|
5 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 10:58PM
#831
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
DemoMonkey had what appears to be a good answer to iving fighter better exploration qualities: let them add an extra skill die whenever making a Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity check. This would probably make fighters the masters of improvised ability checks in exploration, while rogues are the masters of ability checks when using their skill tricks.
The Faction idea above could then be focused on socialization.
Faction: In order to become a fighter, one generally either needs an incredible amount of self-determination and drive, or the assistance of a faction, representing a tutor. Choose from amongst the following Factions:
Self-Reliant: Your supreme self-confidence helps you through many situations. You add an additional skill die to Charisma checks that do not involve deception or stealth.
Shadow League: You were taught by a cabal of warriors who manipulate events from the shadows. Add an additional skill die to Charisma checks involving deception or stealth.
Military Order: You were taught by a strict military order that required stoic self-discipline. Add an additional skill die to any ability checks used to resist temptation, influence, or trickery.
Elite Academy: You were taught by the best of the best and can move effortlessly through their circles. Add an additional skill die to any mental ability check involving the upper class of society.
Guardians of Vigil: You were taught by an elite group dedicated to finding and rooting out threats to civiliation. Add and additional skill die to Intelligence or Wisdom checks involving perception, investigations or discovering duplicity.
Warrior-Scholars: You were taught by a group of martial philosophers who believes a broad education best prepares you for trouble. Add an additional skill die to any mental ability check required to recall or to gather relevant pieces of information.
Street Rat: You were taught the deadly use of weapons by a guild of thugs. Add a skill die to any mental ability check involving interaction with the lower classes.
Caravaner: Your family of merchants saw your talent with weapons and scrounged enough money to get you apprenticed to a variety of merchant caravans. Add a skill die to any mental ability check involving barter or when dealing with the middle class.
Thought I would bump this idea... in part because one of the elements of each of the 1e subclasses of fighters (Paladins/Rangers) featured a backing organization ... the other part they both featured was a favored enemy. The backing organizations of knights in history provided them with that armor that is too expensive for fantasy.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 11:03PM
#832
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
So - what about these?
Carl
Can I get the base effect of one for free then use a die to get the base effect of one of the others to combine with it. In other words do they mix?
It depends on the maneuver. Some yes, some no. Mostly no by default. And I wasn't as careful about being clear which you can and which you cannot.
On the other hand, maybe yes? Some clearly ought to be 'as an action' - which means you cannot combine them. Some (like Prone shot) I can see as 'always on'.
Off the top of my head - I'd probably shoot for something like: No, most of them are designed to stand alone - however at some level you gain the ability to use more than one maneuver on a single action. But I haven't given a lot of thought yet to that aspect (the above suggestions were just off the top of my head in response to the earlier post.)
It is possible that I might go for a more formulaic approach if I thought about it more... Perhaps each style has one 'always on' maneuver, one 'weapon specific maneuver' and then three 'as an action maneuvers' - with the ability to gain the benefits from any two maneuvers at L6, three maneuvers at L12 and four maneuvers at L18 (or some such).
Carl
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 11:06PM
#833
|
|
|
I think each Fighting Style should contain:
1: A maneuver exclusive to the style.
2: A bonus skill (or two?).
3: A scaling out-of combat ability unique to the style.
4: An attribute against which tests by characters with the Style gain advantage.
The skills and abilities could be specific to the style, which fixes the "don't mess with my flavour" problem.
And Fighting Styles can be optional, with the chance to do a freeform build which doesn't have the fixed elements but misses out on the bonus abilities.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 11:15PM
#834
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I think each Fighting Style should contain:
1: A maneuver exclusive to the style.
2: A bonus skill (or two?).
3: A scaling out-of combat ability unique to the style.
4: An attribute against which tests by characters with the Style gain advantage.
The skills and abilities could be specific to the style, which fixes the "don't mess with my flavour" problem.
And Fighting Styles can be optional, with the chance to do a freeform build which doesn't have the fixed elements but misses out on the bonus abilities.
I assume this is the L1 benefits - with more maneuvers gained later.
Other than that - I agree with numbers 1 to 3. I think that 4 is goes too far. No one else gets advantage all the time on checks with a single attribute. If you wanted to add a skill die to all checks with one die - maybe. But even then I'd see this as an alternative to A#2, not in addition to #2.
I'd probably go with something more like:
2) Training in (choose one): Knowledge (warfare), IKnowledge (nature) or Knowledge (heraldry).
4) You can add your skill die to any ability check using a specific attribute determined by the fighting sytle (usually Strength or Dexterity). And I'd rather find something more interesting to put here - perhaps something like Skill Tricks (if the rogues can steal the fighter's maneuvers, why can't the fighters steal the rogues skill trickis.)
Carl
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 09, 2013 - 11:29PM
#835
|
|
|
Fair enough.
You can add your skill die to any ability check against the attribute favoured by your Fighting Style.
Sounds good to me.
Then synergize that with the skill(s) and special ability.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 12:32PM
#836
|
|
|
Riposte - If a melee attack misses you, you can make an immediate melee attack against the target who attacked you. If you hit, use your MDD for the damage of the attack.
3. That's ok, but less interesting than my version. Also, it's not really what a Riposte does in fencing.
Actually - it is exactly what riposte does in fencing. At least if you assume that Parry is what you do all during the fight, not a specific fighter class feature that only occurs during someone else's turn.
The reason I don't like your formulation is that you don't riposte when your opponent misses or when you dodge; you're using the action of the parry to force your opponent's blade out of line so that they can't parry you, and you're usually using the momentum of the parry to carry your blade forward.
But not mid-cleave as I read the maneuver. This is designed to allow that as well - and to take away the major restriction on cleave in play (their often isn't another target in reach). This is most useful against multiple weak opponents - such as humanoids - that you can drop without needing your MDD. Note - there is no limit on how often you can do it, aside from your MDD. If you have six MDD, you can drop six goblins in a turn.
It's still really fiddly, and doesn't interface well with the movement rules and Spring Attack.
Why? THe 'modularity' is that you do more damage with that second die. The MDD cost is balanced against the gain - and 2 MDD to counteract all of the creatures attacka (not to mention the rest of its turn as well) is almost always worth it - especially against tough opponents.
Because the second die isn't being spent on the Crack Skull maneuver; it's just being dumped into damage (i.e, it's like spending 1 die on Crack Skull and 1 die on Deadly Strike back when it existed). You want a smooth slope of effects within each maneuver so that the Fighter has legitimate tactical decisions to make about investing heavily in one maneuver vs. doing multiple maneuvers per turn.
This was poorly written on my part. I intended the base mechanics to work as you describe (as charge works presently). Only the advantage was intended to require movement of more than forty feet. The idea was that you needed to start further away than a normal move. In other words - if you could have just moved up and attacked, you don't gain the advantage (although you do gain the other benefits). You gain the advantage benefit only if the charge was necessary to reach the target - it is due to the element of surprise.
I see what you mean. Yeah, I like that.
The bottom line is that you seem to be ignoring the effect the dice have on the actual damage. Maneuvers with high MDD costs are rarely worth it because they make the subsequent damage insufficient. Maneuvers should have small costs (no cost or one die as a cost) - unless and only if the specific benefit is worth giving up a bumch of damage.
That is rarely true of the current maneuvers - and I tried to keep as many dice as I could in the hands of the fighter (which is why they 'don't scale'. That 'scaling' is rarely worth spending the dice on the maneuver.
I did consider making the maneuvers scale automatically with the level of the fighter (which gets back to my 'tiered' maneuver argument) - but that went beyond the scope of what I was suggesting here.
Carl
The reason I wanted more scaling is precisely so that the second dice invested had more payoff than just as a stepping-stone to that powerful 3 dice effect. However, with the change to the Fighter class, I think this consideration is now moot.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 12:42PM
#837
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
The fighter needs a defining feature that is more than just swinging a sword. In my opinion it should be based on the style. So a duelist's defining feature should allow for abilities that pertain to a duelist. In my opinion said ability should progress or better ones should be gained at later levels. So maybe the duelist should start off with a speed bonus. The features should focus on mobility during battle. In my opinion the marksman should gain abilities that enhance accuracy or perhaps luck. Maybe one feature at a decent level they should gain a reroll on a miss. The protectior should gain an ability that allows the player to step in and take damage for an ally as an ability at a suitable level. The slayer should gain an initiative bonus and the veteran should gain a pool in which they can exert an amount of energy for a period of time. In short, I think the styles need more to them than a list of suggestions. There should be a list of suggestions and some concrete defining features to be gained for choosing that style. What is so special about this style? Why should I take Archer instead of the Ranger when it makes its appearance?
The Ranger focuses on a single quarry, a hunter or a tracker. They actually should gain surprise attacks. Like the first attack against an enemy should get them double damage or something like that. Carefully taking aim and then hitting a vital spot. So 1 shot per round, but with a greater chance for extra damage maybe double their critical threat range or something. Likes to wear light armor like leather, padded, studded leather for flexibility and allows them to surprise their quarry. No tell-tell jingle of chain armor to indicate an attack.
The Fighter (Archer) should be about speed of shooting a bow or crossbow. They take a move action to stick their arrows into the ground and then rapidly fire them at targets all within a few seconds. They also can hit multiple targets at once, one with each arrow. They can also wear better armor chain or splint or whatever. They don't care if the enemy knows they are there. They are going to send a volley of arrows that can't be dodged or blocked so it doesn't matter...
Ah. Well, I still think that the styles need to be more than a list of feats you COULD take.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2013 - 5:49PM
#838
|
|
|
The fighter needs a defining feature that is more than just swinging a sword. In my opinion it should be based on the style. So a duelist's defining feature should allow for abilities that pertain to a duelist. In my opinion said ability should progress or better ones should be gained at later levels. So maybe the duelist should start off with a speed bonus. The features should focus on mobility during battle. In my opinion the marksman should gain abilities that enhance accuracy or perhaps luck. Maybe one feature at a decent level they should gain a reroll on a miss. The protectior should gain an ability that allows the player to step in and take damage for an ally as an ability at a suitable level. The slayer should gain an initiative bonus and the veteran should gain a pool in which they can exert an amount of energy for a period of time. In short, I think the styles need more to them than a list of suggestions. There should be a list of suggestions and some concrete defining features to be gained for choosing that style. What is so special about this style? Why should I take Archer instead of the Ranger when it makes its appearance?
The Ranger focuses on a single quarry, a hunter or a tracker. They actually should gain surprise attacks. Like the first attack against an enemy should get them double damage or something like that. Carefully taking aim and then hitting a vital spot. So 1 shot per round, but with a greater chance for extra damage maybe double their critical threat range or something. Likes to wear light armor like leather, padded, studded leather for flexibility and allows them to surprise their quarry. No tell-tell jingle of chain armor to indicate an attack.
The Fighter (Archer) should be about speed of shooting a bow or crossbow. They take a move action to stick their arrows into the ground and then rapidly fire them at targets all within a few seconds. They also can hit multiple targets at once, one with each arrow. They can also wear better armor chain or splint or whatever. They don't care if the enemy knows they are there. They are going to send a volley of arrows that can't be dodged or blocked so it doesn't matter...
Ah. Well, I still think that the styles need to be more than a list of feats you COULD take.
I'm not seeing how your response connects with my post in any way. What I suggested were class features not feats, and every feature in any edition can be converted to feats and vice versa. So I have no idea what you were trying to say...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2013 - 1:44PM
#839
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2012
|
The 4e fighter was the first time in D&D where the clas felt meaningful and had a clear purpose. I really wish WotC defined fighter as Str based combatant who focuses on utilizing arms and armor. The rogue could then be Dex based combatant who focuses on utilizing speed and skill. Then we can give all classes a similar amount of non-combat utility based on level instead of class.
I totally agree. Also see my post in todays Legends & Lore.
I still remember 3E clerics pumped up with 2 spells being more effective fighters then myself.
From my perspective it is about giving each class a unique identifaction with own powers/abilities, as a paladin's smite evil for instance or a rogue's sneack attack, later even better in 4E making a rogue a fighting character with several dirty tricks. This excactly has to come for fighters too. Previous editions to 4E lacked these unique abilities. In 4E I loved the tactical options that came with the fighter's ability to mark enemies. That made him a defender and gave him a particular role no other class came up with. Also other more offensive options for unique powers should be thought of here.
At-will available maneveurs + daily powers seem to me to be a very good direction. But in the end the question will be if a fighter will be positioned as a unique role within a group and among other classes. When you think of a fighter... yeah, what? Please ask yourself and doublecheck all development stages with your vision. Don't forget your previous work you have done to this means.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 13, 2013 - 6:46AM
#840
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I agree. Personally I'd like fighters to reflect how hard and difficult their training is. If becoming a fighter is easy and intuitive, then they should be able to get extra skills due to the free time. A bonus background. If being a fighter is hard and fighters are really the best of the best, then they need a massive power boost. Make them truly overpowered in combat. More HP. More damage. Infinite parries.
Oh, I like that, though I'd like either version to be able to contribute out of combat. You could have two skill tracks for the fighter...
Natural Fighter: Your fighting talent comes naturally, which means that while your allies spent their childhood apprenticeships studying arcane lore under a rigorous master, toiling in a church or monastery, or learning the ropes of roguish trickery, you had plenty of free time to learn a different craft. Take a second Background.
Practiced Fighter: Your fighting talent is the result of rigorous training, which required you to be part of a specific school or (para- or quasi-) military order. Choose from the following types of organizations and reap the benefits associated with them. Moreover, your DM's campaign world may have specific organization associated with them, which may offer additional story opportunities, resources, and contacts.
Groups can include: Elite Infantry, Fencing Academy, Mystical Warrior, Shadow League, Masters of Steel, etc.
oooh missed this one... like it.
|
|
|
