Rules in 3.5 that need fixing and what you'd do to fix it.

[JVisgaitis]

Actually, I find the 'bonus feats' thing a very useful and flexible facet of that class.

I agree with both of those statements and I know that a fighter can bar none be better then any class in fighting. I just think they're boring. Sorry!

 

[delericho]

I just think they're boring. Sorry!

Aye, you're not wrong there. I don't know if there's really anything that can be done there, except perhaps add that multitude of new classes to cover the various options.

 

[Psion]

I agree with both of those statements and I know that a fighter can bar none be better then any class in fighting. I just think they're boring. Sorry!

How ironic.

Tell me, is 3e your first D&D? Because when I saw the 3e fighter, my thoughts were "finally... an interesting fighter that's just as appealing as paladins and rangers!"

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, I do think it's quite true that the fighter is finally no longer capable of being slapped around by rangers and paladins, power-wise. However, I also think that there's something unexciting about getting as your only class ability something that every other character gets as well; the difference is one of extent rather than type of ability. Also, the core feats top out a bit early for my tastes, leaving the high-level fighter a bit cold. More and better feats (per PHB2, for instance) clearly address the latter problem, but I think some fighter-only class abilities (heck, maybe more fighter-only feats!) would be nice, if not 100% necessary.

 

[Psion]

Well, I do think it's quite true that the fighter is finally no longer capable of being slapped around by rangers and paladins, power-wise. However, I also think that there's something unexciting about getting as your only class ability something that every other character gets as well; the difference is one of extent rather than type of ability.

I think its a great feature.

Of course, I think it'd be better yet if they had feat lists like spycraft that a serve a variety of classes. But flexible build classes are peachy in my eyes. In fact, if you look at my post, I pretty much want more classes done this way. I would want some "localized" class abilities not drawn from the feat list, but feats are great.

 

[SiderisAnon]

The Fighter Class

I've seen several posts badmouthing the fighter class as being boring. I believe you may be missing one of the main points of playing the fighter. This class is all about flexibility and being very good at combat. It is not about flavor or specializing. Those are the things you add in when you play the character.

A fighter can be a archer or a cavalier or a pirate ship captain or just about anything they want. (Anything but a spellcaster, because that is not their thing.) Fighters are flexible enough to play any role that involves combat. The fighter is not a pre-shaped character like a druid is. A fighter is a flexible template that you can then mold into whatever you want.

One of the points made against the fighter was that other classes can do almost anything the fighter can do. While that is true, there is a part of that sentence missing. The other classes can do almost anything a fighter can do, but only if they have a lot more levels. Most classes get one feat every third level, and they usually have places they need to spend those feats to help boost their class abilities. (Metamagic for instance.) Fighters get those same 1 per 3 feats and another one every other level. Fighters get those feats a lot sooner, especially the ones that rely on a BAB prerequisite.

I admit that at higher levels the fighter tends to be underpowered compared to some of the other classes, but this is a problem that goes back to the original boxed sets and I don't think it's ever going to change. Sooner or later, a fighter just has trouble dealing the same amount of mass damage that area effect spells can do. (Not to mention some of the other abilities.) Of course, the fighter's benefit at high levels is that his abilities do not run out. Once your party's wizard is out of spells, he's pretty well done. Your fighter's sword arm keeps working forever. (Barring loss of hit points.)

I think the fighter, for all the simplicity of the class, is still one of the most interesting classes around.

 

[JVisgaitis]

How ironic. Tell me, is 3e your first D&D? Because when I saw the 3e fighter, my thoughts were "finally... an interesting fighter that's just as appealing as paladins and rangers!"

Not unless 3e was out in '82. Its not ironic as I thought the same thing when 3e came out, but that was more then 5 years ago. When I look at fighters now, I still like the options that feats present, I just don't like that everyone else can do the same things.

I believe you may be missing one of the main points of playing the fighter. This class is all about flexibility and being very good at combat.

You're right and I totally understand the point of the fighter, believe me. I don't understand what's wrong with expecting rules to allow you to do something interesting with a character concept as well as make that character more unique from his peers.

One of the points made against the fighter was that other classes can do almost anything the fighter can do. While that is true, there is a part of that sentence missing. The other classes can do almost anything a fighter can do, but only if they have a lot more levels.

But at the end of the day, your still not able to do something unique with your character class. Granted, you'll get Whirlwind Attack before me, but if I go that route I can still get it. I love fighters. Fighters are probably one of my favorite classes, I just don't know why people are against cool combat options for a fighter that are unique to that class. Why the hang up?

 

[Celebrim]

If I was writing it, I can certainly make it elegant enough that it wouldn't be complicated.

More power to you. Go ahead slugger, knock yourself out.

No they're not feats. Their class abilities.

And the differences between a class ability and a feat besides a naming convention? One's optional and one isn't? But if we make all class abilities optional, well then we are making them like feats. How about a feat can be taken by any class by a class ability can't? Ok, sure, but how about feats which can only be taken by one class, aren't they more like class abilities? Or in short, optional and flexible class abilities are feats, and feats which can only be taken by one class are class abilities. The only difference is a naming convention.

Technically, if you're saying that anything that is given as a bonus to a character is a feat, then yeah I suppose its a feat.

Don't suppose.

But by your same reasoning, I suppose picking up a new spell or having a rogue choose a special ability are feats too.

Yes, they are. The special abilities that the rogue gets at levels 10, 13, 16, and 19 are basically bonus feats. In fact, they can take a feat using one. You could move all the special abilities out to the Feats section, place them in a category similar to Weapon Specialization and it would be almost the exact same thing. I've seen the rogue worked up as little more than a series of special abilities and a list of class specific feats and it actually works pretty well.

We could go ahead and make a more flexible wizard that had instead of a spell progression a wizard bonus feat at every level and have one of those be 'Wizard Spell Progression'. Anything that can be packetized and which is a bonus to the character is basically a feat, and every feat is basically a class ability with a bit more flexibility. Or we could take the class abilities of a PrC, turn them into feat chains with the same requirements as the PrC and accomplish much of the same thing (and all of the same thing with well design base classes, or at least all of the same thing worth accomplishing).

Would it make sense to make Turn Undead a feat that only clerics can take?

Yes, it would. Lots of players complain that Turn Undead is an inappropriate ability for certain clerics, and that they would be better served with some different ability substituting for 'Turn Undead'. You really can only provide for that by making alot more classes or by making class abilities that are alot more like feats.

Of course not, it should be a class ability. How is that incoherent? It makes perfect sense.

It's semantics. It's a failure of imagination. The incoherence comes from the fact that you are making skills less specific to a particular class (no cross class skills) but arguing about making feats (or rather bonus abilities so much like feats as to make little difference) more specific to a particular class - all the while complaining about 'Weapon Specialization'.

I read you post just fine.

I would spec all of the initial classes as generic concepts keeping the core themes: fighter, arcane caster, etc. but have a lot of class abilities that are chosen throughout the character's career.

Right. Chosen throughout the character's career. Like feats. Optional. Like Feats. Small compartmentalized bonuses. Like feats. Congradulations, you've reinvented Weapon Specialization. For a full take on this, see the Primal Heroes classes.

So on one hand your telling me doing the classes the way I propose is bad...

I didn't say that at all. In fact, you are suggesting that class abilities be done exactly how I think that they should be done.

What you are doing that is utterly incoherent is not that class abilities should be optional, flexible, but yet distinctive, but that you are moving things in that direction and then insisting that cross class skills are bad. That makes absolutely no freaking sense.

Actually I'm not failing to understand anything. The fact that a fighters schtick is "bonus feats" is stupid in my opinion. What's interesting about playing a character that any other class could emulate (with the exception of Weapon Specialization though there are feats around that anyway). Give me a character that has his own unique skills and abilities not something dry and boring that takes away from the coolness of me being a fighter.

You just don't get it do you? No other class can emulate the fighter. Because the fighters thing is combat related bonus feats, and no other class comes close. You might as well make the claim that fighters can emulate rogues by taking tumble, open locks, search, diplomacy, and move silently. Sure, you can do that. But you end up with a pretty sorry imitation of the rogue if you try it. In the same way, no one can emulate a fighter in his domain because in effect 'fighter feats' are 'cross class' to every other class and they have to spend a greater percentage of thier precious 'feat points' to buy any of them.

And in the case of 'Weapon Specialization' they have a feat exclusive to the class that even then no one can take (much like a class exclusive skill). If you make a bunch of optional class abilities, say a bunch of new flexible abilities gained over the course of the fighters career and not available to anyone else, you are basically extending the 'Weapon Specialization' mechanic - the same mechanic you claim you despise. And, while doing this, you decide to get rid of what makes classes that depend on skills highly distinctive. In other words, the complaint you mistakenly made against me when I tried to explain to you the close kinship between a bonus feat and a class ability - because you wrongly thought I was taking away class distinctiveness - is exactly the complaint I have against taking away the concept of a class and cross class skill.

I don't believe for a second you can make a more elegant system for making skills distinctive by a set of class abilities. If you could, someone would have tried it by now. In fact, someone would have probably made a pretty decent system by now.

I'm not even sure I believe you are game designer.

 

[FireLance]

But at the end of the day, your still not able to do something unique with your character class. Granted, you'll get Whirlwind Attack before me, but if I go that route I can still get it. I love fighters. Fighters are probably one of my favorite classes, I just don't know why people are against cool combat options for a fighter that are unique to that class. Why the hang up?

Because it would make the class less simple.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm not even sure I believe you are game designer.

And with that comment I'm done. I'm not even going to waste my time answering your post.