Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dimitri Mazieres" data-source="post: 5030668" data-attributes="member: 9260">Oh, I've read about the general consensus regarding the fighter's shortcomings, and I've been shown enough evidence about that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But, like I said, my intention was not to make the fighter a balanced class against spellcasters, but a bit more interesting and balanced against other martial classes.Well, I should have noted it before, but I was planning on using Pathfinder's feat progression, so the fighter would have an available feat every level. I felt that WF & WS were pretty much obligatory for a fighter, but he could use the big amount of feats he would later receive to purchase the rest of the feat chain.I had previously added Mettle instead of Perseverance, but someone rightly told me that the character would still need to success at his Will save to receive its benefits, which didn't change the underlying situation of the fighter's poor Will save bonus. So that's why I changed the ability.As for the other ones you mention, wouldn't adding them hurt the barbarian and rogue's role too much?Well, yes, I can see your point, but I wanted to add the changes within the framework of what I perceived as 3.5's system. I mean, barbarians' rage is  also a #use/day ability, isn't it?Could be. I won't say that I crunched numbers extensively regarding those aspects. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />Well, with PF's feat progression, dead levels would at least provide a new feat. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No arguments there.You're right again. This is because I wanted to stay within my understanding of 3.5 mechanics. That's why I started the thread. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I agree that I didn't expand the class skill list a lot, but I added Profession, and the player's choice of two skills, so as to customize it a bit (plus the obligatory 4+Int skill points).And I also intended to condense some of the skills for my campaign (Listen+Spot=Perception; Athletics; Acrobatics, and so on). So overall, the fighter would have been better off than it seems. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'll confess that I hadn't thought much about that. I'll take a look at it.Beats me. I just didn't want to take that away from whatever Drizzt fans could be out there. <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" />Well, the "orc scout" part was a bit of fluff leftover from the Midnight book I copied the OGC text from, and I think that even there it was just an example. The ability applies to whatever enemy the ranger chooses.As for the sneak attack option, see my (pseudo) reasoning above.Really? In the threads I read it was always mentioned that the ranger's animal companion was almost useless for this same difference with the druid's <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

Verification