I am not really convinced.
Any examples?

Improved Aimed Shot
So ranged attacks get a penalty to hit you, if you make an aimed shot? Interesting.

My mistake. Flat-footed would be a better state, don't you think?

Improved All-Out Attack
Huh?

Anything which yields bonus to attack makes Power Attack option more reasonable, don't you agree? And with the new and improved Power Attack, to-hit bonuses become more important than before.

You have a very interesting way of using the phrase "less interesting".

Thanks.

Rapid Strike, Improved Rapid Strike error
Um, so where's the error?

Rapid Strike: "This feat does not give you extra attacks on a full attack."
Improved Rapid Strike: "In addition to the extra attack you gain with a full attack action from Rapid Strike, ..."

I was under impression that Rapid Strike does not work in full round attacks.

There's nothing wrong with virtual feats. In this case, all it represents is the fact that a MA is trained in a particular style of fighting that doesn't work well with armour. So if you wear armour, expect not to fight so well.

YMV, obviously.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[hong]

Any feat can be deemed broken if used in a combo. Since I know nothing about your campaign, I can only use SRD for my arguments. Hence, I am not really convinced.
Any examples?

Stacking bow & arrow bonuses + bracers of archery + order of the bow initiate (stacking Dex and Wis bonus to attacks) + peerless archer (ranged power attack) = silliness.

Mind you, they've taken away the first, nerfed the second, will probably redo the third, and most people don't allow the fourth, so perhaps ranged PA won't be so broken in 3.5E after all.

My mistake. Flat-footed would be a better state, don't you think?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. As long as there's some mechanic to represent being distracted, it's fine with me.

Anything which yields bonus to attack makes Power Attack option more reasonable, don't you agree? And with the new and improved Power Attack, to-hit bonuses become more important than before.

Nothing wrong with that. You give up your iterative attacks for the chance of making one really good swing, and you pay a feat for the privilege. You get a benefit, but if you're going to pay a feat, you should expect to get something for it.

 

[ruemere]

Stacking bow & arrow bonuses + bracers of archery + order of the bow initiate (stacking Dex and Wis bonus to attacks) + peerless archer (ranged power attack) = silliness.

Mind you, they've taken away the first, nerfed the second, will probably redo the third, and most people don't allow the fourth, so perhaps ranged PA won't be so broken in 3.5E after all.

Ah, yes. I suspected that you're another person of OoB hangover. *sigh* I hate (and disallow) splatbooks.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. As long as there's some mechanic to represent being distracted, it's fine with me.

With all due respect, I prefer using existing puzzle pieces instead of inventing new ones. Not all of the players are rule experts.

Nothing wrong with that. You give up your iterative attacks for the chance of making one really good swing, and you pay a feat for the privilege. You get a benefit, but if you're going to pay a feat, you should expect to get something for it.

But of course. It was just an assumption.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[hong]

Ah, yes. I suspected that you're another person of OoB hangover. *sigh* I hate (and disallow) splatbooks.

If you hate and disallow splatbooks, why the heck are you commenting on what is, for all intents and purposes, a splatbook class? (There are already 3 splatbooks about martial artists, last I counted.)

With all due respect, I prefer using existing puzzle pieces instead of inventing new ones. Not all of the players are rule experts.

There's nothing new about taking a penalty to AC. You can't seriously be thinking that taking -4 to AC is hard to understand.

 

[ruemere]

If you hate and disallow splatbooks, why the heck are you commenting on what is, for all intents and purposes, a splatbook class? (There are already 3 splatbooks about martial artists, last I counted.)

I didn't like 3.0 Monk enough to make an exception for this class. Besides straitjacketing, the designers made a melee oriented class without enough strength to hold it in combat. I've seen enough painful examples of Monks getting squashed (or worse, ignored by oppenents) to begin searching for alternatives.

Oh, and one clarification - WotC splatbooks are a big no-no for me. 3rd party splatbooks by M. Cook and SSS are fine by me. Other splatbooks - resolved on case by case basis.

There's nothing new about taking a penalty to AC. You can't seriously be thinking that taking -4 to AC is hard to understand.

I referred to the 1/X BAB bonuses. They are usually associated with taking a level in a class, not with a feat (core [3.0, still reading 3.5] feat anyway).

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[hong]

I referred to the 1/X BAB bonuses. They are usually associated with taking a level in a class, not with a feat (core [3.0, still reading 3.5] feat anyway).

Ah, right. That, of course, is why you referred to flat-footed and whatnot.

But never mind! I've updated the martial artist class and feats on my page, so anyone who's interested can grab 'em while they're hot. Feedback from here and elsewhere has been incorporated. Thanks again, people!

The martial artist
Martial arts feats
Other combat feats
Short rationale for, and summary of changes