(Yet another) Try at fixing the Fighter

Just a quickie on the heavy/light armor problem: To give characters the option of going light-armor right from the beginning, maybe do the following:
Instead of giving proficiency in light/medium/heavy, give proficiency in light only, and then the character gets to choose between medium + heavy armor proficiency, or Dash as well as Tumble and Balance as class skills. Might even consider Move Silently and Hide as class skills too, they kind of fit the theme of for example the elven warrior, hiding in the treetops (or even more, the drow warrior).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Instead of giving proficiency in light/medium/heavy, give proficiency in light only, and then the character gets to choose between medium + heavy armor proficiency, or Dash as well as Tumble and Balance as class skills. Might even consider Move Silently and Hide as class skills too, they kind of fit the theme of for example the elven warrior, hiding in the treetops (or even more, the drow warrior).

You do this kind of thing by having a drawback/advantage system.

You have a drawback like 'limited background' that forces a fighter (for example) to forfiet say medium and heavy armor proficiency not only from his starting class, but from any class that they ever take (so that you can't cheat the drawback by multiclassing) and then taking that disadvantage lets you buy and advantage like 'unusual background' that adds three class skill of your choice to your starting class's list of class skills.
 

You do this kind of thing by having a drawback/advantage system.

You have a drawback like 'limited background' that forces a fighter (for example) to forfiet say medium and heavy armor proficiency not only from his starting class, but from any class that they ever take (so that you can't cheat the drawback by multiclassing) and then taking that disadvantage lets you buy and advantage like 'unusual background' that adds three class skill of your choice to your starting class's list of class skills.


Well, the PHB already provides an example of the fighter with the ability to trade out armor and weapon proficiency for 2 extra skill points per level and additional class skills.

And, while I, personally, don't allow multiclassing to grant armor or weapon proficiencies (unless the character spends a class bonus feat for a single category of armor or weapons ), if one is going to limit the fighter from gaining armor proficiencies from multiclassing, it should apply to all classes not just the fighter.
 

You could always go the Ranger / Monk way. Sure, add some class skills and skill points, but also add some extra manoeuvrability / other bonuses. Then, simply restrict that 'other stuff' to when the variant Fighter is wearing light (or no) armour. Sidesteps that godawful multiclassing problem, that really is a [fiendish?] bugbear of 3e in general, IMO.
 

Well, the PHB already provides an example of the fighter with the ability to trade out armor and weapon proficiency for 2 extra skill points per level and additional class skills.

In practice though, there is alot of difference between providing an example of 'Rule 0' in action, and providing a systematic way of customizing a character.

And, while I, personally, don't allow multiclassing to grant armor or weapon proficiencies (unless the character spends a class bonus feat for a single category of armor or weapons ), if one is going to limit the fighter from gaining armor proficiencies from multiclassing, it should apply to all classes not just the fighter.

You completely misunderstand. I'm not suggesting limiting the fighter from gaining armor proficiencies from multiclassing, which to begin with deprived of context makes no since, nor am I suggesting something which applies only to fighters. A proper 'Limited Background' disadvantage would list what you are giving up for each class, I'm only suggesting that the obvious thing that a fighter looses from its class advantages be part of the long list of armor proficiencies.
 

I think the Ranger/Monk idea that Aus had might be the easiest and best to incorporate. Simply give the fighter a couple of feats that can only be used in light or no armor. Dodge, Dash, Combat Expertise, Skill Focus (Tumble) and a few others are potential options.
 

I felt Iron Heroes introduced a very elegant (at least at low levels) and interesting spell casting system, but that ultimately it decided to solve the problem by making everyone (well, almost everyone) spell casters. In that, along with Bo9S, it was very much to me a preview of 4e, although really, ...

I see this argument regarding Bo9S and 4e very often. But can you explain why you think Iron Heroes took the 'making everyone spell casters' approach?

And what is this 'being like spell casters' for you? Having an ability to do something once/ encounter or day? Or is it something else?
 

I see this argument regarding Bo9S and 4e very often. But can you explain why you think Iron Heroes took the 'making everyone spell casters' approach?

Traditionally one of the big disadvantages fighter types have faced compared to spell-casters, is that however formidable the fighter was at doing damage, it faced the serious drawback of not having a tool chest of abilities with which to deal with obstacles. By contrast, the spell-casters ability to break the laws of reality allowed them to overcome whatever obstacle they faced. This is one of the most serious design challenges you face when designing a fantasy game. On the one hand, you want to offer the player of a spell-casting character the oppurtunity to fly, turn invisible, summon creatures, conjure items, manipulate things with their mind, and all the other fun stuff. But on the other hand, you don't want to have the spell caster completely outshine the player whose character concept isn't 'Wizard' or the equivalent.

One way to handle this is give fighter types a toolchest of reality bending abilities of their own. In some cases, you give a mundane explanation for the reality bending, but in general you can tell that this approach has been adopted when the mundane explanation for something becomes far less important than achieving the result.

In other words, one approach to designing fighters might be, 'Imagine all the things that Batman (theoretically a mundane individual) might still be able to do without a utility belt, and then provide the rules to allow those mundane (but superheroic actions)' In this approach, what's important is that you can rationalize the ability, and having rationalized it, in theory anyone - including a wizard - can attempt these 'feats' albiet probably without the chance of success a super fighter would have. The contrary approach is, 'Imagine all the things that a fighter needs to do to be competitive with our wizard design, and then provide them as fighter abilities even if we cannot think of a satisfactory explanation for them'

It's quite easy to tell which design approach dominated over the other in 4e, Iron Heroes, and Bo9S. As a glaring example, consider the Hunter's ability to create a ladder by quickly shooting arrows into a wall. This is an ability restricted only in that it is restricted to the Hunter. Why can't anyone reasonably accurate and quick with a bow do it? Why is it a class feature at all? Why doesn't it matter very very much how hard the wall is? Or similarly, the Hunter gains the ability to cause an opponent to trip which specifically works regardless of the terrain involved or the foe. Why does this work? Because this isn't actually a mundane ability, but a 'spell' in a slightly different form.

And what is this 'being like spell casters' for you? Having an ability to do something once/ encounter or day? Or is it something else?

It's a combination of things some of which is perception based on my play background (mostly D&D for fantasy games) and some of which is based on the above.

Being like a spellcaster means to me:

1) You have one or more abilities that specifically grants you exemption from reality. You don't have to justify the reasonableness of what you do to the DM, because it says in the ability what you can do.
2) You have limited resources, generally constrained by time. You can't use your ability however you like, and instead the game constrains you to only use it so often with your ability recovering over time. Whether this ability is constrained by mana, fatigue, spell points, tokens, or direct limits per time interval depends on the system, but they all basically force you into resource management with your abilities.

You could also design a wizard to work like a fighter class by constraining the wizard such that it has class abilities which don't do much more than damage or similar combat based effects, and then you allow the ability to be used at will. At that point, the fact that the damage is coming from bolts from a wand or arrows or thrusts from a spear is little more than setting dressing.

4e in my opinion did both. Fighter classes got alot more like spell casters. Spell casting classes got alot more like fighters.
 

Thanks for the explanation. I can see your points, but I'm still more a gamist than a realist, so I didn't saw them as a problem.

Happy gaming.
 

I agree completely with Celebrim in his analysis.

IMO Most of the problem could be solved by allowing fighters access to more, and at higher level, far better feats.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top