Simple Finghter Feats

[dogoftheunderworld]

Partially discussed in the Pathfinder Fighter Thread, I was looking at ways to make the fighter class (3.5) even more easy to use.

Are the following FEATS usable or balanced?


Attack! (Fighter bonus feat): +1 bonus to attacks (Can be taken more than once and Stacks with Itself [CBTMTOASWI])

Defense! (finghter bonus feat): +1 bonus to AC [CBTMTOASWI]

Stand your Ground! (fbf): +6 HP [CBTMTOASWI]

Battle Hardened! (fdf): DR 1/- [[CBTMTOASWI]


Any thoughts?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Nope, I don't think any of them are balanced.

 

[Ilja]

Stand Your Ground doesn't seem TOO overpowering, though it is in the strongest tier. While toughness sucks, this is a two in one and especially at low levels, this would be very powerful.

The others are just outright too good. If they didn't stack and couldn't be taken several times, I'd find them quite balanced if they required a bunch of fighter levels. Possibly, you could swap the bonus feats at level 6, 12, and 18 for a "special ability" that is a choice between these, much as the rogue has their special abilities. However, not only are they generally over-powered, they are quite boring too. I mean, to me, the problem with fighters are that they are often one-trick ponies; while a cleric or wizard or druid has tenths of very different actions to chose from, and gets more and more for every level, the fighter mostly just gets bigger bonuses to attacks. If he's below Int 13, he might go his whole life without a special attack other than possibly grapple due to being unable to take whirlwind attack, improved disarm, or anything like that.

IMO the fighter doesn't need higher stats, he needs cooler things to do.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Balance-wise? They're fine. Weapon Focus is +1 to attack with one particular weapon and it's practically never taken except as a prerequisite, so the attack one's fine. Fighters and other martial types have a big weakness in their touch AC, so the AC one's fine. DR isn't anywhere near too good until you get near the 10 mark, so the DR one's fine.

Usefulness-wise? There's no point. Fighters don't need bigger numbers. They have big numbers. They need build options, they need tactical options, and they need ways to counter or imitate powerful monster and spellcaster abilities.

 

[Ilja]

One interesting feat that I came up with now, sorry OP if it's a bit of topic, would be something like this:
Whenever you make an attack of opportunity, you may make a single attack with your off-hand attack as well.

(exact wording isn't my thing, especially not in english).

Only available to fighters, then, of course, since it's fighters who need some boost especially to dual-wielding which is quite weak for them right now.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

There's a feat similar to that already in existence. I forget what the name was, just look under the "feats that require Combat Reflexes" section of the feats pdf on Crystal Keep - D&D and d20 System

 

[Arkhandus]

No, they're not balanced.

And they really need more detail to be sure how they work and when they're available. But 11 or more copies of stackable DR 1/- would be rather powerful, and an extra +11 or so to attack rolls or AC would be too. Now, granted, the Fighter gives up an average of 1 hp/level and 2 sp/level (before considering the likely lower Intelligence of barbarians) compared to a Barbarian, but through WF, GWF, WS, GWS, MWM, RWM, and Supreme Weapon Mastery or whatever it was called (PHB2), a Fighter can already have nearly as much accuracy and damage output as a raging Barbarian ALL the time, without any temporary stuff like Rage needed. And the Fighter's many remaining feats beyond that would give him much more versatility in combat than the Barbarian.

That stuff considered (and excluding for a moment the Fighter's capacity to take Martial Study and Martial Stance from the Tome of Battle as bonus feats for added power/tricks in each encounter), Fighters are only slightly worse than Barbarians overall. They don't need a handful of multiple-selection pseudo-Epic feats to bring them in line (your Attack! feat, frex, is basically Epic Prowess without the Epic-level requirement).

Now, say, if Attack! required Greater Weapon Focus and maybe 4 or 5 points of BAB per copy of Attack! acquired, thus limiting it slightly in how often it could be taken, it might be alright. If Defense! specified what kind of AC bonus it grants (I assume a dodge bonus?), required Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, 3 or 4 points of BAB per copy of Defense! taken, and say 8+ levels of Fighter, it might be okay. If Stand Your Ground! required Toughness and maybe 2+ levels of Fighter, and could only be taken once per 2 points of BAB possessed, then it might be fine. If Battle-Hardened required Die Hard, Great Fortitude, Toughness, Endurance, 4 or 5 points of BAB per copy of Battle-Hardened taken, and say 6+ levels of Fighter, it might be okay. You might even change these BAB requirements to that many levels of Fighter needed per copy of the feat.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

Thanks for the excellent feedback!

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

No, they're not balanced.

And they really need more detail to be sure how they work and when they're available. But 11 or more copies of stackable DR 1/- would be rather powerful, and an extra +11 or so to attack rolls or AC would be too. Now, granted, the Fighter gives up an average of 1 hp/level and 2 sp/level (before considering the likely lower Intelligence of barbarians) compared to a Barbarian, but through WF, GWF, WS, GWS, MWM, RWM, and Supreme Weapon Mastery or whatever it was called (PHB2), a Fighter can already have nearly as much accuracy and damage output as a raging Barbarian ALL the time, without any temporary stuff like Rage needed. And the Fighter's many remaining feats beyond that would give him much more versatility in combat than the Barbarian.

That stuff considered (and excluding for a moment the Fighter's capacity to take Martial Study and Martial Stance from the Tome of Battle as bonus feats for added power/tricks in each encounter), Fighters are only slightly worse than Barbarians overall. They don't need a handful of multiple-selection pseudo-Epic feats to bring them in line (your Attack! feat, frex, is basically Epic Prowess without the Epic-level requirement).

Now, say, if Attack! required Greater Weapon Focus and maybe 4 or 5 points of BAB per copy of Attack! acquired, thus limiting it slightly in how often it could be taken, it might be alright. If Defense! specified what kind of AC bonus it grants (I assume a dodge bonus?), required Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, 3 or 4 points of BAB per copy of Defense! taken, and say 8+ levels of Fighter, it might be okay. If Stand Your Ground! required Toughness and maybe 2+ levels of Fighter, and could only be taken once per 2 points of BAB possessed, then it might be fine. If Battle-Hardened required Die Hard, Great Fortitude, Toughness, Endurance, 4 or 5 points of BAB per copy of Battle-Hardened taken, and say 6+ levels of Fighter, it might be okay. You might even change these BAB requirements to that many levels of Fighter needed per copy of the feat.

This mentality, I think, is part of the imbalance between casters and martial types. For the fighter to add +1 to his attack rolls, you're suggesting he should have to be at least 4th level and pick up 2 feats that are mostly useless except for meeting prerequisites. For the fighter to add +1 to his AC, you're suggesting he should have to be at least 8th level and pick up 3 feats that are widely regarded as underpowered. For the fighter to add DR 1/--, you're suggesting he should have to be at least 6th level and pick up 4 feats, only one of which does anything more than add another minor plus here and there.

Yet casters get feats like Fiery Burst, which lets them, starting at 3rd level, deal more damage with a single touch attack than a charging barbarian can manage? Feats like Quicken Spell, which lets them cast spells twice per round, many of which can deal more damage than the fighter anyway?

Yes, +10 to attacks or AC or DR 10/-- seems like "too much" on the face of hit. However, if a fighter spends all his feats on those, what is he? He's a warrior (an NPC class!) with an extra +10 to attack or AC or DR 10/--, no more, no less. He has no combat options, he can't tank, he can't pull off combat maneuvers, he can't do anything that a fighter without these feats could do! Sure, he could probably take Power Attack and 9 Attack feats to get an extra 18 damage with a greatsword...but a warlock, a caster class that's essentially a glorified archer, has been able to match and exceed for at least a handful levels now before picking up any items or feats to increase his damage output, and the warlock can do it with a touch attack.

Yes, these feats are better than some existing fighter feats. Those existing fighter feats suck. Dodge: +1 to AC (lost when flat-footed) against one opponent. Weapon Focus: +1 to attack with one weapon. Compared to feats like Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip? No, they're not too good by any stretch, yet no one complains that Power Attack or Combat Reflexes or Improved Trip should require a few levels and 2-4 feats to pick up.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wow, just...wow... You really think it's ok for a Fighter to get DR 10/--? You don't care that would completely outshine the barbarian's previously unique class feature? Or the general agreeable statement that fighters don't usually need help surviving or dishing out damage in combat? We both agree Fighter is weak, but dang do we approach it different ways. I gave Fighters some ToB goodies for flexibility (as well as weapon aptitude), some unique abilities (depending on the kit, DR breaking, roguish stuff, or a good mount), more skill points and skills, etc... You seem to just want to tack on some more bonuses. Ugh.

Yet casters get feats like Fiery Burst, which lets them, starting at 3rd level, deal more damage with a single touch attack than a charging barbarian can manage? Feats like Quicken Spell, which lets them cast spells twice per round, many of which can deal more damage than the fighter anyway?

1.) Fiery burst is a 30 ft ranged, 5 ft radius burst with a reflex save for half
2.) 2d6 (at level 3) is more than a charging barbarian can do? REALLY? Even the max of 9d6 at...17-18th level(!) isn't that much. A charging, RAGING barbarian, we'll give him str 22 because he's probably a half-orc, wood elf, etc... Wielding a great sword. Hitting easily and thus full Power Attacking. I'll leave Leap Attack out for now. 2d6 +9 str bonus +6 PA. At level 3. Without factoring in any other likely bonus damage sources, like a +1 weapon or bardic music. Average of 22 damage. Fiery burst? 7. At level 17-18? Still only 31.5 fire damage on average.
3.) Quicken Spell costs 4 spell levels. That means a CL 9 Wizard is using it to launch...magic missile. At CL 13, he can start using quickened fireball. SO worth that level 7 slot! Quicken Spell isn't usually used for offense. It's much more efficient ot put up buff spells.

I have never, NEVER seen a barbarian or fighter unable to match or exceed an equally twinked out Evoker/Warmage for damage. Direct damage is, in fact, widely considered one of the weakest ways to use your spellcasting. (I disagree, since it's at least easy to "synergize" your damage dealing with that of the party, but that's another topic)