once again from the top: alt.fighter

[Elder-Basilisk]

Since you cannot use juggernaut style feats with light weapons, that's highly unlikely.

Aha! says the munchkin. Yet another use for the Sunblade. It's a shortsword so I can use the fencer feats but it's a bastard sword so I can use juggernaught feats. I am invinceable!

OK, that's a real corner case and adding the "only usable with light weapons text" (or maybe it's already there but I missed it) for the fencer style will fix it.

The only thing that's different about sneaky shot and regular attacks of opportunity is that sneaky shot allows you to make an attack of opportunity with a ranged weapon. That's it.

I think you missed the substance of my question then. Ordinarily, to gain an attack of opportunity, you need to threaten an area containing the foe who provokes the attack. Ranged weapons don't threaten any area which is why they are normally unable to take attacks of opportunity. Allowing characters to take attacks of opportunity with ranged weapons without designating their threatened area is therefore a rather futile gesture.

What do you want this feat to do? Let an archer take a free shot at the orc when the orc attempts to sunder his bow? If that's what you want, you should let the character threaten the area five feet around him with his bow.

It is a Sense Motive check, but modified by your BAB because of the training you have. In combat, fighters should be able to do more with Sense Motive than, say, any other class that is not primarily a combat class. I did not make Sense Motive a class skill because of the limited uses I wanted fighters to have with it (only in combat), so I kept it cross-class and added this.

As far as why, it's mainly to avoid getting in over your head before you are at the verge of death.

I guess my point here is that this seems like it should be an option for everyone--not just those who have a feat. If you ask me, sense motive is supposed to be far more about this kind of thing than the lie detector skill that many people use it as.

 

[Afrodyte]

I think you missed the substance of my question then. Ordinarily, to gain an attack of opportunity, you need to threaten an area containing the foe who provokes the attack. Ranged weapons don't threaten any area which is why they are normally unable to take attacks of opportunity. Allowing characters to take attacks of opportunity with ranged weapons without designating their threatened area is therefore a rather futile gesture.

What do you want this feat to do? Let an archer take a free shot at the orc when the orc attempts to sunder his bow? If that's what you want, you should let the character threaten the area five feet around him with his bow.

That's what I thought it did anyway, but if it needs to be that specific, that is what I mean.

I guess my point here is that this seems like it should be an option for everyone--not just those who have a feat. If you ask me, sense motive is supposed to be far more about this kind of thing than the lie detector skill that many people use it as.

Unfortunately, Sense Motive as designed in the PHB is primarily a social skill, and I tend to prefer it that way.

As far as being available for everyone, I don't think so. At least, not without givng the strategist something else. I might make Size-up a normal fighter option and give strategists an insight bonus to the roll equal to his Intelligence modifier.

 

[Stalker0]

I've just got a few points to make. I like the defensive fighting, and I enjoy how it gives incentive to go all the way to 20th.

I don't like the fighting styles much. One thing I've learned from prc making is that the simpler the better. A class that takes 4 pages to explain is too much. What's wrong with allowing the fighter to keep his bonus feats? (although he probably should get less overall to account for his new abilities)

No one is commenting on the skills but I will. One thing you have to keep in mind... is that WOTC intended the fighter to be a solider. Fighter's don't get a lot of class skills because of all of their work goes into combat. Fighters aren't supposed to have the keen eyes and ears equal to a ranger who spends all his time in the woods. Guards who are fighters don't have listen and spot as a class skill, they probably have a high wis and some cross class skills.

THe multiclass system is there to fill in the skill gaps. If you want a perceptive fighter, you should be a ranger/fighter. It makes sense... to train someone to that level of perception you don't have the time to work on combat feats as much. Giving that to the fighter for free takes away from what the system intended.

 

[Afrodyte]

I've just got a few points to make. I like the defensive fighting, and I enjoy how it gives incentive to go all the way to 20th.

Thanks. That was one of the things I hoped to do with the class.

I don't like the fighting styles much. One thing I've learned from prc making is that the simpler the better. A class that takes 4 pages to explain is too much. What's wrong with allowing the fighter to keep his bonus feats? (although he probably should get less overall to account for his new abilities)

If you look at the style feats closely, you see that you do get bonus feats as an option based on your style. You don't have to take any of the extra stuff I created if you don't want. In fact, you can just pick your primary style and your secondary style then choose nothing but bonus feats as your style feats. However, the bonus feats have been tailored to each style. If you are going to be playing a fencer, having things like Power Attack or Improved Bull Rush don't really make much sense anyway. You'd use your normal feats to get those. However, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc. make sense no matter what style you choose.

No one is commenting on the skills but I will. One thing you have to keep in mind... is that WOTC intended the fighter to be a solider. Fighter's don't get a lot of class skills because of all of their work goes into combat. Fighters aren't supposed to have the keen eyes and ears equal to a ranger who spends all his time in the woods. Guards who are fighters don't have listen and spot as a class skill, they probably have a high wis and some cross class skills.

Forgive me if this comes across as overly harsh, but I'm not trying to recreate the class in the PHB. I want to offer something different that does not depend so much on magical gear to be viable at higher levels and does not straightjacket players into portraying tanks if they want to play an effective fighter.

THe multiclass system is there to fill in the skill gaps. If you want a perceptive fighter, you should be a ranger/fighter. It makes sense... to train someone to that level of perception you don't have the time to work on combat feats as much. Giving that to the fighter for free takes away from what the system intended.

Actually, the multiclass system is another can of worms that I don't want to get into right now.

 

[Stalker0]

Forgive me if this comes across as overly harsh, but I'm not trying to recreate the class in the PHB. I want to offer something different that does not depend so much on magical gear to be viable at higher levels and does not straightjacket players into portraying tanks if they want to play an effective fighter.
.

But what I'm saying is that listen and spot are not part of an effective fighter, those skills belong to the perception classes of which the fighter is not meant to be. Basically what I'm saying is that part of your perception of what a fighter is not the dnd perception of a fighter. I've got no problems with revamping and changeing the fighter to get away from straight tanks... but as far as skills go, multiclassing handles them alright and as they say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Afrodyte]

But what I'm saying is that listen and spot are not part of an effective fighter, those skills belong to the perception classes of which the fighter is not meant to be. Basically what I'm saying is that part of your perception of what a fighter is not the dnd perception of a fighter. I've got no problems with revamping and changeing the fighter to get away from straight tanks... but as far as skills go, multiclassing handles them alright and as they say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

OK. I see what you're getting at now, and it makes perfect sense. But, like I said, I have my own bones to pick with the class/cross-class skill thing, which I don't want to get into right now because it'd constitute a thread hijack.

 

[Afrodyte]

After careful consideration, I decided to take some of your suggestions to heart. This is probably the most heavily revised version of my alt.fighter so far, aside from its conception. These are the major changes;

1. No more auto-crits. Instead, I double the threat range when a certain situation comes up.
2. Clarified the marksman's Sneaky Shot style feat.
3. Make Size-up an option for all fighters, revising the strategist by adding the Crafty style feat that potentially gives a significant boon.
4. Fencer style feats can only be used with light weapons.
5. The Swords and knives group of the Weapon Mastery ability has been broken down into Light Blades and Heavy Blades.
6. I switched around some of the levels at which certain abilities kick in.
7. The Weapon Mastery ability is spread out over several levels.
8. Style feats are now optional, not mandatory.

This is what my alt.fighter would look like sans the style feats:

Class abilities by level
1. Bonus feat
2. Defensive tactics, bonus feat
3.
4. Offensive tactics +1
5. Weapon sense +1
6.
7. Bonus feat
8. Offensive tactics +2
9. Weapon sense +2
10. Weapon Mastery (Weapon Focus), bonus feat
11. Defensive tactics, bonus feat
12. Offensive tactics +3
13. Weapon sense +3, bonus feat
14. Weapon Mastery (Weapon Specialization), bonus feat
15.
16. Style feat, offensive tactics +4
17. Weapon Mastery (Improved Critical), bonus feat
18. Weapon sense +4
19. Bonus feat
20. Defensive tactics, offensive tactics +5

All the special stuff is as before. The bonus feats are chosen from the fighter list as explained in the PHB.