Yet Another Variant: The Fighter...

[Flynn]

Question: Do other classes get an AC bonus like this, as with all D20 Modern classes?

Oh, yeah. Each class has one of the D20 Modern defense progressions, extended out to 25th level.

Hope that helps,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Regarding Skill Ranks:

Question: What happens then if someone grows up a peasant farmer, then gets conscripted into the military by his local Lord, and over time becomes a military regular, a professional soldier? Or when a rogue gives up his wicked ways and joins a respectable wizard's academy to put his wits to good use? Or when a middle-aged samurai retires to life in a monastery, practicing martial arts and scholarly pursuits? Or any other time when an individual changes his/her path in life and tries to pursue a different trade/whatever?

The background concepts sound cool. Choose your skills to meet your background concept. If you want more skill points, take another class.

Regarding Starting Features:

Another question: does Shield Proficiency in your campaign include tower shields? And if not, has the Tower Shield Proficiency feat been added to your Fighter's bonus feat list? Cuz if anyone should be able to learn to use a tower shield without having to waste one of their precious few normal feat slots, it would be Fighters.

Tower Shield Proficiency is a Fighter bonus feat, and you can take that as your Fighter bonus feat that is granted to you as part of your Starting Features.

Regarding Bodyguard:

This needs clarification. Must they declare use at the time they learn their ally is stricken, or can it be after they learn how much damage their ally would have taken (and thus, whether or not it would've killed or KO'd the ally)? Your wording in the beginning and middle parts of the description are kinda contradictory and thus leave it uncertain.

The intent is to declare your intention to use it when you know your ally has been hit, but before you know what the damage and such are. I'll try to clarify that. Any suggestions on wording would be greatly appreciated.

Regarding Canny Defense:

I would at least add a restriction that this War Talent does not stack with any other class' abilities by the same name. Ergo, if a Fighter multiclasses into Duelist later, they would use whichever Canny Defense ability granted the higher bonus, rather than stacking them.

There will be no prestige classes in my game (as prestige classes are an optional rule according to the DMG and I dislike their rampant proliferation), hence the integration of this ability into the Fighter. I will consider adding this point, though, in case another class ends up with this talent as well.

Regarding Canny Defense:

Since you're using D20 Modern's class defense bonus, you should recognize the fact that getting to stack lots of AC bonuses together is a Bad Thing when several of those can be quite high (like your Fighter's class defense bonus). D20 Modern itself has far fewer sources of AC/Defense than D&D 3E does (even if using FX in the game, they have a smaller range of FX items and smaller bonuses on some stuff).

Yes. I have a house rule that says that the Max Dex Bonus on your armor limits your class bonus as well. Beyond that, this is not much different than having a duelist in a regular game, and I've dealt with high AC bonuses before.

Regarding Extreme Effort:

I'd limit this to 5 copies at maximum, or 3 copies like in D20 Modern. Regdar the upper-level human Fighter probably shouldn't be bending/snapping adamantine jail cell bars with his bare hands, however unlikely it is that anyone would find a lot of good uses for such inhuman Strength checks. Though, if you limit it to 3 copies, it might be balanced with a +3 bonus per copy instead of +2, given its limited usefulness most of the time.

I am considering a limitation of 5 copies on all talents, per your suggestion.

Regarding Ignore Hardness:

Similarly, this should be limited to maybe 5 copies at maximum, or perhaps 3 copies. 10 copies would allow a Fighter to chop adamantine objects in half pretty easily, while 5 copies would still be a large boon to those who like to break things but wouldn't necessarily be too powerful.

See above.

Regarding Improved Carrying Capacity:

I would make it an effective +3 Strength for carrying capacities instead of +2. Also, I think you need to note whether or not this affects pushing/pulling capacities. And again limit it to 5 copies, cuz it would be wierd for a high-level but low-strength (archery and weapon finesse oriented) Halfling Fighter to be lugging around dead ogres on his back.

Carrying capacity is carrying capacity. All other rules fall in line as appropriate to carrying capacity. Note that small creatures have a lower carrying capacity than medium creatures. If a halfling fighter wants to carry around an ogre on his back, then I'm sure it'll be for an interesting in-game reason.

Regarding Improved Reactions:

Waaaaaay too good. Initiative can be quite important for multiclassed rogue-types and caster-types, as well as any kind of high-level character. Limit this to 3 copies at most, and add a prerequisite of, like, 4 Fighter levels per copy (so 4th-level minimum to gain 1 copy, 8th minimum to gain a 2nd copy, and 12th minimum to gain a 3rd copy). This is better than the Duelist prestige class' ability, and 10 copies for +20 Initiative would be scary, especially with Improved Initiative and good Dexterity. Heck, 5 copies with a multiclassed Fighter 9/Rogue 11 could be sick.

And going first is bad, how? Yeah, the Rogue gets an attack with sneak attack damage (if he takes that talent), and all classes get to attack a flat-footed target, but really, in a game where there are no iterative attacks, the impact is limited, and my players roll for crap on initiative anyway. The broad range of the d20 lets this make up for very poor rolls. At some point, it becomes self-defeating to continue to invest in this talent. However, I am considering the 5 copy limit, as I've mentioned above.

Regarding Magicbane:

This ability essentially makes the other few save-increasing War Talents comparatively sucky and worthless for a while (and far less cost efficient).

Note that this is a one time thing, and I use diversified encounters, so more than half the saves are not against spells and spell-like effects. It's the dwarven ability by a different name, and so you may consider it impacts the game as often as the dwarves' ability does.

Regarding Magicbane:

This is effectively the same as giving them Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes all at once, except that it stacks with those feats and there are just a few things it won't apply against. Generally just some poisons (works against the Poison spell though), some diseases (works against the Contagion spell though), and Stunning Fist, plus maybe the occasional minor thing.

If I didn't know any better, I'd dare suggest that you're saying Dwarves are broken, too. I see your point, but it has not been my experience that it is as all consuming as you have presented it here. Dwarves aren't unbalanced in my games, and so I suspect that this will not unbalance my game as well. Now, if I were stupid and let them take it more than once...

Which does bring up the question of whether this stacks with the dwarven ability of similar effect. I'm inclined to say yes, it does. It's a concept, and I have more than one way to impact someone who is resistant to spells.

Regarding Magicbane:

Reduce the bonus to +1.

No, but thanks for the suggestion. It's more consistent with other rules (such as the dwarven ability) to keep it at +2. If I were allowing multiple copies of it, then I agree with your suggestion.

Regarding Men-At-Arms:

I'm not sure there's any way to make this balanced. So essentially it's like the Leadership feat, but stacks with that feat, and is much more vague, mentions no limits or possible difficulties in raising such a force, has no limits on how many such fighting forces he or she can gather and keep around, says nothing about what kind of a fighting force this is (warriors, fighters, whatever; 1st-level folks, 5th-level folks, a mix of stuff; same race, different races, same alignment, mixed alignments, same cause/affiliation, different causes/affiliations, allied lands, enemies' lands, etc.), and is basically just terribly vague and open to both rampant abuse and harsh adjudication.

Part of the problem may be that you didn't know that I don't use the Leadership feat. No problem. Also, I use a Mass Combat system for large battles that uses the EL of each force, so this is consistent with that Mass Combat system. (Yay, Grim Tales!)

Regarding Men-At-Arms:

I'm not even sure there's any reason for this ability to be there. Why not just add Leadership to the list of Fighter bonus feat options if you want them to be capable of gathering a force of allied warriors?

Because I don't like automatic cohorts (they slow down the game), and this lines up with the Mass Combat system I like to use.

Regarding Mettle:

I would raise the prerequisite to 9th-level Fighter or so. Depends a little bit on whether or not you change the description to also apply against effects that allow a Fortitude save to negate. If not, then it may be fine at 5th-level Fighter as a prerequisite.

This turns a "Fortitude partial" into a "Fortitude negates", so there's no reason to add any commentary on Fortitude saves to negate.

Regarding Mettle:

I noticed some other strange differences in your version of Mettle. It says it applies only against stuff with a Fortitude save for partial damage or effect. Normally, Mettle applies against stuff that allows a Fortitude save or a Will save for partial effect or no effect. I'm not sure if this is intentional on your part or not (it does seem intentional that you left out Will saves, but I'm not sure about the rest).

Some versions of Mettle apply to both Fort and Will. This one only applies to Fort saves. If you look around, you should find different versions under different prestige classes, which is another reason I don't like the inconsistency of prestige classes.

Regarding Melee Smash:

Limit this like in D20 Modern. 3 or 5 copies at maximum. Also, should probably be limited to affecting melee damage with weapons, unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and grapple checks (so as not to affect stuff like Shocking Grasp from a multiclassed fellow, which would be kinda wierd when you can't hit stuff harder when you're just tapping them with an electrified finger).

I am considering the five copy limit on individual talents.

Regarding Shield Guardian:

This may or may not be too strong, depending on what kinda action points you're using (frex, D20 Modern's action point rules/allotment are different from Eberron's and others, for instance). I dunno, may be alright even if you get a bundle of AP each level, maybe.

I use the one-skull variant of Grim Tales' action points, which renew each session. Note that APs are the only way to confirm a critical hit, activate certain abilities and gain extra attacks. It works very well in practice, and is quite balanced for this type of action. I should add a note in here that the Fighter loses the shield bonus that he grants another when he uses this ability. I'm still thinking about that, though.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[ValhallaGH]

That is a false statement, I'm afraid.

No it's not. If a game mechanic is broken then it's always broken. If it's not broken then it's not broken. This "conditional brokenness" you're implying simply doesn't exist. It's founded on the assumption that certain mechanics cease being broken because at a certain level the entire game is broken. That's a flaw in the game, not an excuse to save certain mechanics for higher levels.

I've played in games, and run games, where a character could spend a single feat to get as much as +5 to his AC with no penalty. At first level.
It's powerful but not broken. Not everyone did it, because of the opportunity cost, and that bonus could be negated (note that this talent provides a dodge bonus, and is therefore easily negated).

The higher level you get, the more disproportionately high attack bonuses are compared to most folks' Armor Class.

As for your other point: You can't take Weapon Focus 5 times, and it's more limited (only works with one weapon each time), so the AC bonus is already broader and more potent than the attack bonus you could get from feats or something. At 9th-level a +5 AC is pretty handy, though considering what you give up (armor and shield) it's not that good; but that's what high Dexterity, Bracers of Armor (or an ally's Mage Armor spell), and stuff are for.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First, large AC boosts are are okay at high levels because attacks outstrip defenses pretty rapidly. Then you imply that the attacks won't outstrip the defenses. Which is it?

Note: I'm being completely serious and literal here. If it seems that I've offered some sort of offense, that was not my intention and I hope you can put it aside so that we may continue this discussion.

 

[Flynn]

As for your other point: You can't take Weapon Focus 5 times, and it's more limited (only works with one weapon each time), so the AC bonus is already broader and more potent than the attack bonus you could get from feats or something. At 9th-level a +5 AC is pretty handy, though considering what you give up (armor and shield) it's not that good; but that's what high Dexterity, Bracers of Armor (or an ally's Mage Armor spell), and stuff are for.

Then what about Duelists and other prestige classes that grant AC bonuses? Are they broken, too? I think that experience has already shown that while these classes might be abused by someone with a higher DEX, they are still perfectly valid, or the Canny Defense ability of Duelists would have been pulled away with the transition from 3E to v3.5. There is nothing in the AC-boosting class ability write-ups of pre-existing classes and prestige classes that indicates that you can't have high DEX, Bracers of Armor, etc. Even the monk is only restricted to not wearing armor or using shields, and has all the rest available to boost AC.

Just a thought,
Flynn

 

[The Souljourner]

Starting Features
In addition to the two feats all characters get at 1st character level (one feat if non-human), a Fighter begins play with four (4) Weapon Group Proficiency feats, Armor Proficiency (light, medium and heavy), Shield Proficiency and one Fighter bonus feat.

Note On Multiclassing: A character that chooses Fighter as a multiclass after first character level does not receive these starting features.

Why why why? Why do people do this? It was a ridiculous rule in Star Wars (the only game I've played that had something similar... my guess is that it's a d20 modern-ism), and it's a ridiculous rule in D&D. You're telling me that a sorcerer 1/fighter 1 (in order) is going to have no armor proficiencies, only simple weapon proficiencies, and no shield proficiency, but a fighter 1/sorcerer 1 (in order) will have all that? That's terrible.

D&D tries hard to prevent the order in which you take classes from making any difference. You should be able to look at a 10th level character and know if it's legal or not regardless of order of classes. Skill points are the only artifact that doesn't follow this pattern, and I think that's a glaring error of the system.... certainly not something to try to artificially emulate.

It won't stop people from dipping into the class, it'll just force them to dip at first level. Only classes with 6 or more skill points per level will be hurt by taking fighter at first level instead of later, and the huge difference in proficiencies will still make it a no-brainer.

Also, it looks like you're making the 1st level fighter feat dependent on that as well (though the table doesn't list the fighter as getting a feat at 1st level).

Other than that.... I really like it. I agree with everyone else that you need to be careful about balancing these abilities with feats and each other... but I don't think you can always directly compare with existing feats. There's a huge expanse of power level in feats, from endurance and run up through natural spell and power attack... so I wouldn't say "it's better than dodge" or "it's not as good as x" necessarily means anything.

-Nate

 

[Arkhandus]

Maybe you forgot about the context of this class with the nice automatic AC bonus? I wasn't commenting on the extra AC bonuses in a vacuum, y'know. And for reference, there are ways to break AC, though AC usually gets the short end of the stick; being able to accumulate and stack too many significant bonuses can become broken, and that's why the designers try to limit it by preventing too much stacking; they don't quite succeed, since people still find ways to break the system, but the limits work for most folks as intended.

Flynn: I was pointing out that the benefit is greater than a feat at lower levels. I never said anything about AC bonuses being bad or broken and I don't know where such an inference would be gleaned from.

Valhalla: I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to broken game mechanics. What are you referring to? I was just saying that a large bonus, like +5 (which is pretty large at low levels), is more significant at lower levels than at upper levels.

And I don't see why someone wouldn't want to be virtually unhittable for the first several levels, Valhalla. +5 AC at 1st-level would be huge. Depending on class and skills (monkish AC bonuses or armor or spells or whatever), it could get you a nearly-unhittable AC for your first several levels, where enemies don't tend to have big attack bonuses. I sure wouldn't pass up an opportunity to make my low-level weakling much more survivable.

And +5 AC is still a nice boost at upper levels, though less valuable because it's at the upper levels where attack bonuses start to totally outstrip AC bonuses in most cases. A low-level fighter or monk who's really tough to hit could probably take on an ogre by himself, since the ogre might have only a 5 or 10% chance of hitting him.

I was trying to point out that a large AC bonus is more useful at low levels than at upper levels, and thus more valuable if gained at lower levels, because AC actually matters at lower levels (while at upper levels its as likely as not to just be a speedbump for Power Attacking giants, dragons, and whatnot).


(for reference: I mean no offense, but I am blunt. I am critical and analytical by nature. But whatever, I'm ducking out after this post. It doesn't look like any of my reasoning is going to get through or make sense to you, and I'm probably being mistaken for a jerk anyway.)

 

[Bagpuss]

Men-At-Arms: The Fighter can raise a group of fighting men (and women) from the surrounding area. To do so, the Fighter must spend 2d4 days doing nothing but spreading the word in the local region and rallying interest. On the morning following his efforts, the Fighter will have gathered together a fighting force of an Encounter Level (EL) equal to his Fighter class level plus his Charisma bonus. The Fighter is responsible for food and supplies for these men, and they will follow him so long as they are treated well. Prerequisite: 7th level Fighter.

Erm is it me or does this seem much better than Leadership. If you have a half decent Charisma (and if you take this talent you can be sure they will have a decent Charisma).

Leadership restricts you cohort to your level-2, so a 8th level Fighter with Cha 14 would have a 6th level Cohort, and 5 1st level followers.

With this a Cha 14 an 8th level Fighter character would have a fighting force of EL Level+2, so EL 10, he could effectively have four CR 6 allies, or one CR 10 one or six CR 5, etc.

If he had focused more on Cha he could easily field a force of allies of higher level than the rest of the party put together.

 

[Flynn]

Erm is it me or does this seem much better than Leadership. If you have a half decent Charisma (and if you take this talent you can be sure they will have a decent Charisma).

Leadership restricts you cohort to your level-2, so a 8th level Fighter with Cha 14 would have a 6th level Cohort, and 5 1st level followers.

With this a Cha 14 an 8th level Fighter character would have a fighting force of EL Level+2, so EL 10, he could effectively have four CR 6 allies, or one CR 10 one or six CR 5, etc.

If he had focused more on Cha he could easily field a force of allies of higher level than the rest of the party put together.

The Mass Combat system that I use simply defines each side in a mass combat as a force with one stat: EL. As I get to choose who and what shows up, the description of the force is my choice as GM. However, it doesn't matter, since only the EL is used in the Mass Combat system, and as the GM, I won't bring in people more powerful than the PCs.

Grim Tales: Mass Combat (please, read the description to get an idea of where I'm coming from)
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4037&

Okay, I could simply calculate the EL of each level of Leadership, and look for the pattern, if any. Most likely, it would be the same formula above, minus some number. If that would be preferable for balance purposes with a feat I'm not using in the campaign anyway, I can try that.

With Regards,
Flynn