Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5018155" data-attributes="member: 4937">Two reasons.  The first is that the fighter can't compete with spell casters on equal terms after somewhere between 9th and 12th level because spell casters increase in power exponentially and the fighter increases in power linerally (by comparison at least).  More importantly though, because rather than addressing the problem with the base class fighter, it was much easier (and much more tempting financially) for WotC and 3rd party publishers to address it by providing an endless variaty of PrC's which had both full BAB progression AND which recieved 'feat equivalent abilities' at better than the standard set by base fighters 1 bonus feat per 2 levels.  If you are get the equivalent of a feat every level instead of every two levels, and you don't give up anything compared to a fighter (often you'd have better skill lists, more skills per level, and even better saves as well as more 'feat equivalent abilities) then it makes no sense to take fighter past 2nd or 4th level (the optimal break points in terms of efficiency) or at most whatever the first level is that you can qualify for the PrC.It's not a bad thing, it's just indicating that you think Weapon Focus is a weak feat and/or that the concept of weapon groups needs to be defined in the base rules.  And, you are probably right in that.  I see no reason to justify that being a class ability exclusive to fighters though.I don't see how that is bad either.  I just don't see how that justifies Oversized Weapon (Monkey Grip, BTW, it's already a feat), Mighty Strike, and Pounding strike being class abilities rather than feats.  If they were feats, Bob can still take Imposing Size, Dazing Blow, and Pounding Strike, and Bill can take Oversized Weapon, Mighty Strike, and Pounding strike instead of (and/or in addition to Cleave and Great Cleave) so you gain nothing by making them class abilities.  All you are really arguing for in my opinion is the need for larger and more robust feat trees, which I agree with.I'm not sure I understand your point.  Duelist seems to be another one of those PrCs that could be mostly turned into a set of feats and which obseletes the fighter by providing one feat equivalent power (or very nearly) per level, and for that matter I never like the core concept behind a Duelist any way, which seems to be at its heart, "I want to wear light armor and get all the benefits of doing that, but I don't want to have a lowered AC as a result."  Bravo.  I approve.  Or even better, you could make the stuff from Cat Style as feats, mix it up with a few rogue levels, and get the same effect without having the PrC.  What are you gaining by not making them feats?  All you are saying is, "I need to add 40 or so feats that are exclusive to fighters AND I need to tell fighters when they have to take them."  Why on both counts?I disagree.  Just as Fighter was considered a dip class for valid reasons, Rogue was widely considered a 3 or 6 level dip class that just couldn't cut it at higher levels.  Many people who played published adventure paths noted the complete uselessness of their rogue past about level 10, as it didn't have enough BAB to consistantly over come high level monsters AC, frequently found itself unable to do more than 5 or 10 damage per round vs. things immune to sneak attack, had a hit point shortage, and it had almost all the deficiencies of a fighter when it came to spells.  Plus its skills were completely obseleted by high level magic.Well obviously, it gets 10 more feats than the 3.X version which was already stronger than Rogues anyway.Irony.  Sneak attack has very limited utility at high levels as a greater and greater percentage of foes tend to be immune to it.  Faced with a series of encounters with undead, oozes, constructs, etc, the rogue is left as a little more than a bystander and even moderately successful high level rogue construction generally involved splashing fighter for those 'piddly feats', moving into a full BAB progression class at some point, and maximizing UMD so you could use a wand backup if sneak attack failed.Never mind that according to the rules as written, if the maze is shadowy (and hense provides concealment), that everything in it including the fighter is thereby immune to sneak attack.  That however has to be one of the most widely ignored rules in 3.X.I can't?  Why not?  I fail to see the problem with this.No, it goes down hard to CoDzilla or a Druid.  However, that's a different problem, and its pretty much worth noting that the 3.X fighter could - baring abuse of shapechanging/class changing spells by a spellcaster, Bo9S munchkins, and certain broken PrCs - best any member of any other class in one-on-one combat as well.Why?Oh, I stand corrected.  A greater percentage of the feats are just about hitting stuff than I thought.    That's the one, and it's pretty weak at that. No, that just lets you hit things with a bigger weapon.  It doesn't let you do something cool besides hitting stuff. Nope, that just hits stuff harder.  It doesn't let you do something cool besides hitting stuff. Nope, that just hits stuff harder and the ability to hit stuff isn't the problem with the fighter.Hmmm.. I could be misreading your intent here, but here goes.Two-handed weapon style with 4 attacks per round, and the standard two-weapon fighting feat progression (bringing it to 7).  Now, take Cat Style - Rapid Strike, Greater Blinding Strike - and use both.  The conservative interpretation of your rules (that I'm now guessing you intended) is that this grants you 16+ attacks in a round which is already pretty insane.  However, when I first read this:"the fighter can take a combat stride and make a full round of melee attacks against any target in reach.I interpreted 'any' to mean that that you attacked every target in reach, which easily gets us up over 50 attacks per round if your standard attack progression is 8 attacks, not even adding in cleaves and the like on your second time through your full attack progression.Errr... wrong, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.This the kind of thing that you say that makes me think you've got even less experience with high level play than I do.  Mundane obstacles like traps, doors, and rockfalls can be easily handled by the fighter.  That's no problem.  By obstacles I mean things like invisibility, flight, high DR, forcecage, darkness, being submerged in deep water, falling, environmental hazards (smoke, heat, cold, etc.), sunder (or comparable ways to disarm the fighter), and so on and so forth ad infinitum.   The problem with the fighter is that one forcecage neutralizes them entirely, but that's only the most obvious case of numerous problems that they have.  You mention the squishiness of mages when deprived of their protections, but fighters are even more squishy without said protections and less able to rely on their own prowess to provide them.  At high levels with RAW, the fighter is 100% dependent on spellcasters to stay 'in the game'.  Without a suite of things like 'death ward', 'hero's feast', 'mindblank', 'freedom of action', etc. buffing them they go down instantly.  Spellcasters can at least protect themselves, but fighter's are not only helpless, they are helpless against a wider variaty of effects.  Rogues at high levels can't damage hardly anything without serious min/maxing (and depending on the target not even then), but at least they have a suite of skills to help with some hazards and evasion and slippery mind to help with others.   All your 'fixes' to the fighter leave them just as helpless at high level play.  Your 16 or 52 or whatever attacks per round, and your quadrupling damage or whatever you do change nothing accept increasing their ability to beat down things in a straight fight that by high levels they'll almost never face and which in any event they were already good at before you helped them out.Might?  Please, I'd not take a Rogue under your rules ever.  It was a marginal class to begin with suited only to some campaign styles.  Improved evasion doesn't need to be nerfed because evocation was never problimatic anyway, and its one of the rogues few saving graces that they have some defenses despite their lack of magical prowess and few hit points.</blockquote>

Verification