Creamsteak
Explorer
See attached word-document for proper formatting. This is the current revision, up to level 10 has been fully detailed.
Last edited:
The Warrior (Variant Fighter)
- Thread starter Creamsteak
- Start date
Looks pretty good, although what is the intent for the class? To replace the standard NPC Warrior class? If so it's pretty good. If it is to replace the fighter I'd rather just use the standard fighter, it allows for much better versatility.
Other Path ideas: unarmed (improved unarmed striked, improved disarm, snatch weapon, stunning fist), flexible weapons (spiked chain, whip) (combat reflexes, etc. etc.)
Polearms: why improved overrun? Improved disarm or large and in charge would seem more appropriate.
Mace and Club path seems pretty low-key compared to some others.
The Picks & Hammers path looks pretty out of place for the type of weapons, only one of them can be thrown properly, and two feats, three if you count quick draw are geared towards throwing them. I'd rather see feats for penetration and hard-hitting power, picks and hammers. Chink in the Armor would be a good feat for these I think.
Other Path ideas: unarmed (improved unarmed striked, improved disarm, snatch weapon, stunning fist), flexible weapons (spiked chain, whip) (combat reflexes, etc. etc.)
Polearms: why improved overrun? Improved disarm or large and in charge would seem more appropriate.
Mace and Club path seems pretty low-key compared to some others.
The Picks & Hammers path looks pretty out of place for the type of weapons, only one of them can be thrown properly, and two feats, three if you count quick draw are geared towards throwing them. I'd rather see feats for penetration and hard-hitting power, picks and hammers. Chink in the Armor would be a good feat for these I think.
Creamsteak
Explorer
It's an attempt at a variant class that is meant to be "about equal to a fighter." I was considering pumping up the feat chains a bit, for instance upping the power of the 4th part of the chain (2 weak feats or 1 very good feat or 1 good feat that you don't meet the prerequisites for).Ferrix said:
Any comments on that?
Hrm... if it wasn't for the system I'm working with, I'd consider this. With my current work though, I kind-of need to keep unarmed off. The other one is a possibility though.
Improved Disarm perhaps, but I can't use LaiC due to OGL/SRD requirements here.
I was considering adding toughness at each level if I upgrade the other feat chains a bit. It would be a total of +12 hit points, but I think it would work alright with the rest of the feats. How does that seem?
Your right, though I can't use "Chink in the Armor." What core feats do you think would make mroe sense.
Creamsteak
Explorer
No I can't, not for my purposes.DanMcS said:
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Creamsteak said:
It's not even close to the fighter, it's much weaker.
Creamsteak
Explorer
That's good, gives me some room to work with.CRGreathouse said:
Edit: Ok, now it might be too strong I think...
Last edited:
are psionics OGL? don't remember, if they are I could see deep impact as a cool feat for the pick/hammer path at it's peak... give it a limit to times/day or something... make me afraid of any guy wielding a scythe 
other suggestions: improved critical, weapon spec...
perhaps a shield path: improved shield bash, two-weapon fighting, improved bullrush, improved feint or mobility (only with shield)
suggestions for flexible weapons: weapon finesse, combat reflexes, improved trip, improved disarm or improved feint
the heavy blade path doesn't seem to really focus on versatility, rather it focuses on movement... i'd give it a spread of abilities, maybe power attack, combat expertise, combat reflexes and improved crit or something like that... makes it definately more versatile.
it's going to be hard to make them each individual while making each a worthwhile choice (and not just for role playing reasons) using only stuff from the SRD i think. is creating new feats a possibility?
also, just thought of this, you should list the club, dagger and quarterstaff in various weapon groups cause if anyone wants to make a fighter who uses a dagger rather than a punching dagger loses out on the group focus.
also, why only 10 levels? i'm assuming there is a good reason.
to balance with a fighter, i'd give weapon group focus at 1st level, something at second, and then on up... the problem with balancing with a fighter is the fighter has a ton of versatility in choosing feats and isn't restricted to a path he chooses at 1st level. reducing choices reduces their power i think, this is particular for core classes. there's no chance of change once someone choose their path, maybe you could integrate change
also you might consider granting a minor path, which provides the first two feats in another chain. this would give them a bit more punch over a fighter but they're still restricted to a smaller set.
you could do this
1st level: weapon group profs, weapon group focus
2nd: 1st major path
3rd: 1st minor path
4th: weapon group specialization
6th: 2nd major path
7th: 2nd minor path
8th: 3rd major path
10th: 4th major path
or you could put the group spec at 6th, 8th, or 10th and knock the others down correspondingly.
'nuff said for now... so what's this for creamsteak? and when's Heroes of Vesper Peaks gonna get an update ;-)
other suggestions: improved critical, weapon spec...perhaps a shield path: improved shield bash, two-weapon fighting, improved bullrush, improved feint or mobility (only with shield)
suggestions for flexible weapons: weapon finesse, combat reflexes, improved trip, improved disarm or improved feint
the heavy blade path doesn't seem to really focus on versatility, rather it focuses on movement... i'd give it a spread of abilities, maybe power attack, combat expertise, combat reflexes and improved crit or something like that... makes it definately more versatile.
it's going to be hard to make them each individual while making each a worthwhile choice (and not just for role playing reasons) using only stuff from the SRD i think. is creating new feats a possibility?
also, just thought of this, you should list the club, dagger and quarterstaff in various weapon groups cause if anyone wants to make a fighter who uses a dagger rather than a punching dagger loses out on the group focus.
also, why only 10 levels? i'm assuming there is a good reason.
to balance with a fighter, i'd give weapon group focus at 1st level, something at second, and then on up... the problem with balancing with a fighter is the fighter has a ton of versatility in choosing feats and isn't restricted to a path he chooses at 1st level. reducing choices reduces their power i think, this is particular for core classes. there's no chance of change once someone choose their path, maybe you could integrate change
also you might consider granting a minor path, which provides the first two feats in another chain. this would give them a bit more punch over a fighter but they're still restricted to a smaller set.
you could do this
1st level: weapon group profs, weapon group focus
2nd: 1st major path
3rd: 1st minor path
4th: weapon group specialization
6th: 2nd major path
7th: 2nd minor path
8th: 3rd major path
10th: 4th major path
or you could put the group spec at 6th, 8th, or 10th and knock the others down correspondingly.
'nuff said for now... so what's this for creamsteak? and when's Heroes of Vesper Peaks gonna get an update ;-)
Helpful? comments
I like some of the flavor of this class; a fighter with less versatility. That said, I can't really judge the balance completely without knowing about class skills and skill points.
If there are few changes skills-wise, however, there is a real tradeoff in versatility, and I don't know that there is enough power to match it. I think that the use of weapon groups is good, and hardly any characters would truly suffer for it.
Choosing a path is a bit more tricky. I like the idea, and most of the choices seem to be about the right power level. I don't know if you read the thread about changing the fighter to one bonus feat per level, but some people argue that. I don't, but I think that the hit in versatility justifies more powerful feats, and perhaps some at earlier than normal levels (like improved two-weapon fighting).
So, I think the balance is close, especially with more skills. A few choices are worse than others, though; even with the inclusion of toughness at each path level, the maces and clubs path seems weak. Diehard is good, but would anyone be willing to progress in the class to get Improved Bull Rush? I don't think so, but I don't know what to change it with.
Similarly, the spears and lances path seems a bit weak, though that might be because it is more campaign dependant than the other paths. A game with a good amount of mounted combat would make this a good path; otherwise, it would be too weak.
Of course, another big part of the balance of the class is its power in comparison to other classes. If the system has all new classes, and there is no standard fighter class, then it works. If you include a very versatile fighting class in addition to the warrior class, no one would ever take the warrior class. But I think that the fighter and warrior are comparable in power, with the fighter class weighing in a bit heavier because of versatility and number of feats.
I like some of the flavor of this class; a fighter with less versatility. That said, I can't really judge the balance completely without knowing about class skills and skill points.
If there are few changes skills-wise, however, there is a real tradeoff in versatility, and I don't know that there is enough power to match it. I think that the use of weapon groups is good, and hardly any characters would truly suffer for it.
Choosing a path is a bit more tricky. I like the idea, and most of the choices seem to be about the right power level. I don't know if you read the thread about changing the fighter to one bonus feat per level, but some people argue that. I don't, but I think that the hit in versatility justifies more powerful feats, and perhaps some at earlier than normal levels (like improved two-weapon fighting).
So, I think the balance is close, especially with more skills. A few choices are worse than others, though; even with the inclusion of toughness at each path level, the maces and clubs path seems weak. Diehard is good, but would anyone be willing to progress in the class to get Improved Bull Rush? I don't think so, but I don't know what to change it with.
Similarly, the spears and lances path seems a bit weak, though that might be because it is more campaign dependant than the other paths. A game with a good amount of mounted combat would make this a good path; otherwise, it would be too weak.
Of course, another big part of the balance of the class is its power in comparison to other classes. If the system has all new classes, and there is no standard fighter class, then it works. If you include a very versatile fighting class in addition to the warrior class, no one would ever take the warrior class. But I think that the fighter and warrior are comparable in power, with the fighter class weighing in a bit heavier because of versatility and number of feats.
Li Shenron
Legend
If I understand correctly, the Warrior gets Weapon Focus (one entire weapon group) at 2nd, and then gets 5 feats at level 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th but are these feats usable only with (1) the specific weapon group the feat chain is associated with, (2) any one weapon group of his choice or (3) every weapon he is proficient with?
In all these 3 cases, there is the disadvantage that you cannot use the feats with other weapons, and the advantage that you don't need to meet their prerequisite. I think it is overall still slightly less that a core Fighter (even if you could count Weapon Focus as more than a feat if it applies to more weapons) because of the reduced versatility, however it's very close to the core class.
But now I'll make 2 very important notes
(1) In general, I think it's ok to give bonus feats without requisites, except the BAB, which means that I would give the bonus feat exactly at the level when the required BAB is reached. For example, look at when you grant Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, at level 10th: your Warrior would be able to make 3 off-hands attacks before he would be able to make 3 attacks with his main weapon (even if he just used the main weapon). That doesn't sound neat to me.
(2) Again in general, I think it's not a good idea to give very basic feats as bonus feats unless you give them very early (at most at level 3rd) or unless you can take the feat more than once. Power Attack and Point Blank Shot for example, but also the majority of the feats you give as first or second in your chains, granted at level 4th or 6th are bad. Why? Because it gives the player two choices: either to wait until 4th level without a very basic feat, or to take it at 1st level and "waste" the bonus feat later.
Imagine your melee tank / archer who cannot take Power Attack / Point Blank Shot and all other feats which use them as requisite before he is 4th level...
Two solutions come to my mind:
- have the chain start at level 1, this way the tank / archer would get PA / PBS immediately
- remove the basic (popular ones with no prereqs) feats from the chains, so that the PC may or may not take them earlier (in any case, they aren't needed for the other chain feats)
In all these 3 cases, there is the disadvantage that you cannot use the feats with other weapons, and the advantage that you don't need to meet their prerequisite. I think it is overall still slightly less that a core Fighter (even if you could count Weapon Focus as more than a feat if it applies to more weapons) because of the reduced versatility, however it's very close to the core class.
But now I'll make 2 very important notes
(1) In general, I think it's ok to give bonus feats without requisites, except the BAB, which means that I would give the bonus feat exactly at the level when the required BAB is reached. For example, look at when you grant Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, at level 10th: your Warrior would be able to make 3 off-hands attacks before he would be able to make 3 attacks with his main weapon (even if he just used the main weapon). That doesn't sound neat to me.
(2) Again in general, I think it's not a good idea to give very basic feats as bonus feats unless you give them very early (at most at level 3rd) or unless you can take the feat more than once. Power Attack and Point Blank Shot for example, but also the majority of the feats you give as first or second in your chains, granted at level 4th or 6th are bad. Why? Because it gives the player two choices: either to wait until 4th level without a very basic feat, or to take it at 1st level and "waste" the bonus feat later.
Imagine your melee tank / archer who cannot take Power Attack / Point Blank Shot and all other feats which use them as requisite before he is 4th level...
Two solutions come to my mind:
- have the chain start at level 1, this way the tank / archer would get PA / PBS immediately
- remove the basic (popular ones with no prereqs) feats from the chains, so that the PC may or may not take them earlier (in any case, they aren't needed for the other chain feats)
Similar Threads
