Project Phoenix fighter discussion (Forked from: Feat Points)

[Kerrick]

I don't think you are getting it at all. Some 'counters' would be offensive in nature - you exploit an opening to make a strong attack. Put into the language of D&D, they might be something like:

So in effect, they can all be duplicated with feats instead of class abilities. I figured this out about an hour after I posted, but you beat me to it.

Yes. As I said, its not combat that is really the problem. The above stuff is just 'frosting', and if it makes combat more interesting for you and the fighter less boring then great, but it doesn't make the fighter more playable.

Less boring = more playable. You're talking about making it more viable.

Yes. Situationally useful is not only more realistic IMO, but it balances against the assumption of useable all the time that I'm insisting on to avoid the spell-like flavor that ToB uses to achieve balance with something that is selectively usable.

Makes sense. But the ToB stuff is similar to the already-existent mechanic in 3.x of "usable x times/day" (or per encounter, or whatever).

Losing the action economy: The fighter needs more defenses against things that steal actions from him.

Ahh... it took long enough for someone to explain this properly. Now I finally see what you mean by the fighter being unable to overcome hazards.

Some of it has to be done on the fighters end, for example by giving the fighter SR against targeted attacks at high levels, by giving fighters defenses similar to (but not copies of) the rogues defences like 'Improved Evasion' and 'Slippery Mind', so that it isn't not as easy to take the fighter out for a long period.

Hmm... interesting idea. I could do a fighter version of Slippery Mind: Strength of Will. Make a Concentration check to break free of a mind-affecting effect (this would, of course, require Concentration to be a fighter skill, but you could use it for other things as well, like focusing a powerful attack/aimed shot, summoning energy for a burst of strength, ignoring pain, not being fooled by illusions, etc.). I don't know that fighters need Imp. Evasion; they've got way more hit points than rogues and a low Ref save to boot (so they'd very rarely be able to take advantage of IE).

I've been trying to do this with feats, however, if the fighter needs any class abilities at all, this is where I'd be going because at high levels the need to take defensive feats to stay in the game becomes essentially a feat tax.

Sounds like a good idea.

If you really want to silo some abilities for the fighter, I can see two areas: defensive abilities ('parry spell', 'improved mettle', whatever) and bonus attacks of oppurtunity (so that you don't have to be high dex as a fighter to heavily participate in the 'attack economy').

Fighters already get the most attacks/round at high levels, thanks to their BAB; I wouldn't be against giving them some bonus AoO, as long as there's some way to make it not stack with Combat Reflexes and ICR - otherwise high-Dex fighters would be ridiculous.

Invisibility: A fighter has decent ability to deal with invisible melee attack through high AC and the blindfight feat. However, its got poor ability to detect things at range and/or deal with surprise.

I fixed that, to a degree, by giving them Perception (combined Listen/Spot) as a class skill.

It needs some sort of compensation, although I'm not sure what as 'uncanny reflex' is more the rogues schtick. My general thrust would be toward the fighter being better than other classes at guessing the square of an invisible foe, and I'm open to mechanical suggestion. Again, this is the sort of thing that I'd expect to see make 'class ability' status, not bonus feats in disguise.

That's a cool idea. The fighter could make a Perception/Spot/Listen check (DC based on target's size) to gauge the invisible attacker's location; if the check succeeds, he treats the target as having partial concealment instead of total. I like the idea of a spell parry, or a "shrug off a spell x times/day" or something similar.

Weapon Dependancy: A fighter is in much more serious trouble than any other class if they lose their equipment, especially at high levels. A mage still has his prepared spells. A cleric can get by. A sorcerer might not even be particularly disadvantaged. A fighter needs better ability to be the cool rather than his equipment.

That is a really hard thing to do. I'm not even sure if it's possible.

Addionally, the fighter needs more abilities to 'be cool' other than hitting things. In particular, I think you ought to be able to build a 4 edition style 'Warlord' and do some measure of battlefield control with a 3rd edition fighter.

Battlefield control is useful, yeah. But, since a fighter's schtick IS hitting things, it would be logical that most of their abilities would extend from that - inflicting conditions on opponents, moving them around, gaining more AoOs, etc. I also thought of: taking a defensive stance to prevent opponents from going past him (I have that as a feat), drawing attacks from his comrades (taunting as a combat maneuver), etc.

Finally, this isn't an improvement to the fighter directly, but the DC of all effects at high levels needs to decrease across the board. Your attempt to fix the problem by making the weak save advance relatively faster doesn't address the real problem, which is, at high level, even your good save isn't necessarily that good without min/maxing your magical defenses because the ability to increase the DC of an attack outstrips the ability to increase the save.

The problem is that saves are based on creature HD, which are really high at higher levels. Increasing the low save was intended to solve the problem of saving vs. spells, which it does, but there's very little you can do against some creature's special attack that has a DC in the 40s or 50s.

 

[Kerrick]

Even without them the fightercleric is better and has better spells to back him up.
Lay on Hands should be a divine feat
Auras could be a feat chain, with *ability to cast first level spells* as a prereq.
Smite: A feat with *ability to cast divine spells* and *BAB x* as prereqs.

Much better paladin. Tada!

True. But you could reduce just about any class to a collection of feats.

Let's compare, just for fun... Ftr 10/Clr 10 (Bob) vs. Pal 20 (Frank):

In PP stats: Bob has BAB +16 and saves of +12/+8/+11. Frank has BAB +20 and saves of +12/+8/+12.

Bob has 13 feats (5 bonus, 1 for human, 7 from levels) two combat style abilities, and two weapon feats. Frank has 7 feats (including WF with his god's weapon), smite, lay on hands, four auras, turn undead, five divine touch abilities, and a bonded mount or bonded weapon.

Bob has 5th level spells (6/5/4/4/3/2/2) and an effective CL of 12 (see Multiclass Spellcasters). Frank has 4th level spells (4/4/3/2/2) and an effective caster level of 10.

Sure, Bob's got the edge in number of feats, along with his combat styles and bonus feats, but Frank has a higher BAB, more attacks, smiting, and possibly the bonded weapon. Given that smiting is conditional, it's probably a toss-up who's better in battle, though Bob could choose enough feats to make him more effective.

Bob has the edge in spellpower - paladin spells are drawn from the cleric list, but he's got an extra level of spells and a wider repertoire, as well as nearly twice as many spells total. With the MC spellcaster rules, he also gets a boost to his caster level, which gives him a definite advantage (and that reminds me - I think I'll change paladin/ranger CL to class level -3. Didn't PF do that?). But, Frank has the aura of might (SR = class level + Cha bonus) to balance it.

Now, if we were to compare those two in 3.5 stats, Bob would probably stomp Frank into the dirt - his BAB is still lower, but all his saves are way higher, and Frank's ability to smite evil would do him zero good against the TN Bob. Bob doesn't gain any benefit from his fighter levels toward his caster level, but he still outclasses Frank magically (mainly because paladin spells suck - how come they don't get things like divine power, spell immunity, or righteous might??).

So... while I pretty much proved your point, it gives me some ideas of what to do to improve the paladin: better (more martial) spells, higher CL, and maybe some knight-like abilities. I think paladin as "champion of their god" is a viable concept, though, and more... appropriate, shall we say, than a cleric who's simply taken fighter levels. A paladin is a holy knight; a cleric/fighter is a martial cleric (and a layman fighter would be a templar - someone with no actual magical abilities, but who fights for god and church). I think giving paladins more of their own, unique, spells that aid them in combat would go a long way to making them a more unique class, as opposed to a "fighter/cleric". Their auras already grant them and their allies lots of nice benefits, and the divine touch is handy to have (frees up a cleric's spells for other things, as well as the paladin's own).

 

[nonsi256]

>> Right... so what do you think? Are they interesting enough?​

Not for me, but that’s not your fault. To find a class satisfyingly interesting, I need to see awesome new benefits in each and every level.


bards get 8 + Int because their skill list expanded, and rogues get 6 + Int because theirs contracted.
Given Bards have music + spell, this seems quite unfair to me.​

And generally, I see the 10 repetitions of Sneak Attack progression as an unsubtle & uninspired means of rubbing sand in the RP-ers’ eye. Also, it’s awesome against some opponents, but as levels progress, it becomes dead weight more often than not – rendering you stuck with (supposedly)10 near-useless class features (and it has no added value beyond damage augmentation).


Which leads to my second point. I made several changes to the skill system: First, I eliminated cross-class skills​

Actually, I’ve given a lot of thought to how skills are presented in 3.5.​

I think that of all the characteristics of 3e, this is the one they almost hit dead on the nail.​

In the Skills spoiler in my houserules I explain the motivations behind the few changes I’ve introduced, I also have several links to a website named “The Alexandrian”, which illustrates wonderfully why the skill system is so well designed in 3.5e.


By your argument, there's no need even for rage feats. By mine, they at least have a justification.​

In my HR, Rage is 3-feat worth (plus some of the CW ones are also decent) but...​

I tend to think rage is overrated​

YouTube - Semmy Schilt vs Badr Hari k-1 final 2009


Which part - needing the overhaul or still needing work?​

Both.


True, but having a skill check be a DC for a save is overpowered.​

I never said 3e doesn’t need a lot of work (and I do mean A LOT OF WORK).​

To deal with this one, my HR ban all forms of magical skill-boosting (sans Inspire Competence, which is an inspiration, not a direct magical effect).​

You wouldn’t believe the gametime improvement that’s achieved by preventing skill checks from shooting to the asteroid belt.


I wouldn't call that "more than enough". Sufficient, maybe. But what's wrong with adding more songs, with the ability to choose between them? ​

Absolutely nothing. There are Bardic Music feats that do just that – give you new effects to choose from.


(language)​

I just don't like the "either you know it or you don't" thing 3.5 has. I like the concept of "well, I know some of this, and some of that, and a lot of the other". For example:
I’m totally with you on this one. Here’s the best implementation I could find​

3.5 D&D Language System - Giant in the Playground Forums​

until I saw yours, which is also great. I think that combining both in some way could be the ideal evolution to languages in RPG. Given it has different mechanics and a maximum level of perfection, I think it should be detached from the skill system, but my inspiration is in a permanent state of coma as far as language mechanics go.


Sure, if you didn't have max ranks and bonuses to boot. Those DCs were determined for a bard with, IIRC, 3/4 max ranks for the given level. Quite deliberately, obviously - one of the common complaints about the bard was having to max out Perform to gain new songs.​

Result: a player would have to be practically brain dead not to maximize.​

This phenomenon in general is named shoehorning: providing an option which is not really an option (or a really stupid choice making).​

Wherever shoehorning was evidently unavoidable, I simply granted the requirement automatically in the form of bonus skill ranks.


I recently added an alternative domain system ​

You do notice that – flavor wise – the Animal domain makes the Druid redundant, right?​

Furthermore, I think that the sheer volume of effort would not be worthwhile in the long run.


(domains)​

Negligible how?​

I meant to say “no matter how I chose to go at it”​

I played around with domain mechanics quite a bit and was never content with the result.


I'm assuming by "numbers augmentation" you mean something other than simply adding bonuses, but I can't imagine what.​

Take a look at my “3.5 HR – Codex Gigas”, download the archive and take a look at what I did with the various classes and you’ll get what I’m talking about.​

The idea is to gain new options all the time – new stuff to do, or new ways to use old shticks.


Elemental Lords control Earth, Fire, or Water; Storm Lords control Air.​

I’m not aware of any folklore that makes this distinction


finding a group in my area is about as easy as finding a virgin in a harem.​

That’s a good one X-D


(Hibernate)​

Yeah... I wasn't too enthusiastic about that one either. It was really hard to fill that slot, and that was the best I could come up with.​

Take a look at my Druid remake.

(Fighters)​

1) Boring how?
The overall lack of options. All they do is attack, attack and attack some more. And it all boils down to stats. There’s little to no room for strategy in 3e for the melee dudes beyond choosing the target to attack (to deal with the issue they’ve invented ToB (memorizing your combat knowledge… give me a break ) ).​

You’ll really have to dig into my Warrior (revised Fighter) to understand what I mean when I talk about combat strategy (the Weapons’ entry and some general modifications to actions and some other issues also do wonders on the strategy aspect – for most classes).

2) Loses the action economy?
Quicken Spell​

Split Ray​

Twin Spell​

Repeating Spell​

Double Wand Wielder​

Belt of Battle​

Spells that grant battlefield control​

Fly​

Teleport​

Polymorph​

Water Breathing​

Hold​

Charm​

Dominate​

Stoneskin / Fire Shield​

Telekinesis​

Prismatic (whatever)​

Scry & Die​

. . .​

And we haven’t even gotten to PrCs yet.​

And what does poor ole’ Fighter do?​

Makes a full attack from a stand-still (usually not an option) / moves and makes a single attack (quite ineffective) / goes for the Pounce build (which is ridiculously easily neutralized, or plain simple irrelevant in so many cases).​

Yup. Fun to be a Fighter.

​

3) If you mean overcoming hazards, I addressed that in an earlier post.
Please satisfy my curiosity and provide a link.

4) The base fighter can gain WF in multiple weapons at once (granted, not hugely powerful) and gets WS in multiple weapons for free.​

So does mine, but in my case, weapon spec progression is not even the tip of the iceberg.

​

Each combat style also has several unique abilities that enable him overcome foes or set them up for teammates to handle.
Ok, show me what I’ve been missing.

What annoys me is that people who criticize the fighter seem to think that he should be able to handle all threats on his own. Last time I checked, D&D is a game centered around teamwork, not solo play. Every class has a role to play, and when done well, a party can overcome any threat, obstacle, or hazard with a minimum of effort.​

My Warrior can do so much more than the core Fighter – that doesn’t make it viable for a solo player. Not by a long shot. It just puts it in a whole new scale of interesting to play. With my HR all classes can play in the same ballpark and have fun.


Speaking of unarmed fighters... do you think giving the monk full BAB would be too much? I considered it a couple times, but eventually decided not to.​

Going full BAB is an option, but the least elegant out there in my book. I’m applying the final polish to my Monk as we speak.


(and technically, Oriental elements include Metal and Wood).​

Not a very bright deduction – even for the old-ages times. Metal is worked out earth and wood grows on the earth. Any way you slice it, the origin is earth.


Now that I look at the 2d10 damage, it was pretty balanced - compare to a rogue's +8d6 SA or a fighter's four attacks/round with a greatsword for 2d6 + bonuses each​

Go to the WotC forums and seek out some Monk debates. They explain it over there way better than I can over here.


Why not take the barbarian's totem abilities and give them to the ranger?​

Staying old school, it seems reasonable.


I added the extra abilities mainly because wizards have none. It's why players jump ship for a PrC with full (or even half) spellcasting ability at first chance - they keep getting spells along with cool abilities.​

In my system this isn’t gonna be an option. You really wouldn’t want to go PrC if you valued everything your base class has to offer. In my system you go for a PrC if you’re looking for something else, not for the extra icing and the cherry on top. But... whatever you pick, you’ll neither get shafted nor overshadow ohers.


Eh? You mean sorcerers?​

I meant negligible changes to spells-per-day regarding several classes.


I took a look through it and didn't notice anything obvious, beyond the cleric stuff I noted above.​

Maybe it’s consistent with how you see the classes now, but there are several inconsistencies in accordance to the classes as they appear on the website (sorry, I really don’t have the strength to go over everything again).​

Anyway, if you’re gonna make some more changes to the classes, then don’t bother at this time.

​

 

[ValhallaGH]

You always use Improved Evasion. That's why it's Improved. Even when you don't make your save you still only take half damage.

Saying anything else is indicative of a lack of knowledge of some of the more common game mechanics. Refresher study may be needed.

 

[Kerrick]

You know you can just hit the "quote" button on my post and save yourself some work?

Not for me, but that’s not your fault. To find a class satisfyingly interesting, I need to see awesome new benefits in each and every level.

Fair enough. I can deal with a few dead levels for base classes (but not PrCs); figuring out awesome new benefits for each and every level is hard sometimes.

Given Bards have music + spell, this seems quite unfair to me.

Bards strike me more as the "skill-monkey" than rogues; plus, they need the extra skill points for all the Knowledge skills.

And generally, I see the 10 repetitions of Sneak Attack progression as an unsubtle & uninspired means of rubbing sand in the RP-ers’ eye. Also, it’s awesome against some opponents, but as levels progress, it becomes dead weight more often than not – rendering you stuck with (supposedly)10 near-useless class features (and it has no added value beyond damage augmentation).

Check this out and let me know what you think. I whipped that together after reading similar comments.

I think that of all the characteristics of 3e, this is the one they almost hit dead on the nail.

You mean cross-class skills?

In the Skills spoiler in my houserules I explain the motivations behind the few changes I’ve introduced, I also have several links to a website named “The Alexandrian”, which illustrates wonderfully why the skill system is so well designed in 3.5e.

Link? A quick Google search turned up all kinds of stuff, but nothing relating to gaming.

In my HR, Rage is 3-feat worth (plus some of the CW ones are also decent) but...I tend to think rage is overrated

YouTube - Semmy Schilt vs Badr Hari k-1 final 2009

I never said it was great... I was just giving a justification for its existence. You might note that I said "more concerned with hurting his opponent than his own safety" (or some such thing; I can't find the quote). Some players like to play the battlerager, either as a one-off concept character, or as something for a campaign. I do agree, however, that it shouldn't be a base class. PrC, sure - I could bang out a 10-level Berserker PrC (and fully intend to, sometime).

Which part - needing the overhaul or still needing work?

Both.

Heh. Any suggestions?

I never said 3e doesn’t need a lot of work (and I do mean A LOT OF WORK).
To deal with this one, my HR ban all forms of magical skill-boosting (sans Inspire Competence, which is an inspiration, not a direct magical effect).

Is that spells, items, or both?

You wouldn’t believe the gametime improvement that’s achieved by preventing skill checks from shooting to the asteroid belt.

Oh, I could imagine. One could even limit the number of active bonuses to a given stat or skill; I think Paizo tossed that idea out at one point during their playtesting, but was shot down (I don't recall exactly why, but I'm sure it was related to bookkeeping and all the different spells and effects extant in D&D). A more elegant solution would simply be to place a hard cap on skills based on character level - say, +5 at L1-10, +10 at 11-20, etc. Similarly for stats: +4, +6, +8, etc. Thus, the PCs could still use their spells and items and such, but the DM won't have to worry about absurd skill/ability scores.

Absolutely nothing. There are Bardic Music feats that do just that – give you new effects to choose from.

Okay. I prefer to add them as class abilities (with the flexibility of choice) to free up those feat slots for other things.

I’m totally with you on this one. Here’s the best implementation I could find
3.5 D&D Language System - Giant in the Playground Forums
until I saw yours, which is also great. I think that combining both in some way could be the ideal evolution to languages in RPG. Given it has different mechanics and a maximum level of perfection, I think it should be detached from the skill system, but my inspiration is in a permanent state of coma as far as language mechanics go.

That's where I got the inspiration for mine, actually. IIRC, I also borrowed some rules from another source - Monte Cook, maybe? Divorcing it from the skill system entirely is an intriguing idea, but I'm not sure how to go about it.

Result: a player would have to be practically brain dead not to maximize.
This phenomenon in general is named shoehorning: providing an option which is not really an option (or a really stupid choice making).
Wherever shoehorning was evidently unavoidable, I simply granted the requirement automatically in the form of bonus skill ranks.

So... bards automatically get +1 Perform rank each level in the Perform skill of their choice?

You do notice that – flavor wise – the Animal domain makes the Druid redundant, right?

...Ooh. No, I hadn't noticed that.

Furthermore, I think that the sheer volume of effort would not be worthwhile in the long run.

On my part? Probably. That's why I gave up on it; it was too hard to think up abilities for all those domains.

I played around with domain mechanics quite a bit and was never content with the result.

Yeah, I've tried a few things too and never got anything that worked. This latest version is, IMO, the best, but it requires a huge amount of work on my part and a good bit of bookkeeping.

Take a look at my “3.5 HR – Codex Gigas”, download the archive and take a look at what I did with the various classes and you’ll get what I’m talking about.
The idea is to gain new options all the time – new stuff to do, or new ways to use old shticks.

Link? That's what I'm trying to do too - make the classes better at what they do, make their roles clearer (see sorcerer vs. wizard) and more unique, and generally make all the classes worth playing on their own merits.

Elemental Lords control Earth, Fire, or Water; Storm Lords control Air.

I’m not aware of any folklore that makes this distinction[/quote]
Who said anything about folklore? I was talking about my druid.

The overall lack of options. All they do is attack, attack and attack some more. And it all boils down to stats. There’s little to no room for strategy in 3e for the melee dudes beyond choosing the target to attack (to deal with the issue they’ve invented ToB (memorizing your combat knowledge… give me a break ) ).

To be fair, you're only looking at the fighter, not the system as a whole. I completely overhauled the combat maneuvers, added swift actions, made changes to exotic weapons (they're simply martial weapons with a stat requirement to wield properly; most of them don't even have that much), added many more combat feats, and more.

2) Loses the action economy?
[/B]Quicken Spell
Split Ray
Twin Spell
Repeating Spell
Double Wand Wielder
Belt of Battle
Spells that grant battlefield control
Fly
Teleport
Polymorph
Water Breathing
Hold
Charm
Dominate
Stoneskin / Fire Shield
Telekinesis
Prismatic (whatever)
Scry & Die
. . .
And we haven’t even gotten to PrCs yet.

Ignoring all the non-core stuff (PP only deals with core rules), I still see your point.

And what does poor ole’ Fighter do?
Makes a full attack from a stand-still (usually not an option) / moves and makes a single attack (quite ineffective) / goes for the Pounce build (which is ridiculously easily neutralized, or plain simple irrelevant in so many cases).
Yup. Fun to be a Fighter.

Oh, did I mention that you can now take a partial move and still make more than one attack? Frex, you can move 1/2 your speed and get up to 3 attacks. See here, under Full Attack. There's also a high-level feat that lets you make a full move AND get a full attack.

3) If you mean overcoming hazards, I addressed that in an earlier post.
Please satisfy my curiosity and provide a link.

I'll do you one better: I'll reprint my reply.

For that matter, most of those are difficult for ANY non-spellcaster to deal with. We do, however, have: Blind-Fight (darkness and invis), Endurance (heat and cold), Power Attack (and really, I've never seen DR trotted out as a foil to a fighter - PA was specifically designed to negate it, and 3.5 DR isn't that high anyway), and bows (to deal with flying enemies). Forcecage (and wall of force, etc.) can be dealt with by simply giving force effects hit points instead of making them unbreakable. I actually posted an idea on that not long ago. Being submerged in deep water: Very rare, IME, but fighters DO get Swim as a class skill. No one without free action (and rings of free action are a boon to fighters) can fight effectively underwater anyway. Falling: Ring of feather fall. Mages are the only ones who have the spell anyway, so that's a hazard to any class, not just fighters.

4) The base fighter can gain WF in multiple weapons at once (granted, not hugely powerful) and gets WS in multiple weapons for free.[/B]
So does mine, but in my case, weapon spec progression is not even the tip of the iceberg.

Are you talking about levels of mastery, like in 2E? I was playing around with a system like that a month or so ago, but it didn't get very far. I've still got it; now that I'm regaining interest in this again, I might do some work on it.

Each combat style also has several unique abilities that enable him overcome foes or set them up for teammates to handle.
Ok, show me what I’ve been missing.

Stunning Blow, for example. You can make an attempt to stun your opponent one or more times per round. Battlefield control - a disabled opponent is as good as dead if there's a rogue around. Stun one opponent, then turn to another to bash on him until the first one recovers. Or, use it against a powerful enemy and take the chance to retreat, whale on him a bit, or let a friend fall back in safety. Same with Dazing Blow. Dire Charge can knock the opponent back, as per a bull rush, or prone; Bulwark protects adjacent allies; Bulette Charge can daze an opponent; Crippling Strike can weaken opponents. Looking over it, though, you're right - most of those abilities are focused more toward aiding the fighter alone, instead of letting the fighter aid others and control the battlefield. I got an idea from Dragon Age for shield bash to knock the opponent prone, which I intend to add.

My Warrior can do so much more than the core Fighter – that doesn’t make it viable for a solo player. Not by a long shot. It just puts it in a whole new scale of interesting to play. With my HR all classes can play in the same ballpark and have fun.

*nodnod*

Going full BAB is an option, but the least elegant out there in my book. I’m applying the final polish to my Monk as we speak.

I'll be interested to see it when you're done.

Not a very bright deduction – even for the old-ages times. Metal is worked out earth and wood grows on the earth. Any way you slice it, the origin is earth.

Well yeah, but my point was that they're separate elements: Air, Earth, Fire, Metal, Water, and Wood. Don't ask me why.

Now that I look at the 2d10 damage, it was pretty balanced - compare to a rogue's +8d6 SA or a fighter's four attacks/round with a greatsword for 2d6 + bonuses each
Go to the WotC forums and seek out some Monk debates. They explain it over there way better than I can over here.

Why not take the barbarian's totem abilities and give them to the ranger?

Staying old school, it seems reasonable.

Two votes for it. Must be a good idea. But seriously, I'm already working out the mechanics of aspects, because I'm on board with it.

In my system this isn’t gonna be an option. You really wouldn’t want to go PrC if you valued everything your base class has to offer. In my system you go for a PrC if you’re looking for something else, not for the extra icing and the cherry on top. But... whatever you pick, you’ll neither get shafted nor overshadow ohers.

That's what I want to do, too. PrCs, IMO, are a way to focus on a specific aspect of your schtick, or to gain access to something the base class doesn't offer (transformational PrCs, frex). I mentioned this before: by giving more abilities to the base classes, it eliminates the need for vast numbers of generally pointless PrCs, incidentally helping game balance along the way.

I meant negligible changes to spells-per-day regarding several classes.

Oh. Umm... I dunno. I made some of those decisions so long ago I don't recall the reasoning behind them now.

Maybe it’s consistent with how you see the classes now, but there are several inconsistencies in accordance to the classes as they appear on the website (sorry, I really don’t have the strength to go over everything again).
Anyway, if you’re gonna make some more changes to the classes, then don’t bother at this time.

Yeah. Once I get everything finalized again, I'll revise the discussions.

You always use Improved Evasion. That's why it's Improved. Even when you don't make your save you still only take half damage.

Saying anything else is indicative of a lack of knowledge of some of the more common game mechanics. Refresher study may be needed.

Huh?

 

[Kerrick]

I was a thinking a bit this morning as I lay in bed about the fighter, and I came up with an idea. With the weapon mastery system, I've got four levels: adept, expert, master, and grandmaster. What I can do is something similar to what I did with the rogue: Make up a laundry list of general class abilities, assign them to the different ranks, and let the player choose which ones he wants. Some of these would be drawn from the fighting styles, and some from ideas already posted in this thread. Thus, the fighter would have some offensive abilities (battlefield control like Dazing Strike), defensive (spell parry), and general stuff like rage*, Sudden Attack (+4 to init), or Bulwark. Whatever combat abilities aren't used would either become feats or just go away.

*I'm including rage in this list because I ran into a problem when I tried to make Greater Rage into a feat: I needed a higher level prereq, and BAB just didn't seem right. Since fighters are really the only ones who'd take rage anyway, it made more sense to just make it selectable class ability.

The weapon feats would remain, but as I mentioned before, I'm thinking of adding some kind of weapon mastery system. I've got some numerical bonuses sketched out, but I was also considering doing something similar to 4E, where you can perform different maneuvers with a weapon of a certain type (I'd limit it to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing). These things would take place on a crit, but there would be no save: daze/stun the opponent for 1 round, inflict a bleeding wound, knock him down, etc. Effectively, fighters would get a bunch of weapon style feats (say, 5-6), in addition to the normal bonus feats, to let them do all kinds of things with a variety of weapons that no other class can do.

 

[nonsi256]

Hey Kerrick,

Here's what I was talking about: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/268020-3-5-hr-codex-gigas.html

I'm a bit surprised you missed it, given it was on the front page of this forum for almost a month (and i's there again now - and updated).

I'm sure that after you've downloaded the archive (the archive - not the .doc file) and went through its content a bit, you'd find what I'm talking about a lot clearer.

everyhing in there is there for a very good reason (IMO, at least).

Have fun, take whatever you need and feel free to ask...... whatever.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I don't know that fighters need Imp. Evasion; they've got way more hit points than rogues and a low Ref save to boot (so they'd very rarely be able to take advantage of IE).

You always use Improved Evasion. That's why it's Improved. Even when you don't make your save you still only take half damage.

Saying anything else is indicative of a lack of knowledge of some of the more common game mechanics. Refresher study may be needed.

Huh?

Like I said, a character is always using Improved Evasion when it comes up. Evasion only works when you succeed at your save. Improve Evasion always works, either reducing the damage to half or eliminating it entirely (or reducing it to 1/4 in Project Phoenix. I've been wondering, why did you name your D&D revision after a Vietnam CIA-run anti-insurgency campaign?)
Given how common Improved Evasion is, in the system, I've got to question your system mastery that you didn't immediately grasp that.
Of course, 'rust' accrues and is easily removed by simply re-reading.

Good luck.

 

[Kerrick]

Like I said, a character is always using Improved Evasion when it comes up. Evasion only works when you succeed at your save. Improve Evasion always works, either reducing the damage to half or eliminating it entirely (or reducing it to 1/4 in Project Phoenix.

Given how common Improved Evasion is, in the system, I've got to question your system mastery that you didn't immediately grasp that.
Of course, 'rust' accrues and is easily removed by simply re-reading.

I didn't know what you meant by "always using it"; and yes, it's been awhile since I cracked a book (and even longer since I've actually played). I haven't even thought about doing any work for the last 3-4 months due to burnout; this discussion has gotten my interest going again, though.

I've been wondering, why did you name your D&D revision after a Vietnam CIA-run anti-insurgency campaign?)

Parallel development. I've never heard of that until now. The inspiration behind the name came from a new ruleset being revised and reborn and a campaign world rising from the ashes of a devastating war and a long period of "Dark Ages" (this was from my old group). I'm using my own metasetting for PP now, but I liked the name, so I kept it.

Good luck.

Thanks.

 

[Kerrick]

Hey Kerrick,

Here's what I was talking about: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/268020-3-5-hr-codex-gigas.html

I'm a bit surprised you missed it, given it was on the front page of this forum for almost a month (and i's there again now - and updated).

Ah, thanks. I did see it before and glanced through it; I didn't get much past the skills, since it's radically different from what I'm doing. I'll take a second look.

Have fun, take whatever you need and feel free to ask...... whatever.

Thanks.