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="Kerrick" data-source="post: 5019132" data-attributes="member: 4722">Well, yeah. But a large part of that is the spells, which I've also adjusted (probably not far enough, but it's a start).But Runestar hit on the real reason the fighter sucks (which I figured out last night, after some thought): There aren't enough high-level feats to support it. The highest-level feat in the PHB is Greater WS, at L12. After that, you might as well go rogue, cause there won't be a whole lot else worth taking, unless you go to epic and get PTWF (and that doesn't even have a BAB/level requirement, so it's not worth sticking in fighter to get it). I did add a ton of new feats, especially high-level ones for fighters: Blinding Speed, Damage Reduction, Improved Combat Movement, Overwhelming and Dev Crit, Indomitable, Stand Still, etc.I don't see anything wrong with opening it up to other classes either; the intent was to make fighters more attractive by giving them something that other classes don't have. It's not an ultra-powerful ability, so it's not unbalancing, but it makes them unique.I know it's a feat, but it's not OGC.Again, you CAN make them feats, but then we're reduced to the same problem we had before - why take them as a fighter when I could take them as a barbarian or paladin, AND gain all the cool class abilities? Sure, a fighter can get them sooner, but that's ALL he gets. A raging barbarian with two-weapon style feats will tear an equivalent-level fighter apart.Well, yes. Which is the reason I ditched it - most of its abilities were covered in the Cat Style, and the rest weren't really worthwhile. But my point was that if I were to build a "fast fighter" in 3.5, that would be the best way to go, as opposed to taking straight levels of fighter with a bunch of feats. In PP, I can build the same "fast fighter" with straight fighter levels in Cat Style. Or, you could simply convert all those abilities to feats and build it with a fighter. But, since those style abilities are extra, I don't have to spend feat slots (bonus or otherwise) on them - I effectively get four free feats to spread around on any fighting style I want (and you can take multiple styles). So, my fast fighter would go with Lightning Reflexes, Blind-Fight, Weapon Focus, WS, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, maybe WWA, and pick up some cool fighting abilities along the way.And... adding prerequisites isn't the same thing? Prereqs are effectively saying "I need to tell the player when he can take this feat." I fail to see the difference. The WS tree was kept fighter-specific to give fighters something that other classes didn't. Granted, it's not really all that great, but it's the concept that counts.That's largely a problem with game design. Eliminating immunities (which I did) makes rogues a lot more useful in combat; toning down or eliminating the wizard's utility spells helps to retain the rogue's usefulness in other situations. The BAB problem... well... I've run into that one myself, having played a rogue at 30th level - pretty much everything after my first two attacks missed. I changed the BAB progression so that all classes go to +20 before they flip over to EAB, but I won't claim it as a "fix" - I haven't been able to playtest it. I do think, though, that five extra points of AB will help.Have you ever seen Upper Krust's CR rules system? He applied values to all monster abilities, rating them by using a feat as the base unit of measure. He also did all the core classes; fighter ended up being 1.0896/level, and rogue was 1.0941. I've tested his math, and it's spot-on - his monster CRs are very accurate.Again, it's a fault of game design. It's poor game design to completely negate a class's abilities (especially a core ability like sneak attack).Okay, you got me on that one. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't (personally, I'd rule that it has a chance of negating SA). I think you'd agree that they have a roughly equal chance - if the fighter catches the rogue, he could put a hurting on her before she got away; whereas, the rogue could use hit-and-run tactics to wear the fighter down.If every class were nothing but feats, they'd all be generic classes - you might as well use the Expert, Spellcaster, and Warrior from Unearthed Arcana. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what you like, but I don't - I prefer unique classes. *shrug*Anything will go down to CoDzilla or a druid. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> A 3.x fighter would be evenly matched against a barbarian or paladin, I think, maybe even a ranger (really depends on builds - a lightly-armored fighter would be an even match; a tank would win). A monk... my money would be on the fighter, but the monk would give him a run for his money - he's got Stunning Fist, greater movement ability (which a 3.x fighter has no capacity to handle), dimension door, and healing. A PP fighter would Because... anyone can take it?It's a first-tier ability.It lets you deal more damage. Besides, it's another first-tier ability.Something cool = knocking someone back or knocking them down. That's called "battlefield control" - I can use this ability to knock my opponent into a pit or off a cliff, push him off a fellow party member, or knock him down so the rogue can get sneak attacks. How is that not cool? Granted, I could probably reduce the damage by 5 or 10 points, but still...Stunning Blow = you can make an attempt to stun your opponent one or more times per round. Again, 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. I fail to see how this isn't useful.Okay, that's my fault. That should read "any single target in reach", not "ALL targets in reach". A two-weapon fighter with Cat Style with four attacks/hand could get 9 attacks total - Greater Blinding Strike was intended to let the fighter get the jump on everyone by making his attacks outside of the initiative order on the first round only, then act on his normal initiative count on succeeding rounds. I obviously failed on that count. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> I'll fix that.Well... since most spells require saves (and those that don't work equally well against everyone), and the fighter has only one good save, mages know to use mind-affecting and hard-to-dodge spells to deal with fighters.No, it's more a problem of connotation vs. denotation. When you say "obstacles" I think of "something that prevents you from moving forward". The things you list are hazards - things that hinder movement, but don't prevent it outright, or make combat more difficult.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.You have a valid point, but the problem isn't just with the fighter - it's with spells. And, you just supported my earlier assertion that their weak saves make them more vulnerable to magic. Want to kill a mage? Drop a save-or-die spell like FoD on him. Want to kill a fighter? Drop a confusion or phantasmal killer on him. It's all relative - they both attack the weak save.And with only a bunch of feats (good or not), the fighter isn't any better off. If you give them some class abilities, they could better handle threats and hazards.Now I'm starting to understand your point - I gave them more cool stuff to do, but I didn't help them to survive high-level combat any better than before. I have tweaked a lot of the spells toward this end, but I haven't playtested high-level play to see how it works.</blockquote>

Verification