Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5503315" data-attributes="member: 4937">A lot of people are voicing this sort of statement, and I know what you mean by it, but I want to beg your pardon for picking on you but what you literally said is as far from my intentions as can be.It's the easiest thing in the world to give the fighter a power bump.  For example, I could give the fighter Wish once per day per class level as a spell-like ability and that would in a single stroke solve the fighter's power issues.  That goal isn't merely to give the fighter a power bump, laudable though that may be.  In fact, to a certain extent that isn't even this rewrites principle design goal.   To me, even more important than having your base classes be balanced, it's important that your base classes actually be base classes.By that I mean that a base class should be sufficiently broad, that if you had a party of 6 adventurers, and all 6 were fighter classed, that there would be enough diversity available in the class that they did not feel they were necessarily stepping on each others toes.   That is to say, there ought to be more than one build of a base class, and there ought to be ways particularly to play 'smart fighters', 'wise fighters', 'charismatic fighters', 'tough fighters' and so forth as well as simply obvious things 'strong fighters'.   To a certain extent, I've only hinted at that thus far, but I would like to think that by reading this you get some hints as to why I don't think my rules need a dedicated Swashbuckler class, or Marshall class, or even Monk class much less things like Knights and Samurii's and other mechanical variation for its own sake.   And if you can't see that from what's going on, then understand this is just a slice of the feats available and some combat oriented feats aren't in the fighters bonus feat list but are intended to be the core of his general feat progression (if you decide to go that way).The other very important thing when redesigning the fighter is that it maintains the core ideas of the class so that it feels like a 'fighter' and not something else in martial drag to replace the fighter.   Specifically, the thing that is most attractive and distinctive about the original design of the 3rd edition fighter is that all of its class powers are customizable via selection of bonus feats.  I've tried to maintain that design as much as possible, and in particular I've tried to avoid turning feats into spells with arbitrary limits like '1/encounter' or '1/day' as you might see in Monte Cook's 'Iron Might' or 4e D&D or Tome of battle.One of my other goals that you can tease out from what I've given so far is to ensure that NPC fighters remain creditable threats to high level characters for reasons of world cohesion.   One of the problems D&D has typically had is that the world described of castles and armies doesn't seem to match the mechanics of the world.   It would seem that a wand of fireballs would obselete the entire notion of armies.   It would also seem that ordinary elite soldiers of 3rd or 4th level are helpless against average adventures (to say nothing of the average town gaurd).   One of my goals in the fighter class has been to make one of their distinctive traits - "Works well with other fighters" - so that the notion of gaurds and armies make some sense in the game world.</blockquote>

Verification