New/Revised Prestige Classes

WarDragon said:
Isn't that the default logic in the core books? It's how I've always seen it.

Well, it works from an abstract combat point of view. When it's your 'turn', you aren't actually just swinging your sword 1-4 times vaguely into your opponent's square in the off chance that you will defeat all their defenses and pierce their armor and kill them. (At least, I hope thats not how medieval knights & the like fought... :)) You are actively fighting, parrying, riposting, dodging, taking minor glancing blows, etc. I see the combat system as a very cinematic abstraction - When it is your turn, that isn't the only time your character is moving, and swinging a sword; It's just the only time you get to do any of it meaningfully. Like in a movie, where fight scenes pan back and fourth between separate combats and combatants.

Extra attacks from BAB almost exclusively have to be tied to # of times you have a chance to strike, not number of times you are actually swinging. I can pretty quickly whip around a sword or quarterstaff more than 4 times in one 6 second round round. Now, only one of the following will work: Either I am some sort of epic level multiclass computer-programmer/gladiator, or that any medieval warrior worth his salt would parry my entire flourish, disarm me, and have is blade at my throat before I knew what hit me. My money's on #2. (But secretly #1 is true:))

But to each their own; the other side of the fence (high level fighter-types just swing swords faster) can be easily justified.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Pssthpok said:
Hey hey, UK!

Hiya mate! :)

Pssthpok said:
Good point; not conceding the issue, however.

Glad to hear it. :D

Pssthpok said:
A trend that tends to speed up combat; so if a fighter can hit with a margin of 10, odds are good that they'll risk the margin in exchange for more damage.

They can hit with a margin of ten using my system if they take less attacks. At no point with my system are you going to be struggling to hit an AC that you wouldn't have struggled with the official Fighter build.

Pssthpok said:
They don't.

Yes they do. :p

Pssthpok said:
Their first attack is at standard skill; their following iterative attacks get progressively harder to land.

Correct. But whether I am making one attack or four attacks, that starting attack bonus is the same. That is the illogic*.

*Though I am willing to conceded I have more a problem with the damage side of iterative attacks than the actual skill of the attack. But that ties us into Power Attack so you could say it applies to attack bonus.

Pssthpok said:
Under your system, if they can hit with one our of four attacks, they're likely to hit with all four of them. So you have a system where instead of achieving what you aim for, you end up with fighters landing one attack or four, since there's no difference in each case from one attack to the next (x=x, or x=y=z=n).

I fail to see the problem here.

If you hit easily with four in my system, then why not make five attacks, or six, or seven. Or why not go for a kill strike, or a knockdown using metamartial combat!?

Pssthpok said:
If a fighter can't hit with more than one attack, the game bogs down (this isn't a fault of your revision, but a fact of the game) because damage output drops. If, using your system, they can hit with their fourth attack, they can hit with all four; if they can't, it's as good as giving them only the RAW fighter's first attack. So it really ends up looking a lot like the RAW, but with poorer numbers and less room for power attack, expertise, and the like.

If you can hit with multiple attacks with the official build then you can hit with multiple attacks using my revised Fighter build. The only difference is that you have to think before you roll the dice using my system.

Pssthpok said:
Huh? +22 - 15 would reduce to +7/+7/+7/+7 (i.e. a 60% difference).

Under the official rules the max you can have with Greater Weapon Focus would be +22, whereas my revision gives you +5 weapon focus at the same juncture.

Pssthpok said:
And that, friend, won't even cut the mustard at 20th-level.

Which is why you probably won't make four attacks against your peers or the BBEG. This way you have to think tactically, not just roll the dice.

Pssthpok said:
So, while the system becomes superior in the mid-30s, it's practically impotent before epic and only slowly creeps up on the RAW once there.

I don't think its as drastic a change as people here are making out, but feel free to change back to the iterative system. This is an optional Fighter Class after all, I'm not ramming it down anyone's throat. :lol:
 

Pssthpok

First Post
Upper_Krust said:
Which is why you probably won't make four attacks against your peers or the BBEG. This way you have to think tactically, not just roll the dice.

I see; yes. The system as a whole does call for a lot more brain work that the standard fighter. I sometimes forget all the option in a metamartial environment and you have a point: if metamartial is an option like disarming, why wouldn't you try to do some crazy stuff like break legs, hit more than one target, etc. With metamartial, damage stops being the net output of a fighter's turn... I may have to concede the point, but I have to think about it more. :)
 

Howdy Ltheb dude! :)

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
I didn't mean any offense,

Don't be silly, we are all friends here, I am sure we can all speak our minds without upsetting one another.

...that doesn't necessarily apply to you dante. :eek:

...only joking dante mate. :p

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
but the PHB fighter, with it's array of feats, has the potential to explore any kind of combat.

Yes but too much versatility is not always a great idea. Firstly, because of the time taken choosing feats (which gets ridiculous with epic fighters) and secondly because the balance of the Fighter is determined by the feats you take, which means a massive fluctuation of ECL/CR. Lastly it gives the Fighter class less focus and flavour.

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
Want durability? Take Improved Toughness 10-17 times. +200-340 HP plus a 30+ con at 20th level means you have more HP than most Dragons.

...and probably a fighter so unbalanced he won't be able to do much by way of attacking. :D

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
Need to be a Drizzt clone? A fighter can take the whole 2 weapon fighting tree, grab dodge-mobility-spring attack, and still have room for specializing in scimitars up to weapon supremacy (phb2, requires something like 17 fighter levels, mad crazy bonuses).

You could easily have a Driz'zt clone with my system and all the specializing is done for you.

Weapon Supremacy...I'm curious, what benefits does it give you?

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
Your fighter, off the cuff, only appears to be a weapon specialist.
Granted, that is generally what I see every fighter ever played doing,

:)

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
but taking general feats that improve your combat skill overall in broad areas (expertise, Improved Toughness, Epic Fast Healing, Spring Attack) is also a relevant tactic. Not the most powerful, but a consistent one.

You can still do all that. perhaps not to the same extremis, but such extremis is invariably where the system breaks down.

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
Also, having more that one of your fighters in the party is really bland. "Hi, what weapon did you pick?" Now, they still have can take feats to give them weird options (like improved shield bash, or spring attack) but they do not have as many options as a classic fighter, nor do they have a choice to forgo specialization in favor of a more exotic fighting style.

Its not simply what weapon you pick, its also what weapon style did you choose and what defensive style have you chosen.

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
Also I don't see the extra attacks from higher BAB as the fighter attacking faster, but as in he finds more openings in his foes defenses and gets more chances to attack successfully.

I am sure there are many ways you could describe combat.

Ltheb Silverfrond said:
I think the meta-martial system is pretty good, but perhaps it might be best to change BAB from +20/+15/+10/+5 to +20/+20/+20/+20. Simple, and saves brainpower from excess math. Now a fighter has a solid, undeniable reason to want to make a full-attack, and can deal a competitive* (*vs spellcasters, who at higher levels become infinitely more deadly because they can usually rest whenever they want, allowing them to Nova in most every fight that matters) amount of damage per round with Power-Attack. Plus the fighter has an attack routine similar to most monsters. Perhaps not the best idea (nullifies some epic feats and divine abilities) but simple.

You could argue this method is more true to D&D. No such thing as iterative attacks back in the day. ;)

I'll think about it...but I do like the more tactical approach.
 

Axolotl

First Post
Upper_Krust said:
Firstly, because of the time taken choosing feats (which gets ridiculous with epic fighters) and secondly because the balance of the Fighter is determined by the feats you take, which means a massive fluctuation of ECL/CR.
Unless your also going to tell spellcasters what spells they know and have prepare these aren't really valid arguments.
Lastly it gives the Fighter class less focus and flavour.
But thats the entire point of the fighter, it has no focus and has adaptable flavour. Instead of giving a class designed to be generic and adaptable verastility you've given them a specific chain of feats that I personally would never take.
...and probably a fighter so unbalanced he won't be able to do much by way of attacking. :D
So? That the player of the charicters choice what their charicter is. Chosing it for them makes the game less fun.


Its not simply what weapon you pick, its also what weapon style did you choose and what defensive style have you chosen.
What defensive styles are there other than biggest armour + magic items?

I am sure there are many ways you could describe combat.
So you chose a way that screws over non-casters? Who already have enough problems at epic.

I'll think about it...but I do like the more tactical approach.
Well then why not with feats? This way make it more tactical in the same way as halving the number of spells a wizard can cast, or making rogues spend three rounds doing nothing to sneak attack would.
 

WarDragon

First Post
It doesn't matter if it's more tactical, or more interesting, Krusty. For that matter, I'd normally call your metamartial maneuvers a bad trade for the benefits they give, but that's neither here nor there.

Bottom line: You are weakening the weakest class in the game, and calling it a good thing. Higher numbers have never been the Fighter's problem, nor picking their feats, and I don't know where you got the idea that they were.
 


mercucio

First Post
Lingering Attack - I am assuming you mean the rogue feat, is good but not fabulously amazing. Its negated by heavy fortitude/immunity to critical hits and requires you successfully flank or catch your opponent flat-footed.
 

Pssthpok

First Post
Flatly wrong. Lingering Attack is a metamartial feat that allows you to take a -5 to force the opponent to make a Fort save (DC = attack roll) on your next turn or suffer half the damage again.
 

Edheldur

First Post
I've gotta say I'm getting more and more interested in the meta-martial system. Oh well, I'll just be patient till I can get it.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top