Community

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:52AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:40AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

its thematic in its base which is cool and I agree with some of it, for some fighters, but unfortunately it dictates way to much about the character.  this still completely ignores the dex build style fighters also.

My posts didn't mention anythign about fighting style.  The dex-based fighters fight differently than the rogue.  The dex-based fighters are still direct fighters.  They aren't tumbling around the battlefield striking from behind.

see thats where you falter...yes they are, or at least they can be.  That is just their fighting style.

Even ignoring the god-like incarnation from the poems, Hiawatha the man was more renowned for uniting the Irquois tribes through sheer diplomacy, not for any overt acts of violence or (physical) heroism. But without further digress...

 With the criteria you've set, Wrecan, it seems as if Fighters should inherently get some sort of feature that let's them be better in all forms of defenses against ... well... everything. We already got melee attacks down with Parry, at least. That leaves every other types of defenses. Only thing that rings on the top of my head is a scaling bonus on all saves and more HP and AC, but that's just boring as hell. Any other ideas?

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:05AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

see thats where you falter...yes they are, or at least they can be.  That is just their fighting style.

I dont' think they can be because they don't have the skill tricks that let them do that.  If they can do that, what differentiates a rogue and a fighter?

Feb 8, 2013 -- 7:59AM, Mand12 wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 7:55AM, wrecan wrote:

What do fighters get?  Nothing.

I think you just summarized my objections quite concisely.

(yes yes, I know you didn't mean it the way it looks absent the context, that's not the point!)

And I have the same objections to the current version of the Fighter.  So let's fold those objections into the spirit of wrecans original idea and what do we have for the Fighter to get?

How do you show "nothing" in an interesting way?

Magic immunity? Damage resistance? Physical attacks that ignore AC?

When does the interesting idea of giving the fighter nothing in a cool way become something?

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:10AM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Wrecan, it seems as if Fighters should inherently get some sort of feature that let's them be better in all forms of defenses against ... well... everything. We already got melee attacks down with Parry, at least. That leaves every other types of defenses. Only thing that rings on the top of my head is a scaling bonus on all saves and more HP and AC, but that's just boring as hell. Any other ideas?

As I said, i think fighters operate just fine int he combat pillar as is.  As long as they hold their own in combat, and I think they more than hold their own, I don't see why they need more than what they're already getting in the form of maneuvers and the like.  They already have close to the best hp and the best armor proficiencies.

My interest is making sure that fighters as a class get fighter-appropriate qualities in the other two pillars: exploration and interaction.  And I think I finally have come up with something that feels appropriate to the fighter and works for any of the multitude of archetypes of a fighter.  

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:20AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:05AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

see thats where you falter...yes they are, or at least they can be.  That is just their fighting style.

I dont' think they can be because they don't have the skill tricks that let them do that.  If they can do that, what differentiates a rogue and a fighter?

Don't need skill tricks to tumble just a decent dex score and possibly training in the tumble skill.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:10AM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Even ignoring the god-like incarnation from the poems, Hiawatha the man was more renowned for uniting the Irquois tribes through sheer diplomacy, not for any overt acts of violence or (physical) heroism. But without further digress...

 With the criteria you've set, Wrecan, it seems as if Fighters should inherently get some sort of feature that let's them be better in all forms of defenses against ... well... everything. We already got melee attacks down with Parry, at least. That leaves every other types of defenses. Only thing that rings on the top of my head is a scaling bonus on all saves and more HP and AC, but that's just boring as hell. Any other ideas?

Fighter's should get their skill die to all ability checks (attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, etc).

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be cunning and perceptive but rarely smart or wise. They are also often shown to be highly resistant to mental influence. The skill die to Int and Wis checks works here.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be physically superior to more mundane warriors. They are also shown to have a great capacity for improvisation. The skill die to Str, Con, and Dex rolls takes care of this.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be diplomatic, charismatic, and charming. The skill die to Charisma checks models this quite nicely.

This method takes care of a few other issues the fighter has. The fighter of myth and legend is shown to be generally quite skilled (unlike the D&D fighter). Well gaining your skill die to all ability checks makes the fighter competent at everything. The rogue will of course still be superior at their specialties due to their skill mastery feature, skill tricks, and ace in the hole, but the fighter will be capable in any situation. This would boost the fighter's non-combat capabilities to about on par with rogues, clerics, and wizards.

Gaining the skill die on saving throws would mean the fighter would be the hardest to affect with spells which harkens back to prior editions but also helps the fighter keep his title as "king of combat". Same with gaining the skill die to attack rolls.

I say get rid of parry though. Parry doesn't scream "FIGHTER'S DEFINING FEATURE" to me and they definitely won't need it with this change.

P.S. I originally posted this idea as a joke, but when you actually begin ot look at the numbers, it doesn't actually make the fighter overpowered. Also, yes I know this ability is boring as fighters end up as "everyone else" with +X but I think I have come to accept that you can't give fighter's nice things. I'm holding out for the Warblade...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:32AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Don't need skill tricks to tumble just a decent dex score and possibly training in the tumble skill.

I think you're confusing the tumble skill -- which gives you no combat benefits -- with the Tumble skill trick.  The skill trick lets you roll around the battlefield, but it is available only to rogues.  A fighter with the tumble skill is still not tumbling around the battlefield.  

As the playtest currently stands, the Dex-based fighter fights much differently than a rogue.  The Dex-based figher is more direct and less tricky because he lacks, you know, skill tricks.

Which doesn't mean you can't be a fighter who tumbles like an acrobat outside of combat.  but in combat, the fighter --even the Dex-based one -- is more of an in-your-face type.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:22AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:10AM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Wrecan, it seems as if Fighters should inherently get some sort of feature that let's them be better in all forms of defenses against ... well... everything. We already got melee attacks down with Parry, at least. That leaves every other types of defenses. Only thing that rings on the top of my head is a scaling bonus on all saves and more HP and AC, but that's just boring as hell. Any other ideas?

As I said, i think fighters operate just fine int he combat pillar as is.  As long as they hold their own in combat, and I think they more than hold their own, I don't see why they need more than what they're already getting in the form of maneuvers and the like.  They already have close to the best hp and the best armor proficiencies.

My interest is making sure that fighters as a class get fighter-appropriate qualities in the other two pillars: exploration and interaction.  And I think I finally have come up with something that feels appropriate to the fighter and works for any of the multitude of archetypes of a fighter.  

Guess I should have been more clear. By "defenses against everything", I wasn't implying just combat. I meant everything. This would include non-combat applications, such as opposed ability checks (such as things like trapsense) and skills (namely things like insight vs bluff and spot vs hidden creatures).

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:33AM, Lawolf wrote:

Fighter's should get their skill die to all ability checks (attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, etc).

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be cunning and perceptive but rarely smart or wise. They are also often shown to be highly resistant to mental influence. The skill die to Int and Wis checks works here.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be physically superior to more mundane warriors. They are also shown to have a great capacity for improvisation. The skill die to Str, Con, and Dex rolls takes care of this.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be diplomatic, charismatic, and charming. The skill die to Charisma checks models this quite nicely.

Well that's the general idea. Not the most exciting thing, but we're getting somewhere.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 7:16AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 6:56AM, Mand12 wrote:

"I agree."  What, you wanted more?

"I agree" is plenty.

If you want a replacement from Wheel of Time, then Perrin fits far better.  Completely in line with stalwart self-reliance.

Except, as SleepsinTraffic points out, he's a wolfbrother.  He's not a great model for a fighter.  (Actually, on that count, neither is Jon Snow, as a skinwalker.)

Jon Snow... I'd say is what happens when a player is playing a fighter/ranger and the DM gives the player a couple of tweaks. Jon is pretty fighter/ranger in his basic roleplaying approach to stuff. Just my 2 cents. George played GURPS.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:33AM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:10AM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Even ignoring the god-like incarnation from the poems, Hiawatha the man was more renowned for uniting the Irquois tribes through sheer diplomacy, not for any overt acts of violence or (physical) heroism. But without further digress...

 With the criteria you've set, Wrecan, it seems as if Fighters should inherently get some sort of feature that let's them be better in all forms of defenses against ... well... everything. We already got melee attacks down with Parry, at least. That leaves every other types of defenses. Only thing that rings on the top of my head is a scaling bonus on all saves and more HP and AC, but that's just boring as hell. Any other ideas?

Fighter's should get their skill die to all ability checks (attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, etc).

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be cunning and perceptive but rarely smart or wise. They are also often shown to be highly resistant to mental influence. The skill die to Int and Wis checks works here.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be physically superior to more mundane warriors. They are also shown to have a great capacity for improvisation. The skill die to Str, Con, and Dex rolls takes care of this.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be diplomatic, charismatic, and charming. The skill die to Charisma checks models this quite nicely.

This method takes care of a few other issues the fighter has. The fighter of myth and legend is shown to be generally quite skilled (unlike the D&D fighter). Well gaining your skill die to all ability checks makes the fighter competent at everything. The rogue will of course still be superior at their specialties due to their skill mastery feature, skill tricks, and ace in the hole, but the fighter will be capable in any situation. This would boost the fighter's non-combat capabilities to about on par with rogues, clerics, and wizards.

Gaining the skill die on saving throws would mean the fighter would be the hardest to affect with spells which harkens back to prior editions but also helps the fighter keep his title as "king of combat". Same with gaining the skill die to attack rolls.

I say get rid of parry though. Parry doesn't scream "FIGHTER'S DEFINING FEATURE" to me and they definitely won't need it with this change.

P.S. I originally posted this idea as a joke, but when you actually begin ot look at the numbers, it doesn't actually make the fighter overpowered.

Oddly enough I'm not 100% against this idea, maybe only like 20%.  It just seems like it limits capability of making certain characters...but in effect it doesn't because you could still dump stat something and not be good at it, at least for a bit.  Like say I'm trying to make a fighter that is the dumb as rocks fighter (as much as y'all might hate it this is a valid character concept).  I can give him a 5 int and for the most part obfuscate that skill die being added at least for a little while.  I could also just play a barbarian which would likely be better suited for the dumb as rocks fighter which doesn't have this feature.  Like I would love to see a packet where this was a class feature just to see the widespread response.  I especially love it for saving throws (if we mine just this part out and suggest it alone I am 100% for it).

Quick question though, and this is one of my bigger issues here.  What happens to the skills you get from your background or specialty?  You couldn't make them advantage on the skill die because that would be better than rogue, maybe step the die up one size?  Theres got to be some benefit to having the skill and this feature would overlap any benefit provided by the skill.  Remember we are always making ability checks not skill checks.  Even if he isn't trained in it the fighter could make a knowledge science check just with his int score and still come away with the information.  At least by base game rules.  I believe there is a clause somewhere about the DM being able to determine where training is required.  However in the basic rules of the game this would effectively make the fighter trained in all skills plus more.

A feature like this would also kind of gut the class's soul out.  he goes from being the fighter to being the all around skill guy in a flash.  Yeah the rogue is more specialized and more successful than the fighter would be with the tasks he is specialized in, but the fighter is mopre useful overall.  Skills are situationally useful/useless  The rogue is now situational useless while the fighter is 100% always useful as far as skills go.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:48AM, wrecan wrote:

I think you're confusing the tumble skill -- which gives you no combat benefits -- with the Tumble skill trick.  The skill trick lets you roll around the battlefield, but it is available only to rogues.  A fighter with the tumble skill is still not tumbling around the battlefield.

This is the inherent problem of powers and skill tricks

That is 100% a usage of tumble. never going to convince me it isn't.  The fighter can 100% say I'm going to try to tumble past him to try to avoid an attack of opportunity. I'll rule it differently than that skill trick but that isn't something only a rogue can do he just has a confirmed easier way of doing it.

That is the major problem people had in 4e, and where the '4e doesn't allow improvisation' idea came from.  Because many people thought, 'this class has a power that does it that means I can't allow anyone else to do something similar to it.'

The rogue having a skill trick that confirms and pre establishes the way it is going to work at all times for him doesn't mean he is the only one who can do something like it.   Skill tricks are not distinct powers that indicate things only the rogue can attempt it just confirms how it will work for him.  Anyone can try to make the exact same types of things happen.  Anyone can attempt to tumble in that manner, doesn't matter if it is a fighter or a wizard, but it may work differently for them.  The rogue just gets the benefit of a confirmed mechanic he gets to use to carry out those types of actions.

The fighter can 100% make a dex check to try to ignore AOO or to give them a negative to their attack rolls.  do note that is an action for him though if he wanted to do that and attack he would need to use fighter's surge.

Also even forgoing all of that who's to say that there couldn't be a similar maneuver in the works?

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:37PM, chaosfang wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:22PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

luckily because the bonuses are buried within fighting styles and maneuvers you can include all the bonuses to build that kind of character because they won't interfere when you select your melee fighter options.  In fact mixing them will likely be the best idea no fighter should ever be 100% melee or ranged it doesn't make any sense.

Honestly I think something has to be brought out into the open, regarding D&D 4E in particular:

Considering how "same-y" classes supposedly are, why is it that no one really bothered to allow characters to swap powers that felt appropriate to their story without taking multiclass into consideration and regardless of the imbalance implications?

I mean if the table isn't concerned about balance, and you want to play as an Archer Fighter, why shouldn't the DM allow you to swap even just one at-will, one encounter and one daily, in order to keep in character, especially if he also allows it for other classes?  Considering that some of the more common "houserules" proposed here (aside from giving Weapon Expertise, Weapon Focus and Improved Defenses for free) involve mangling the multiclassing rules, why shouldn't the DM just say "alright, multiclass to Ranger and I'll let you pick from the Ranger list of powers, and swap out one of your at-wills for it"?

You're still playing as a Fighter after all, it's just that one of your feats basically turned into Ranged Specialization.

If ALL classes gained scaling powers and 'flat' powers at the same rate, this could work AND be balanced. Classes would become slightly less meaningful... ending up being more like a guideline for a character archetype. Some problems I see would be that this veers away from the 'choose a class' tradition of D&D, that it might accidentally step into a big pile of 'genericness' and that creating a workable adventure group of individuals with unique abilities and skills to contribute will become more difficult in some ways, even if easier in others.

DARN YOU TO HECK, FIREFOX FOR CAUSING MY EDIT TO FAIL REPEATEDLY

The CLASSES chapter might eventually be reduce to a chart that might look something like so:
CLASS ABILITIES OF CHARACTERS
LEVEL     FLAT ABILITY     SCALING POWER
1             4                          1
2             5                          1
3             5                          2
4             6                          2
5             7                          2
6             7                          3
and so on

Then the players could pick and choose abilities at will. I realize that spell-casting ability would probably throw such a plan out the window; meh... just a thought.

Something came back to me. I remember suggesting an additional buffer besides HP, something that could apply beyond just damage yet lets one absorb or nullify effects better than saving throws. Such that, a couple of times in an adventure, no matter the adversity, failure is not possible. Save against death? Save against a trap? Combo Breaker! Basically functions like that "Defensive Superiority" feature Chaosfang suggested earlier, but it applies on all types of opposed checks and saves, not just attacks.

Only problem I have is that abilities such as this "Combo Breaker" thing I put forward here could apply to just about any type of character with proper jutification. It's just like how Combat Surge aka "action points in disguise" doesn't really classify Fighters as a whole at all. But I'll put it forward anyway and see what everyone else thinks.

Let's take it from the top in regards to the three pillars.

Combat: I think the fighter is fine, here, as he is. Maybe some aspects that add to the fact that he doesn't have a god directly supporting him (paladin/cleric), a Hulk-like rage (barbarian), Dex-based sneakiness (rogue), disciplined martial arts training (monk), or animal empathy/nature-based magic (ranger). I think wrecan nailed it. The fighter doesn't have any of the above things (mechanically...I guess he could have whatever he wants for fluff/background). What does he have? Balls. How can we represent testicular fortitude in combat? How can it benefit the fighter and no one else?

Suggestions (just brainstorming...feel free to shoot them down):
- ability to ignore damage (damage resistance)
- ability to ignore taunts (save bonuses for mind-control mechanics)
- ability to ignore pain (HP regen, or auto-saves against damaging effects)
- ability to improvise in combat (everything is potentially a weapon)
- ability to sense danger (cannot be surprised or gains bonuses to surprised rolls)

Exploration: The fighter can't directly step on the toes of other classes. This is a major hurdle for a character with no magical abilities who doesn't want to play a rogue. What can a fighter do in exploration that no one else can do?

Suggestions (again, feel free to shoot them down):
- direction sense
- underground direction sense (can tell average depth, grade, slope, temperature, etc.)
- ability to determine best points for ambushes, hiding places, etc.
- ability to sense danger (possible traps, thin ice, rickety bridge, etc.)

Interaction: How can the fighter participate in social encounters well? He likely won't have the best CHA (or even noticeably good CHA). What can he contribute that others wouldn't be able to do, and likely do better?

Suggestions:
- sense motive (picks up on deceit or manipulation)
- intimidate (self-explanatory)
- ignore the effects of bluff, intimidate, and so on
- ability to rally support (he could be naturally good at attracting followers, etc.)

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:54AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:33AM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:10AM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Even ignoring the god-like incarnation from the poems, Hiawatha the man was more renowned for uniting the Irquois tribes through sheer diplomacy, not for any overt acts of violence or (physical) heroism. But without further digress...

 With the criteria you've set, Wrecan, it seems as if Fighters should inherently get some sort of feature that let's them be better in all forms of defenses against ... well... everything. We already got melee attacks down with Parry, at least. That leaves every other types of defenses. Only thing that rings on the top of my head is a scaling bonus on all saves and more HP and AC, but that's just boring as hell. Any other ideas?

Fighter's should get their skill die to all ability checks (attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, etc).

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be cunning and perceptive but rarely smart or wise. They are also often shown to be highly resistant to mental influence. The skill die to Int and Wis checks works here.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be physically superior to more mundane warriors. They are also shown to have a great capacity for improvisation. The skill die to Str, Con, and Dex rolls takes care of this.

Fighter's in myth and legend are often shown to be diplomatic, charismatic, and charming. The skill die to Charisma checks models this quite nicely.

This method takes care of a few other issues the fighter has. The fighter of myth and legend is shown to be generally quite skilled (unlike the D&D fighter). Well gaining your skill die to all ability checks makes the fighter competent at everything. The rogue will of course still be superior at their specialties due to their skill mastery feature, skill tricks, and ace in the hole, but the fighter will be capable in any situation. This would boost the fighter's non-combat capabilities to about on par with rogues, clerics, and wizards.

Gaining the skill die on saving throws would mean the fighter would be the hardest to affect with spells which harkens back to prior editions but also helps the fighter keep his title as "king of combat". Same with gaining the skill die to attack rolls.

I say get rid of parry though. Parry doesn't scream "FIGHTER'S DEFINING FEATURE" to me and they definitely won't need it with this change.

P.S. I originally posted this idea as a joke, but when you actually begin ot look at the numbers, it doesn't actually make the fighter overpowered.

Oddly enough I'm not 100% against this idea, maybe only like 20%.  It just seems like it limits capability of making certain characters...but in effect it doesn't because you could still dump stat something and not be good at it, at least for a bit.  Like say I'm trying to make a fighter that is the dumb as rocks fighter (as much as y'all might hate it this is a valid character concept).  I can give him a 5 int and for the most part obfuscate that skill die being added at least for a little while.  I could also just play a barbarian which would likely be better suited for the dumb as rocks fighter which doesn't have this feature.  Like I would love to see a packet where this was a class feature just to see the widespread response.  I especially love it for saving throws (if we mine just this part out and suggest it alone I am 100% for it).

Quick question though, and this is one of my bigger issues here.  What happens to the skills you get from your background or specialty?  You couldn't make them advantage on the skill die because that would be better than rogue, maybe step the die up one size?  Theres got to be some benefit to having the skill and this feature would overlap any benefit provided by the skill.  Remember we are always making ability checks not skill checks.  Even if he isn't trained in it the fighter could make a knowledge science check just with his int score and still come away with the information.  At least by base game rules.  I believe there is a clause somewhere about the DM being able to determine where training is required.  However in the basic rules of the game this would effectively make the fighter trained in all skills plus more.

A feature like this would also kind of gut the class's soul out.  he goes from being the fighter to being the all around skill guy in a flash.  Yeah the rogue is more specialized and more successful than the fighter would be with the tasks he is specialized in, but the fighter is mopre useful overall.  Skills are situationally useful/useless  The rogue is now situational useless while the fighter is 100% always useful as far as skills go.

Yeah I had thought of those issues when thinking about the ramifications of this abilities overall. For trained skills I thought about increasing the die type or simply giving a flat +1 bonus. Alternatively though, it doesn't need to stack. The reason the fighter would train skills would be to perform "trained onl" tasks or to gain the feats that require skill training (take 10, advantage, etc).

As for hindering character concepts, well it only get's in the way a little, and only at the highest levels, and only if you deliberately roll a check for something your PC doesn't have a reason to be good at. Take your dumb jock fighter with an 8 (or less) int. Even when he is high level and rolling a d10 skill die he is still only doing d20 + d10 -1. The wizard at this point is getting a d20 + d10 + 5.  That 6 (or more) point difference is still pretty huge. And if your fighter happens to find the "archtext of lagrimore" that requires a high knowledge arcana check to deciper, simply don't roll if it isn't in your concept to know arcana.

As to being all around skill guy, again I think you are overestimiating the effect this feature will have. The fighter's primary ability scores are (usually) Strength and Con. These tend to be the least useful abilities when it comes to skills. So even with "training" in every skill the fighter still lags behind the party specialists (Wizard for Int skills, Rogue for Dex or Cha skills, Cleric for Wis skills). Also with the 8 trained skills the rogue gets, the rogue will pretty much have training in the most utilized skills anyway. This feature allows the fighter to participate in any challenge - but not necessarily be the best man for the job.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 10:28AM, Lawolf wrote:

This feature allows the fighter to participate in any challenge - but not necessarily be the best man for the job.

See that is one of my main issues with it.  No one else is that powerful.  The fighter will not only be able to participate in every challenge he will likely succeed in most challenges.  Especially at higher levels.  Even the fighter with an 8 int is rolling on a good probability of getting most int checks passed.  At high level that is d20+d10-1 still has the probablity of passing the bulk of int checks.  Even your example for this is to just never roll an int check because it goes against your concept, but thats just as bad as the problem you have with cassters from previous editions.  This is just the fighter allowing other people to be good at things because he feels like it.  he could just come along and do everything all the time regardless of his ability scores.  DC's don't climb as the adventurers climb in level.  There will be some times that they run into something that requires a higher DC but for the most part DC's generally sit in the 15-20 range on average.  That means the fighter will on average pass the checks in front of him with sub 10 ability scores, forget about the ability scores he pumps.  I think I'm up to about 60% against this now that I'm putting more thought into it (I still love it in relation to saves and would love to see it employed there).  

Though I think if we didn't give him the skill die and instead gave him an unscaling d6 to all checks I could be more inclined to agree to it.  At a d6 your more capable, and have an increassed chance of success, but your not overly capable and incapable of failure.  This also solves the problem for trained skills as after a while the skill die will be better than your d6.  I Still want the straight skill die to all saves.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:40AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Also:
Hercules, Perseus: Gods, or at least DemiGods
Hiawatha: Born of a celestial being.
Beowulf: Super Human powers not originating from his training as a fighter, he in fact rolled with elite warriors, fighters, and they still usually died because Beowulf had super human capabilities and the things he was fighting and standing up to required that.
Siegfried: descendent of the Sons of Odin
Cuchulain: decendent of a deity
Little John: okay finally not a decendent of a god, or superhuman in any way, he also exists in an entirely different kind of story, there are not monsters in the robin hood mythos only men and women.  He's also noted to actually be quite cunning.  I'd give hime some rogue levels on top of his fighter levels.
Tristan: Okay your average knight of a holy order I'd call him a Paladin more than a fighter.
Sinbad: Sounds more like a rogue to me he wins by his wits and luck not by his strength.
El Cid: Also a Warlord
Spartucus:  I'd give him levels in warlord as he lead an army in a campaign that scared the romans. like he lead tens of thousands of men if he isn't a warlord I don't know who is.


Just sayin all of your examples have something else in their backstory other than training as a fighter that is responsible for a good portion of their qualities.
 

"I want to play a character like Gandalf or Merlin." 
"Sure, just roll up a wizard."

"I want to play a character like Beowulf or Siegfried." 
"Sorry, those are demigods. You can't really play those in D&D." 

Feb 8, 2013 -- 10:58AM, Selachian wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:40AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Also:
Hercules, Perseus: Gods, or at least DemiGods
Hiawatha: Born of a celestial being.
Beowulf: Super Human powers not originating from his training as a fighter, he in fact rolled with elite warriors, fighters, and they still usually died because Beowulf had super human capabilities and the things he was fighting and standing up to required that.
Siegfried: descendent of the Sons of Odin
Cuchulain: decendent of a deity
Little John: okay finally not a decendent of a god, or superhuman in any way, he also exists in an entirely different kind of story, there are not monsters in the robin hood mythos only men and women.  He's also noted to actually be quite cunning.  I'd give hime some rogue levels on top of his fighter levels.
Tristan: Okay your average knight of a holy order I'd call him a Paladin more than a fighter.
Sinbad: Sounds more like a rogue to me he wins by his wits and luck not by his strength.
El Cid: Also a Warlord
Spartucus:  I'd give him levels in warlord as he lead an army in a campaign that scared the romans. like he lead tens of thousands of men if he isn't a warlord I don't know who is.


Just sayin all of your examples have something else in their backstory other than training as a fighter that is responsible for a good portion of their qualities.
 

"I want to play a character like Gandalf or Merlin." 
"Sure, just roll up a wizard."

"I want to play a character like Beowulf or Siegfried." 
"Sorry, those are demigods. You can't really play those in D&D." 

Technically Gandalf is a demigod like being.

The problem is that many of the features listed as fighter features is actually a product of the character being a demigod.  It isn't because he trained to fight with a sword, its because he has the blood of a god.

Not all fighters are demi gods forcing them to be so is not called for.  moreover forcing them all to be such is restrictive of the stories that can be told.

+1 to Wrecan.
(And 50 points for Gryffindor.)

specter says: As far as being compelling, the class system in Next only dictates how a character performs in combat. How they perform out of combat is based on every other part of the character creation process. I encourage you to start thinking outside the box in regards to character creation.

I says: Yep. That alone would probably solve 75% of the problems that come up on every forum topic on this site.

Again Sleeps, I think you overestimate just how large the skill die bonus actually is. Let's say you have a high level seasoned adventurer fighter. In all likely hood he will have a 10 and an 8 in either Int, Wis, or Cha. The other score will be 12-14.

So this  fighter is faced with a DC 16 task will only have about a 50% chance of success with his d20 + d10 + 0. Coincidentally, any party member with the relevant ability score as a primary and no training also has about a 50% chance for success (d20+5). The thing is though, the other PC will most likely have skills relted to their primary ability score trained, so they instead have about a 75% chance of success.

So at best, the fighter is as good as his fellow PCs who have a relevant ability score and no training. And only 50% chance to succeed at DC 16 tasks (and only at high levels!!!) does not make the fighter the go to skill guy. This means that the fighter can contribute about as good as anyone else in the party, but is rarely the skill specialist.

This is good because most PCs already have a means of contributing in any situation anyway. Casters have spells and rituals so tend to be competent in non-combat without even needing skills, but they also have highly relevant ability scores for non combat challenges and many trained skills. Rogues have tons of trained skills as well as highly useful primary ability scores so they tend to be able to contribute in almost all non-combat challenges. Gaining the skill die to all rolls actually allows the fighter to contribute along with his party instead of him sitting out in the cold whenever non-combat challenges come up. I would much rather have a game where everyone has the option to contribute to the success of a challenge than have 1 class be forced to sit out whenever a non combat situation comes up.

That being  said I could see the universal d6 working, or a slower progression for the fighter universal skill die that gets bumped up if you are trained. Maybe something like below.

Fighter's Knack: (the universal skill die) 
Level 1-4: d4
Level 5-9: d6
Level 10-14: d8
Level 15-19: d10
Level 20: d12

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:11AM, Lawolf wrote:

This is good because most PCs have a means of contributing in any situation anyway. Casters have spells and rituals so tend to be competent in non-combat without even needing skills, but they also have highly relevant ability scores for non combat challenges and many trained skills. Rogues have tons of trained skills as well as highly useful primary ability scores so they tend to be able to contribute in almost all non-combat challenges.

You keep saying things like this but it is patently untrue unless your DM only presents challenges where their skills or spells apply.  No one character can fully contribute in every single situation.  There are going to specifically be some where they are not useful.  Here is the funny part...not every check can have a skill applied to it.  Sometimes you roll and even if through being a rogue, having a background, and spending your feeats on getting the other skills and you still get no skill die to the check because there is no relevent skill (I'm in the middle of trying to get work done and can't remember what the example was but during my last session this happened a few times were there was no relatable skill for the desired action).  This wouldn't happen to your fighter.  Your fighter would be far and ahead more useful than everyone else because his die always applies even when none of the skills in the list would properly apply.  Literally your fighter contributes meaningfully to every single situation while others specifically cannot.  This would in fact make the fighter universally useful.  That is unbalanced because no one else is universally useful.  They may be useful in many situations but not all of them.  They aren't even this usefull in most situations without spending every single option they have towards being this good, and even when spending all options some things will just not get any of their bonuses.  This effectively trains the fighter in every single skill and gives him the bonus to actions that wouldn't have any skill associated to them.  he gets the bonus to every ability check and every contest.  Even when you normally shouldn't ever be able to get a die to that check.  This also doesn't confront the idea of multiclassing.  I loath to think of the fighter/rogue multiclass were this to be a thing.

Yet again this also guts the fighters soul because fighting isn't his primary feature at that point.  At that point being trained in all skills is his primary feature.

Wrather than defining him and giving him a soul this just makes him a god.

Feb 7, 2013 -- 4:07PM, penandpaper2 wrote:

I've asked for specific builds of classes so I can compare and contrast the differences.  No one has posted them.

I've asked who do you want to win in a regular old fight: warrior vs. wizard; warrior vs. rogue; warrior vs. cleric?  Forget all things like settings, magic items, etc.  If you were building the mechanics, who would you have win the majority of the time (not every time)?  No one has answered.

You see, people come up with all sorts of excuses to not answer or not post specifics because the second they do their detractors jump all over it and tear it to shreds.  I guess, from these forums, it's a learned behavior.  Stay vague, don't answer questions because they feel like traps, etc.

It's sad.  Nothing could get built unless you could do those two things.  You must answer the question.  There is no, well it depends on this and that.  Sure, you'll be able to come up with what if's all day.  But, that doesn't change the fact there is only one outcome for the question.  Same with builds.  Show the four builds at 8th level.  Make them as close or a disparate as you'd like.  Odds are people will be able to come along and match you build for build, math for math. 

But, I think that's too risky for most.  After all, it could actually create evidence for the other side - and no one wants that!           

Not liking or not getting the answer your looking for isn't the same as not getting an answer.

And again Sleeps you keep overstating the importance of the skill die. The skill die on the fighter only makes him as good as the PCs who have the relevant ability score, and only then at high levels. So even on untrained checks or ability checks that cannot be made into skill checks at all, the fighter who has a universal skill die is only on par with his fellow PCs. You seem to be forgetting that +5 from ability mod is about equal to the d10 from a high level skill die. 

Sure the level 16 fighter with this ability might be better than the untrained cleric at Int checks, but he won't be better than the trained cleric or the untrained wizard. The trained wizard will of course be a cut above everyone else at Int checks. And using the new table I proposed, the fighter only gets his d10 at level 15. So this issue only comes up in the last few levels of the game.

As I said before, the universal skill die allows the fighter to participate (at best) as equals with his fellow PCs instead of being forced to sit on the sidelines.

As to multiclassing rogue, the table I provided in a previous post would work nicely to prevent shenanigans (as your universal die would be based on fighter class levels).

Edit: To show it another way...Spoiler: Show

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:15PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Umm, with 8 trained skills you can get: steath, perception, persuasion, two knowledge skills (arcana, nature, and religion tend to come up the most), climb, thievery, and one more skills of your choice.  That pretty much covers 85% of the challenges a typical adventurer faces. It has nothing to do with DM preference, those are simply the tasks that come up the most.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

And again Sleeps you keep overstating the importance of the skill die. The skill die on the fighter only makes him as good as the PCs who have the relevant ability score, and only then at high levels. So even on untrained checks or ability checks that cannot be made into skill checks at all, the fighter who has a universal skill die is only on par with his fellow PCs.

he also completely untrained with an 8 in the associated ability score and is equivalent to a character with a 20 in the ability score.  that is a problem it literally makes him better than everyone else.  Just because he is gimped and technically can't ever gain training in any skills over the ability he already has (a major flaw) doesn't make that balanced.

he is universally useful and that isn't acceptable for any character let alone on single class feature providing it.  Your massively underestimating the power of this.  DC 15 is the most common DC.  By level 7 the fighter succeeds most checks with a 10 in stat.  by level 12 he's succeeding most things with an 8 in stat.  oh the rogue has lock picking trained doesn't matter I got there with the fighter first and already picked the lock.  Sure I could have let the rogue do it but eh no harm in me trying it first.  Oh you thought we needed the wizard to read the grimoir nope my int 10 fighter is going to accomplish it easy peasy because I'm level 12 and even with my 10 int I have a decent chance of hitting the DC 17 check.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:15PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Umm, with 8 trained skills you can get: steath, perception, persuasion, two knowledge skills (arcana, nature, and religion tend to come up the most), climb, thievery, and one more skills of your choice.  That pretty much covers 85% of the challenges a typical adventurer faces. It has nothing to do with DM preference, those are simply the tasks that come up the most.

I need you guys to help build this house...boom that rogue is almost useless unless he is a strength build rogue.  Just because I have to think of an out of the box adventure to sculpt the challenges dopesn't justify 'make the fighter trained in everything'.  Even worse not all rogues take those skills, sure the power gamer does, but people actually trying to build a role playing archetype may have other skills.  I have two rogues in my current playtest party both of them have crafting or profession skills.  Both of them are artisans.

Actually, given how broadly thievery has been interpretted in the past Sleeps, he's actually able to help quite fine in helping build a house.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:48PM, jonathan_sicari wrote:

Actually, given how broadly thievery has been interpretted in the past Sleeps, he's actually able to help quite fine in helping build a house.

given how thievery isn't a skill nope.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:31PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

And again Sleeps you keep overstating the importance of the skill die. The skill die on the fighter only makes him as good as the PCs who have the relevant ability score, and only then at high levels. So even on untrained checks or ability checks that cannot be made into skill checks at all, the fighter who has a universal skill die is only on par with his fellow PCs.

he also completely untrained with an 8 in the associated ability score and is equivalent to a character with a 20 in the ability score.  that is a problem it literally makes him better than everyone else.  Just because he is gimped and technically can't ever gain training in any skills over the ability he already has (a major flaw) doesn't make that balanced.

he is universally useful and that isn't acceptable for any character let alone on single class feature providing it.  Your massively underestimating the power of this.  DC 15 is the most common DC.  By level 7 the fighter succeeds most checks with a 10 in stat.  by level 12 he's succeeding most things with an 8 in stat.  oh the rogue has lock picking trained doesn't matter I got there with the fighter first and already picked the lock.  Sure I could have let the rogue do it but eh no harm in me trying it first.  Oh you thought we needed the wizard to read the grimoir nope my int 10 fighter is going to accomplish it easy peasy because I'm level 12 and even with my 10 int I have a decent chance of hitting the DC 17 check.

If you think 50% is easy peasy then of course you will have a problem. If you played a game where the outcome was determined by a coinflip and the penalty for failure is death? Probably not. 50% success rate on skills is kind of like that.

And again DC 15 tasks with a trained rogue/wizard/cleric = d20+5+d10 which is about 80% success rate. The fighter has about a 50% success rate. You are clearly blowing the success ratios out of proportion here. The cleric, wizard, and rogue are succeeding at most taks with an 80% success rate, the fighter is succeeding about half the time.

Also again, look at the revised table I provided. 
Level -  Fighter's Knack

1-4:       d4
5-9:       d6
10-14:   d8
15-19:   d10
20:        d12

Training bumps the die up 1 step. So it isn't until the fighter is 15th level that he even gets a d10. This ability turns the fighter into a jack of all trades, but it doesn't do what you seem to imagine it does. It does not make the fighter the go to guy for any particular situation, it just brings him up to par with the other classes.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:40PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:15PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Umm, with 8 trained skills you can get: steath, perception, persuasion, two knowledge skills (arcana, nature, and religion tend to come up the most), climb, thievery, and one more skills of your choice.  That pretty much covers 85% of the challenges a typical adventurer faces. It has nothing to do with DM preference, those are simply the tasks that come up the most.

I need you guys to help build this house...boom that rogue is almost useless unless he is a strength build rogue.  Just because I have to think of an out of the box adventure to sculpt the challenges dopesn't justify 'make the fighter trained in everything'.

I said the rogue can participate in 85% of tasks...
You said that is false...
I gave an example of the majority of non-combat tasks (the 85%)...
Your counter was "well rogues can't build houses"...

Do you think building houses falls under the 85% of typical things an adventurer might encounter?

P.S. Do you think "building a house" even requires die rolls by the party? That seems more like a "story" thing than a challenge worthy of die rolls. In fact I would argue that "crafting" is also more of a "story" thing than anything that requires die rolls, but that is neither here nor there. What is funny though, the only time I have seen PCs help build a house was in an Anime and it was the fighter who contributed the most. Your example only serves to show the benefit of the universal skill die method, ie, that fighters in literature and media are shown to be generally competent all around.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:37PM, ankiyavon wrote:

Jan 31, 2013 -- 4:47PM, Mand12 wrote:

Because spamming a heal spell is so much less video gamey than potion chugging...

Well, given that 'video gamey' is basically a catch-all term for 'a thing I don't like' which no one ever bothers to define, I can't argue with that.

Personally I think it's a great way to make your entire opinion irrelevant by announcing that you don't care about facts.  But I was feeling pedantic and wanted to correct his factually false statement.

Wand of Cure Light Wounds broke the game in 3e.  Or allowed for the game in 3e.  Whichever you choose says a lot about your perspective on the system as a whole, actually.

How anybody ever thought that 50 charges was appropriate for a wand I have no idea.  There was a niche between the single-use scroll and the multi-use, multi-spell staff, but wands just had way too much capacity.  5 uses would have been fine, 50 is just stupid.

Arguably, yes.  They were certainly too efficient as written.


However, the fact remains, the poster I quoted said it was a pre-4E thing.  It was not.  It was specifically 3E.  (In 2E, clerics absolutely did not have enough healing to provide the sort of sustained infinite-health that 3E wands allowed.  It wasn't even close.)

50 charges wasn't the problem. Wands weren't meant to be disposable.

The problem is how easy making magic items was. Add a couple of feats like Ancestral Relic and every character is soon running around with ubermagic that somewhat lamed out the concept of finding treasure.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 10:08AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

That is 100% a usage of tumble. never going to convince me it isn't.  The fighter can 100% say I'm going to try to tumble past him to try to avoid an attack of opportunity.

That's called the disengage option.  Of course it's doable, but the fighter simply isn't as good at it as the rogue.  So if you want a melee combatant who is tumbling around the battlefield, make him a rogue.  It requires a fighter (and any other class) to do in two actions (disengage and then attack) to do what a rogue (with the Tumble Skill Trick) can accomplish in one.

I'm not sure why you are so committed to shoving the round fighter into the square hole of the rogue.

Because many people thought, 'this class has a power that does it that means I can't allow anyone else to do something similar to it.'

Except that's not what I wrote.  I simply wrote the fighter will never be as good at it as the rogue, which is true. 

Also even forgoing all of that who's to say that there couldn't be a similar maneuver in the works?

There could be geese droppings included with the game too.  Making up nonexistent mechanics to support your argument isn't going to get you very far.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:04AM, greatfrito wrote:

+1 to Wrecan.
(And 50 points for Gryffindor.)

I'm a Hufflepuff, thank you.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 1:06PM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:04AM, greatfrito wrote:

+1 to Wrecan.
(And 50 points for Gryffindor.)

I'm a Hufflepuff, thank you.

I used to be a raven claw but got conscripted by gryffindor...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:08AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

specter says: As far as being compelling, the class system in Next only dictates how a character performs in combat. How they perform out of combat is based on every other part of the character creation process. I encourage you to start thinking outside the box in regards to character creation.

I says: Yep. That alone would probably solve 75% of the problems that come up on every forum topic on this site.

Except it's not true.  Wizards and clerics get spells that are inherently helpful (even designed) to be used in exploration and interaction.  Rogues get skill tricks that are so designed.  Even monks get useful abilities. 

If it were true that a wizard had to choose a Specialty in order to get access to any spells other than combat-appropriate spells like charms, illusions, and divinations, that would be one thing.  But they don't.  So class does not "only" dictate combat performance.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:49PM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:31PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

And again Sleeps you keep overstating the importance of the skill die. The skill die on the fighter only makes him as good as the PCs who have the relevant ability score, and only then at high levels. So even on untrained checks or ability checks that cannot be made into skill checks at all, the fighter who has a universal skill die is only on par with his fellow PCs.

he also completely untrained with an 8 in the associated ability score and is equivalent to a character with a 20 in the ability score.  that is a problem it literally makes him better than everyone else.  Just because he is gimped and technically can't ever gain training in any skills over the ability he already has (a major flaw) doesn't make that balanced.

he is universally useful and that isn't acceptable for any character let alone on single class feature providing it.  Your massively underestimating the power of this.  DC 15 is the most common DC.  By level 7 the fighter succeeds most checks with a 10 in stat.  by level 12 he's succeeding most things with an 8 in stat.  oh the rogue has lock picking trained doesn't matter I got there with the fighter first and already picked the lock.  Sure I could have let the rogue do it but eh no harm in me trying it first.  Oh you thought we needed the wizard to read the grimoir nope my int 10 fighter is going to accomplish it easy peasy because I'm level 12 and even with my 10 int I have a decent chance of hitting the DC 17 check.

If you think 50% is easy peasy then of course you will have a problem. If you played a game where the outcome was determined by a coinflip and the penalty for failure is death? Probably not. 50% success rate on skills is kind of like that.

And again DC 15 tasks with a trained rogue/wizard/cleric = d20+5+d10 which is about 80% success rate. The fighter has about a 50% success rate. You are clearly blowing the success ratios out of proportion here. The cleric, wizard, and rogue are succeeding at most taks with an 80% success rate, the fighter is succeeding about half the time.

Also again, look at the revised table I provided. 
Level -  Fighter's Knack

1-4:       d4
5-9:       d6
10-14:   d8
15-19:   d10
20:        d12

Training bumps the die up 1 step. So it isn't until the fighter is 15th level that he even gets a d10. This ability turns the fighter into a jack of all trades, but it doesn't do what you seem to imagine it does. It does not make the fighter the go to guy for any particular situation, it just brings him up to par with the other classes.

Doesn't matter that the wizard has a better chance.  Literally nothing stops the fighter from trying it, and he has a reasonable chance of success at everything (yes 50% chance is reasonable especially when you don't even have the relevent ability score), and death isn't always a penalty for failure.  If he has the stat he has an almost guaranteed chance.  A fighter that got lucky in the stat rolling phase will literally be able to do almost anything.  It isn't that he will be the go to guy, it is that he has a reasonable chance of scooping things from the go to guy.  Yeah the rogue with disable device trained has a better chance of picking the lock but the dex based fighter with 0 training can walk up and just scoop that every time.  He could always just speak up about picking the lock first, roll his die, and on a regular basis get the job done instead of the rogue who spent his actual character options on doing that stuff and the fighter didn't have to specifically set any part of his character in place to do that.  He just gets to regularly overshadow the rogue because he speaks up first.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 1:06PM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:04AM, greatfrito wrote:

+1 to Wrecan.
(And 50 points for Gryffindor.)

I'm a Hufflepuff, thank you.

Hey, never said those were for you.  I just figured, if I was giving out points...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 1:23PM, greatfrito wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 1:06PM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:04AM, greatfrito wrote:

+1 to Wrecan.
(And 50 points for Gryffindor.)

I'm a Hufflepuff, thank you.

Hey, never said those were for you.  I just figured, if I was giving out points...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 1:24PM, wrecan wrote:

-1 to Wrecan.

Ok sleeps, answer me this:

Why is it a bad thing that the fighter had a decent (50%) chance of succeeding at most average (DC 16 or so) difficulty tasks?

And Sleeps, how does the skill die empower the fighter to randomly start rolling at skill checks you think he shouldn't attempt?

At DC16 with a 10 attribute and no skill die the fighter still has a 25% chance of success. You said there was no reason for a fighter to not roll with a 50% chance of success, how is that any different from a 25% chance of success?

Feb 8, 2013 -- 1:30PM, Lawolf wrote:

Ok sleeps, answer me this: Why is it a bad thing that the fighter had a decent (50%) chance of succeeding at most average (DC 16 or so) difficulty tasks?

because everyone else needs to either be trained in a specific discipline to have that chance or be the paragon of mortality with the associated ability score.  Literally your die makes every fighter above 10th level more than a paragon of mortality in every single ability score.  A monk gets that ability...at level 20.  You hand it out by level 10 then you improve upon it.  You in fact make them better than monks especially if they have been smart with the 10 ability score bonuses they can dole out as they level.  Even worse the fighter is better than a paragon of mortality because he gets this bonus to checks he makes with ability scores that are already at the paragon of humanity.  Heck you luck out on ability score rolls and get something with no dump stat in it and everything above 11 and its basically a fools errand to be anything but a fighter.  you'll be more than a paragon of humanity in lees than 6 levels, and if your in a group that starts at 5th level or higher no matter what then congrats fighter is always the paragon of humanity able to overshadow anyone on whim and a tiny bit o luck.  It is too powerful as a singular class feature.  Even worse there is no flavor to it.  There is no thematic reasoning behind it.  Its just a cheap balancing tactic and a terrible one at that.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 10:12AM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Spoiler: Show

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:37PM, chaosfang wrote:

Feb 7, 2013 -- 9:22PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

luckily because the bonuses are buried within fighting styles and maneuvers you can include all the bonuses to build that kind of character because they won't interfere when you select your melee fighter options.  In fact mixing them will likely be the best idea no fighter should ever be 100% melee or ranged it doesn't make any sense.

Honestly I think something has to be brought out into the open, regarding D&D 4E in particular:

Considering how "same-y" classes supposedly are, why is it that no one really bothered to allow characters to swap powers that felt appropriate to their story without taking multiclass into consideration and regardless of the imbalance implications?

I mean if the table isn't concerned about balance, and you want to play as an Archer Fighter, why shouldn't the DM allow you to swap even just one at-will, one encounter and one daily, in order to keep in character, especially if he also allows it for other classes?  Considering that some of the more common "houserules" proposed here (aside from giving Weapon Expertise, Weapon Focus and Improved Defenses for free) involve mangling the multiclassing rules, why shouldn't the DM just say "alright, multiclass to Ranger and I'll let you pick from the Ranger list of powers, and swap out one of your at-wills for it"?

You're still playing as a Fighter after all, it's just that one of your feats basically turned into Ranged Specialization.

If ALL classes gained scaling powers and 'flat' powers at the same rate, this could work AND be balanced. Classes would become slightly less meaningful... ending up being more like a guideline for a character archetype. Some problems I see would be that this veers away from the 'choose a class' tradition of D&D, that it might accidentally step into a big pile of 'genericness' and that creating a workable adventure group of individuals with unique abilities and skills to contribute will become more difficult in some ways, even if easier in others.

DARN YOU TO HECK, FIREFOX FOR CAUSING MY EDIT TO FAIL REPEATEDLY

The CLASSES chapter might eventually be reduce to a chart that might look something like so:
CLASS ABILITIES OF CHARACTERS
LEVEL     FLAT ABILITY     SCALING POWER
1             4                          1
2             5                          1
3             5                          2
4             6                          2
5             7                          2
6             7                          3
and so on

Then the players could pick and choose abilities at will. I realize that spell-casting ability would probably throw such a plan out the window; meh... just a thought.

Actually I wouldn't mind if the classes were more like guidelines, much like rules themselves were supposedly more like guidelines.  Those who want to keep character creation simple, pick a class and be done with it... while those who have a character in mind that is close to a class but not quite there yet could pick a class, swap a power or two, and go for it.  Then those who want to be half-and-half could go for hybrid, and those who want to gain an extra power or feature could multiclass. 

It is funny you mention paragon's of humanity sleeps.  Every high level fighter from myth, fantasy literature, and media has been depicted as a paragon of humanity. They have all been portrayed as more cunning than a regular warrior, stronger faster and tougher than a regular warrior, and alltogether more capable. The fighter universal skill die would actually represent this. Just some interesting food for thought. Although, it might be more suitable mechanic for a "Legend" or "Hero" class simple because "fighter's can't have nice things".

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:18AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:11AM, Garthanos wrote:

Or the fighter maybe a martial artist without being a monk...

Sure.  Why not?

The monk is being defined as a guy who channels supernatural ki into various effects.  So someone who specializes in unarmed fighting is a fighter (or rogue depending on the style).  I have no problem with that.

Usually called a streetfighter or brawler or pugilist...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:19AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:16AM, Garthanos wrote:

I think heroic luck is in some ways a big element of the fighter ... its not just that the class is more skilled at defending themselves or even tough.

Although I woud say the rogue to be even more so.. as I often picture almost all of a rogues hit points as being luck

Well, if it fits for rogue and fighter, it can't be a defining feature of the fighter can it?

So using weapons and armor (which Clerics and Rogues do) can't be a part of Fighter. Making basic attacks is also done by Rogue, Monks, and Barbarians so I guess the Fighter can't do that. Maneuvers are done by Barbarians and Monks, guess the Fighter can't do that. What's left? Standing there and taking hits. The Barbarian does that and the Cleric. Guess what? the Fighter shouldn't exist...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:40AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 6:36AM, wrecan wrote:

Okay.... some heroic fighters....

The Second Edition PHB lists the following examples of fighters: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, Sinbad, El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius.  I've crossed out the ones that probably make more sense as a warlord.  (Technically, I don't think Hercules and Perseus should be included either as their prowess comes from being born of gods, and that means they've got some racial abilities in there.)  

To this list, I'd add Gimli and Bard the Bowman from Tolkein, Mat Cauthon from Wheel of Time, and almost every character who knows how to use a sword and cannot use magic from Songs of Ice and Fire.

So what do these guys have in common beyond the ability to use weapons and armor proficiently?  

Here's my pitch: self-reliance and stalwartness.

Of all the classes, only the fighter truly stares death squarely in the face. As any soldier can tell you combat is brutal and it is hard and most people will develop tools to avoid having to face it directly. Spellcasters have spells to keep death at a distance. Rogues use indrectness and stealth to avoid it, Barbarians are shieled in part under a veneer of rage. Clerics and paladins rely on their faith. Warlords gain strength form their allies and minions. Monks have their meditiations and routines.  Psions can escape into their own minds. Rangers focus on their prey to shut out the horror of death.

Fighters, unique among the classes, must face death head on, possessing none of these coping mechanisms.  And this means fighters, of all the classes, develop a hardness to them, mental barriers to keep the darkness they face away. 

All of the characters mentioned above have a stalwart quality to them.  They may appear hard or they may appear convivial. But they are self-reliant and stalwart in a way that other characters of legend and myth are not.

So how could this manifest in the various pillars?

Well, to be fair, I think they have combat pretty good.  Fighters tend to have good defenses and know how to use the most weapons.  This matches their penchant for stoicism and self-reliance.  I think they should be the best at improvised attacks, getting a bonus for turning a chair leg into a club or pulling pieces of a broken wall down against an enemy.  In contrast, rogues should be the best at improvised movement -- finding places to hide, being able to shift around, tumbling, etc.

In exploration, fighters should be rock steady.  They are the ones who possess the hardiness to take watch.  They can sleep in armor. They can bear down against a wall, or carry a fallen comrade to safety.  They can ignore the effects of disease until the danger has passed, or ford the swollen river.  They have reserves of strength and stamina that others do not possess.  If a barbarian's rage is like a bolt of lightning quick and furious, a fighter's reserves are like a desert heat wave, unrelenting and dry.

In interaction, fighters are the immovable object. They can resist the wiles of others, stay focused on their goal, and will not be intimidated by some poppinjay's threats.  Fighters can stare down all ten of a beholder's eyes; the threats of some fop with a crown will not scare them.  Directness is their strength, patience is their virtue, and worldliness their burden.

This dictates far to much about fighters

its thematic in its base which is cool and I agree with some of it, for some fighters, but unfortunately it dictates way to much about the character.  this still completely ignores the dex build style fighters also.

"In interaction, fighters are the immovable object. They can resist the wiles of others, stay focused on their goal, and will not be intimidated by some poppinjay's threats.  Fighters can stare down all ten of a beholder's eyes; the threats of some fop with a crown will not scare them.  Directness is their strength, patience is their virtue, and worldliness their burden. "

Things like that are too prescriptive of the flavor of members of the class.  Especially for such a broad class.  It sits there and explicitly says asomething about all fighters that is not entirely true of all fighters.  It outright limits the types of characters I can make.  I couldn't take the minstrel background and fighter class if the fighter class has that description.  I straight couldn't ever play fighter if I wanted to make him a subtle manipulater type character at all.  Even If I wanted combat to be his core with his background providing other benefits that allow him to be a subtle manipulator.  I couldn't for instance take the spy background with that description on fighter.  The descriptions would be in direct opposition.

In addition stalwart is a word I'd use to describe a paladin.
stal·wart  (stôlwrt)

adj.

1. Having or marked by imposing physical strength.

2. Firm and resolute; stout.

n.

1. One who is physically and morally strong.

2. One who steadfastly supports an organization or cause: party stalwarts.

Also:
Hercules, Perseus: Gods, or at least DemiGods
Hiawatha: Born of a celestial being.
Beowulf: Super Human powers not originating from his training as a fighter, he in fact rolled with elite warriors, fighters, and they still usually died because Beowulf had super human capabilities and the things he was fighting and standing up to required that.
Siegfried: descendent of the Sons of Odin
Cuchulain: decendent of a deity
Little John: okay finally not a decendent of a god, or superhuman in any way, he also exists in an entirely different kind of story, there are not monsters in the robin hood mythos only men and women.  He's also noted to actually be quite cunning.  I'd give hime some rogue levels on top of his fighter levels.
Tristan: Okay your average knight of a holy order I'd call him a Paladin more than a fighter.
Sinbad: Sounds more like a rogue to me he wins by his wits and luck not by his strength.
El Cid: Also a Warlord
Spartucus:  I'd give him levels in warlord as he lead an army in a campaign that scared the romans. like he lead tens of thousands of men if he isn't a warlord I don't know who is.


Just sayin all of your examples have something else in their backstory other than training as a fighter that is responsible for a good portion of their qualities.
 

That's ok I can re-flavor Conan as a Fighter, a Rogue, or a Barbarian since all of those classes cover what he did. Just because you feel batman is a Rogue rather than a Fighter doesn't mean that Fighter's can't have out of combat features...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 2:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

It is funny you mention paragon's of humanity sleeps.  Every high level fighter from myth, fantasy literature, and media has been depicted as a paragon of humanity. They have all been portrayed as more cunning than a regular warrior, stronger faster and tougher than a regular warrior, and alltogether more capable. The fighter universal skill die would actually represent this. Just some interesting food for thought. Although, it might be more suitable mechanic for a "Legend" or "Hero" class simple because "fighter's can't have nice things".

I totally agree with this.  I can't agree more with this.

Sleeps, I get the impression that you already have a Vision of what the Fighter should be, otherwise you wouldn't keep shooting down every single attempt by everyone else.

So, share with the rest of the class, please. 

Feb 8, 2013 -- 9:05AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:52AM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:40AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

its thematic in its base which is cool and I agree with some of it, for some fighters, but unfortunately it dictates way to much about the character.  this still completely ignores the dex build style fighters also.

My posts didn't mention anythign about fighting style.  The dex-based fighters fight differently than the rogue.  The dex-based fighters are still direct fighters.  They aren't tumbling around the battlefield striking from behind.

see thats where you falter...yes they are, or at least they can be.  That is just their fighting style.

Rogues fight dirty using trickery and deception to get an advantage.

Dex based Fighters simply use light armor and finesse weapons and use their speed to win a fight.

Huge difference...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:40PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:15PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Umm, with 8 trained skills you can get: steath, perception, persuasion, two knowledge skills (arcana, nature, and religion tend to come up the most), climb, thievery, and one more skills of your choice.  That pretty much covers 85% of the challenges a typical adventurer faces. It has nothing to do with DM preference, those are simply the tasks that come up the most.

I need you guys to help build this house...boom that rogue is almost useless unless he is a strength build rogue.  Just because I have to think of an out of the box adventure to sculpt the challenges dopesn't justify 'make the fighter trained in everything'.  Even worse not all rogues take those skills, sure the power gamer does, but people actually trying to build a role playing archetype may have other skills.  I have two rogues in my current playtest party both of them have crafting or profession skills.  Both of them are artisans.

You are also forgetting Ace in the Hole which applies to any skill check or attack roll...

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? 

And what?
Have a PHB with 37 classes?

Every little niche doesn't have to be a "class".

Look at the names of the old school "classes"... they describe what those characters do, not what they are.
Magic-User
Thief
Fighter
Cleric

Pretty self explanatory.
If the fighter is appearing to be weak when compared with other "classes", then maybe the other classes need to be toned down instead of piling the fighter with bells and whistles.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 2:29PM, lokiare wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:19AM, wrecan wrote:

Well, if it fits for rogue and fighter, it can't be a defining feature of the fighter can it?

So using weapons and armor (which Clerics and Rogues do) can't be a part of Fighter.

I see what you did there and it's not pretty.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 2:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

It is funny you mention paragon's of humanity sleeps.  Every high level fighter from myth, fantasy literature, and media has been depicted as a paragon of humanity. They have all been portrayed as more cunning than a regular warrior, stronger faster and tougher than a regular warrior, and alltogether more capable. The fighter universal skill die would actually represent this. Just some interesting food for thought. Although, it might be more suitable mechanic for a "Legend" or "Hero" class simple because "fighter's can't have nice things".

Except for the Little Jons, the Lan Mandragorans, the Gimlis, the Tam al'Thors, the Charity Carpenters and the Karrin Murphys.  They in fact aren't paragons of mortality.  Yes many fighters of legend are paragons of mortality unfortunately not all of them are paragons of mortality.  Not all fighters are paragons of mortality, especially not in every concievable way (Hercules may have been a paragon of human physicality but if I'm not mistaken his mental stats weren't the best) meaning you can't make that a broadband class feature, you especially can't make that a level 1 class feature because it is a level 20 class feature for another class.  I have no problem with this being something you can lay on any character (because a paragon of mortality can in fact be of any class).  However making it part of fighter.

Also never do that fighters can't have nice things garbage with me.  I never said that stop putting words in my mouth.  I in fact spent a large portion of the pages before this suggestion popped up detailing a bunch of ideas of how to give them nice things.  Just because I think your idea is flavorless boring and a tad broken doesn't mean I think fighters shouldn't have nice things.  Fighters should have nice things.  Unfortunately this thing is to nice for anyone to have.  It is boring and it has 0 flavor other than I'm a demi god.  It limits possible characters and that is needless.  In fact as a module applying that to every character to play a demigods game would be really fricken awesome but demigodhood isn't unter the soul perview of fighters.  Also don't ask me if there are any demigod casters or rogues in fantasy literature, I'm sure there is, but even if there isn't I mean, really? Oh no new ideas we can't have those. 

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:34PM, xladyfayre wrote:

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...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:49PM, wrecan wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 2:29PM, lokiare wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 8:19AM, wrecan wrote:

Well, if it fits for rogue and fighter, it can't be a defining feature of the fighter can it?

So using weapons and armor (which Clerics and Rogues do) can't be a part of Fighter.

I see what you did there and it's not pretty.

Ok, then it can't be a DEFINING FEATURE of the Fighter, so they can't get better weapon and armor choices than the other classes. The logic still applies when you fix the semantics...

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:53PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 2:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

It is funny you mention paragon's of humanity sleeps.  Every high level fighter from myth, fantasy literature, and media has been depicted as a paragon of humanity. They have all been portrayed as more cunning than a regular warrior, stronger faster and tougher than a regular warrior, and alltogether more capable. The fighter universal skill die would actually represent this. Just some interesting food for thought. Although, it might be more suitable mechanic for a "Legend" or "Hero" class simple because "fighter's can't have nice things".

Except for the Little Jons, the Lan Mandragorans, the Gimlis, the Tam al'Thors, the Charity Carpenters and the Karrin Murphys.  They in fact aren't paragons of mortality.  Yes many fighters of legend are paragons of mortality unfortunately not all of them are paragons of mortality.  Not all fighters are paragons of mortality, especially not in every concievable way (Hercules may have been a paragon of human physicality but if I'm not mistaken his mental stats weren't the best) meaning you can't make that a broadband class feature, you especially can't make that a level 1 class feature because it is a level 20 class feature for another class.  I have no problem with this being something you can lay on any character (because a paragon of mortality can in fact be of any class).  However making it part of fighter.

Umm the fighters you listed aren't high level. Gimly is usually places somewhere between 3-5 for example. The fighter's you listed aren't yet at the point where they are paragon's of humanity. Such low level fighter's are still shown to be a cut above regular warriors though. A d4 or d6 universal skill die works well for these lower level fighters though.

And yes Samson, Hercules, etc do not have the best mental stats, but time and time again such heroes are shown to overcome challenges through cunning as well as physical might. You know what represents increased cunning but not necessarily a high Intelligence or Wisdom? You guessed it, getting to roll a skill die with Int or Wisdom checks.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:20PM, lokiare wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:40PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:15PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Umm, with 8 trained skills you can get: steath, perception, persuasion, two knowledge skills (arcana, nature, and religion tend to come up the most), climb, thievery, and one more skills of your choice.  That pretty much covers 85% of the challenges a typical adventurer faces. It has nothing to do with DM preference, those are simply the tasks that come up the most.

I need you guys to help build this house...boom that rogue is almost useless unless he is a strength build rogue.  Just because I have to think of an out of the box adventure to sculpt the challenges dopesn't justify 'make the fighter trained in everything'.  Even worse not all rogues take those skills, sure the power gamer does, but people actually trying to build a role playing archetype may have other skills.  I have two rogues in my current playtest party both of them have crafting or profession skills.  Both of them are artisans.

You are also forgetting Ace in the Hole which applies to any skill check or attack roll...

4 checks a day at top level...yeah. and that's kinda OP. but at top level so isn't the barbarians unlimited rage, and so isn't the fact that the monk becomes a demi god just then by going to 20 in every stat.  The ability I argue against is making you have that demigodhood at level 10. even worse it gives you no character.  You have no deffinition of a character no specialities nothing that really defines your character

I instead say make the fighting styles somewhat equatable with rogue schemes

Each Fighting style gives:
4 specialized weapons
specialization:
select a maneuver for each weapon.  While wielding that weapon you have access to that maneuver.For example: quarterstaff specialization(whirlwind attack).  meaning you selected whirwind attack to be useable with quarterstaffs.
suggest 5 other maneuvers but leave all 5 slots optional.
offer 3 to 4 skills or skill trick esqu traits 

Some more uniquer variations on that formula but basically that.  maybe some fighting styles grab up feats instead of a specialized weapon or two. 

gives you a nice balanced allotment of stuff and further defines your character rather than just saying here you go have everything and nothing truly defining.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:55PM, lokiare wrote:

Ok, then it can't be a DEFINING FEATURE of the Fighter, so they can't get better weapon and armor choices than the other classes.

Just because something isn't a "defining feature" does not mean the class cannot get it.  A class can have features other than defining features.

How about this as one of the fighter features.
Hero of Legend - At level 1 the fighter may choose two of the following abilities:

Might - You may add your skill die to all Strength rolls
Vigor - You may add your skill die to all Constitution rolls
Agility - You may add your skill die to all Dexterity rolls
Wits - You may add your skill die to all Intelligence rolls
Cunning - You may add your skill die to all Wisdom rolls
Charm - You may add your skill die to all Charisma rolls

Perhaps each choice could come with training in a specific related maneuver/skill trick.
Ex: Might comes with the Mighty Exertion Trick or the Power Attack maneuver.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 6:54AM, wrecan wrote:

Okay.  Drop Mat Cauthon from the list and put Perseus back on.

Does anybody have comments to the substance of my post? 

I like.  Still looking at what everything else has to say....

Carl

Feb 8, 2013 -- 4:39PM, Lawolf wrote:

How about this as one of the fighter features.
Hero of Legend - At level 1 the fighter may choose two of the following abilities:

Might - You may add your skill die to all Strength rolls
Vigor - You may add your skill die to all Constitution rolls
Agility - You may add your skill die to all Dexterity rolls
Wits - You may add your skill die to all Intelligence rolls
Cunning - You may add your skill die to all Wisdom rolls
Charm - You may add your skill die to all Charisma rolls

Perhaps each choice could come with training in a specific related maneuver/skill trick.
Ex: Might comes with the Mighty Exertion Trick or the Power Attack maneuver.

According to Mearls (I believe i was in the last google+ hangout) the 'basic' version of skills will be...


Fighters roll a skill die on all strength checks, Wizards rolls skill die on all intelligence checks, Rogues roll a die on all dexterity checks and Clerics roll a die on all dexterity checks (other classes were not addressed).

Other than that - this could be used to solve the 'why don't fighter have skilsl' issue - but I'm not sure it is sufficient to count as a defining feature.


Carl     

Feb 8, 2013 -- 4:13PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:20PM, lokiare wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:40PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:26PM, Lawolf wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:15PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:45AM, Lawolf wrote:

The rogue can participate on roughly 85% of non combat challenges with about an 65-95% chance of success on any given task

this is false.  unless your DM is favoring the rogues abilities.

Umm, with 8 trained skills you can get: steath, perception, persuasion, two knowledge skills (arcana, nature, and religion tend to come up the most), climb, thievery, and one more skills of your choice.  That pretty much covers 85% of the challenges a typical adventurer faces. It has nothing to do with DM preference, those are simply the tasks that come up the most.

I need you guys to help build this house...boom that rogue is almost useless unless he is a strength build rogue.  Just because I have to think of an out of the box adventure to sculpt the challenges dopesn't justify 'make the fighter trained in everything'.  Even worse not all rogues take those skills, sure the power gamer does, but people actually trying to build a role playing archetype may have other skills.  I have two rogues in my current playtest party both of them have crafting or profession skills.  Both of them are artisans.

You are also forgetting Ace in the Hole which applies to any skill check or attack roll...

4 checks a day at top level...yeah. and that's kinda OP. but at top level so isn't the barbarians unlimited rage, and so isn't the fact that the monk becomes a demi god just then by going to 20 in every stat.  The ability I argue against is making you have that demigodhood at level 10. even worse it gives you no character.  You have no deffinition of a character no specialities nothing that really defines your character

I instead say make the fighting styles somewhat equatable with rogue schemes

Each Fighting style gives:
4 specialized weapons
specialization:
select a maneuver for each weapon.  While wielding that weapon you have access to that maneuver.For example: quarterstaff specialization(whirlwind attack).  meaning you selected whirwind attack to be useable with quarterstaffs.
suggest 5 other maneuvers but leave all 5 slots optional.
offer 3 to 4 skills or skill trick esqu traits 

Some more uniquer variations on that formula but basically that.  maybe some fighting styles grab up feats instead of a specialized weapon or two. 

gives you a nice balanced allotment of stuff and further defines your character rather than just saying here you go have everything and nothing truly defining.

Exactly.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 5:03PM, CarlT wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 4:39PM, Lawolf wrote:

How about this as one of the fighter features.
Hero of Legend - At level 1 the fighter may choose two of the following abilities:

Might - You may add your skill die to all Strength rolls
Vigor - You may add your skill die to all Constitution rolls
Agility - You may add your skill die to all Dexterity rolls
Wits - You may add your skill die to all Intelligence rolls
Cunning - You may add your skill die to all Wisdom rolls
Charm - You may add your skill die to all Charisma rolls

Perhaps each choice could come with training in a specific related maneuver/skill trick.
Ex: Might comes with the Mighty Exertion Trick or the Power Attack maneuver.

According to Mearls (I believe i was in the last google+ hangout) the 'basic' version of skills will be...


Fighters roll a skill die on all strength checks, Wizards rolls skill die on all intelligence checks, Rogues roll a die on all dexterity checks and Clerics roll a die on all dexterity checks (other classes were not addressed).

Other than that - this could be used to solve the 'why don't fighter have skilsl' issue - but I'm not sure it is sufficient to count as a defining feature.
Carl     

I think the fighter is just too broad to be able to have a defining feature. That seems to be a big part of the fighter's problem. It is so all encompassing that any "defining feature" someone suggests gets shot down as not pertaining to one persons narrow view on what fighter's actually are.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 4:13PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

I instead say make the fighting styles somewhat equatable with rogue schemes

Each Fighting style gives:
4 specialized weapons
specialization:
select a maneuver for each weapon.  While wielding that weapon you have access to that maneuver.For example: quarterstaff specialization(whirlwind attack).  meaning you selected whirwind attack to be useable with quarterstaffs.
suggest 5 other maneuvers but leave all 5 slots optional.
offer 3 to 4 skills or skill trick esqu traits 

Some more uniquer variations on that formula but basically that.  maybe some fighting styles grab up feats instead of a specialized weapon or two. 

gives you a nice balanced allotment of stuff and further defines your character rather than just saying here you go have everything and nothing truly defining.

This sounds   pretty good.    It makes their defining feature the weapon specialization (includuing specialized maneuvers for that weapon).


Some people complain about weapon specialization because "what if I want to use a different weapon later".  I  don't - but I've seen it.


This proposal gets around that so some degree by suggesting four weapons rather than a weapon.  This is a good improvement.


I would also suggest a 'style' that is, essentially, generalist.   Just as 4E had a generalist expertise and 5E has a generalist wizard - I think one of the fighting styles oughto to focus on using any weapon at hand (including improvised weapons) very effectively - while lacking many of the specialized maneuvers of the more focused styles. 


This   would allow players who really don't like to be tied down to have an effective character using a related approach.


Carl

Feb 8, 2013 -- 5:16PM, CarlT wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 4:13PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

I instead say make the fighting styles somewhat equatable with rogue schemes

Each Fighting style gives:
4 specialized weapons
specialization:
select a maneuver for each weapon.  While wielding that weapon you have access to that maneuver.For example: quarterstaff specialization(whirlwind attack).  meaning you selected whirwind attack to be useable with quarterstaffs.
suggest 5 other maneuvers but leave all 5 slots optional.
offer 3 to 4 skills or skill trick esqu traits 

Some more uniquer variations on that formula but basically that.  maybe some fighting styles grab up feats instead of a specialized weapon or two. 

gives you a nice balanced allotment of stuff and further defines your character rather than just saying here you go have everything and nothing truly defining.

This sounds   pretty good.    It makes their defining feature the weapon specialization (includuing specialized maneuvers for that weapon).


Some people complain about weapon specialization because "what if I want to use a different weapon later".  I  don't - but I've seen it.


This proposal gets around that so some degree by suggesting four weapons rather than a weapon.  This is a good improvement.


I would also suggest a 'style' that is, essentially, generalist.   Just as 4E had a generalist expertise and 5E has a generalist wizard - I think one of the fighting styles oughto to focus on using any weapon at hand (including improvised weapons) very effectively - while lacking many of the specialized maneuvers of the more focused styles. 


This   would allow players who really don't like to be tied down to have an effective character using a related approach.


Carl

Thanks for some reason every time I post this idea all conversation halts for a bit till someone says something crazy then everyone gets back to fighting and they completely ignore this. I mean (Yes this next part is entirely copied from another thread why we try to have the same convo in like 5 threads I will never understand):

Heck I'd even be down for sacking out weapon specialties for skill tricks on some fighting styles.  I mean for the mongolian fighting style a horse riding based skill trick would be helpful. or something equatable.  drop out a weapon specialization and gve the mongolian fighting style style something like:  As part of your action while riding a horse you may spend your skill die and roll it, add half the value shown on the die to both your AC and the horses AC until the end of your next turn. 

A weapons pecialization or two can also be sacked out for something like two weapon defense.  that swashbuckler would have weapon spec cestus and rapier or scimitar (or saber if its there) as well as two weapon defense.

I'm also convinced these fighting styles should also be in charge of armor proficiencies and possibly the double stat setup like the barbarian.  That swashbuckler fighting style would come with inteligence mod in addition to their dex mod when not wearing armor, but with light armor prof as well.  However when designing your own select the types of armor to be proficient with and the mod to use.

I would be 100% behind the fighter getting bonuses to every save such as the skill die to every save. 

I just revised all the Fighting Styles, suggesting fixes for existing maneuvers and suggesting some new ones, over on my Assessing thread.

I wonder what people think about these suggestions, summarized:

Duellist:
Change Spring Attack - spend 2 MDD to move 10 additional feet, and 3 MDD to move through enemy-occupied squares without AOO.
Change Lunge -  spend 2 MDD to maximize damage on this attack but grants advantage against target for 1 turn, and 3 MDD to maximize without granting advantage.
Remove Glancing Blow, Opportunist as non-functional.
Add Riposte - when struck by an attack in melee, spend three MDD to reflect the attack's damage back on the attacker.
Add Taunt -  spend one dice to force an opponent to pass a Will check at DC 10 + your CHA mod, or target you its next turn; 2 MDD adds +2 to the DC, 3 MDD adds +4. 

Sharpshooter:
Move Defensive Roll over to Duellist. 
Add Kill-Shot - spend 3 MDD to maximize damage against 1 target, but MDD don't refresh for 1 round. 
Add Pinning Shot - when in melee range with target, send 1 MDD to make a ranged attack that does normal damage and reduces target's movement to zero for one round unless passes Strength check at DC 10 + your Dex bonus. Spending 2 MDD adds +2 to DC, 3 MDD adds +4. 

Protector: 
Remove Composed Attack, Glancing Blow, Opportunist.
Add Trip - on a successful melee attack, spend 1 MDD to knock prone = or lesser size, 2 MDD to knock down 1 size larger, 3 MDD to make standing up take all movement on target's next turn
Add and change Shove Away - on a successful melee attack, spend 1 MDD to push 5 feet away, 2 MDD to push 15 feet away, and 3 MDD to push 30 feet away and knock prone.
Add Shield Bash - choose any number of targets within 5 feet; for the next round, attacking any target other than yourself imposes Disadvantage on that attack. For each target you pick, you must spend 1 MDD.
Add Hold the Line - choose any number of targets within 5 feet; for the next round, moving requires passing a Dex check at DC 10+your Strength bonus. For each target you pick, you must spend 1 MDD.

Slayer:
Replace Glancing Blow with Cleave - after dropping an enemy to 0 hp, pick any number of targets within 5 feet and make a basic melee attack against them. For each target, you must spend 1 MDD.
Add Crack Skull - on a successful attack, can attempt to stun the target for 1 round. Target gets a Con save at DC 10 + Strength bonus at 1 MDD, +2 DC at 2 MDD, +4 DC at 3MDD. Target has advantage if it's wearing a helm. 
Add All-Out Assault- on a successful attack, can attempt to make another melee attack on the same target. Spend 1 MDD to make a melee attack, but give advantage to all attackers. Spend 2 MDD to make a melee attack but give advantage to that target only. Spend 3 MDD to make a melee attack without giving advantage.

Do these make the Fighter's maneuvers more exciting/evocative?

Feb 9, 2013 -- 1:50AM, Vikingkingq wrote:

I just revised all the Fighting Styles, suggesting fixes for existing maneuvers and suggesting some new ones, over on my Assessing thread.

I wonder what people think about these suggestions, summarized:

My thoughts:

First: I keep seeing people propose abilities that any first level fighter could do in 4E - and then charging them multiple MDD for it.  I don't see it.  They should be able to do basic maneuvers free - and then power them up with additional dice


We can always adjust the damage later.  Lets get them using cool evocative maneuvers first.


Duelist:
Spring Attack (changed)- Move 10 additional feet (no cost); spend one MDD to move through enemy-occupied squares without AOO.
Lunge (changed) -  Your reach is increased to 10' (no cost).  You gain advantage on this attack, however if you miss you grant advantage to all melee attacks until the start of your next turn.(
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.  
Taunt -  As an action, you can taunt your opponent; the taunt is a check opposing your Charisma against his Will.   If the opponent loses the check, he must attack you on his next action; if he is prevented from attacking you, he suffers no penalties.  You can take another action during this turn, as long as that action is not an attack, triggering a magic item or requires speech.
Needs one more.  Probably a weapon (light blade) based maneuver.


Sharpshooter:
Move Defensive Roll over to Duellist. 
Add Kill-Shot - spend 3 MDD to maximize damage against 1 target, but MDD don't refresh for 1 round. 
Add Pinning Shot - when in melee range with target, send 1 MDD to make a ranged attack that does normal damage and reduces target's movement to zero for one round unless passes Strength check at DC 10 + your Dex bonus. Spending 2 MDD adds +2 to DC, 3 MDD adds +4. 
I'm not a big fan of maneuvers that just pump up the damage.  They have a place - but don't really do much for the boring aspect.

Marksman
Precise Shot: Your attacks ignore half cover; characters with three-quarters cover are treated as if they have half cover.  If you spend a martial damage die, you can ignore 3/4 cover and treat full cover as 3/4 cover.
Prone Shot:  You do not suffer any penalties for using a bow while prone.
Pinning Shot:  While within 10' of a target, you can make a pinning shot (no cost).  If the attack hits, the targets movement is reduced by 10'.  If you spend martial damage dice on the attack, you can reduce the target's speed by an additional 10' for every die you spend.  If you reduce the targets movement to zero, the target must spend an action to free themselves.
Kill-Shot:  If you spend one round observing your target and your target remains in your line of sight during that time, you can double the number of martial damage dice you can spend.  If your target is unaware of your presence during this time, you can triple the number of Martial Damage dice you spend.
Volley:  as is.


Protector:
Trip - As an action, you can make a melee attack and if you hit your target is knocked prone if it is your size or smaller.  If you spend one die, you can knock a target that is up to one size larger than yourself prone and the target must spend its entire move to get up.  If you spend three dice, you can knock a target that is up to two sizes larger than yourself prone, and the target must spend its entire move to get up.
Shove Away   - As an action, you can make a melee attack and if you hit you can push a target that is up to your size or smaller one square.  If you spend one MDD, you can push a target that is your size or smaller up to 15, or a target that is up to one size larger than yourself 5'.  If you spend three MDD, you can push a target that is up to two sizes larger than yourself 5' or target up to one size larger than yourself 15'.   If the target is pushed 10' or more, it falls prone.  The target must be pushed in a straight line away from you and if the target's path passes through the square of any creature its own size or smaller, that creature must make a Dexterity save (DC 10+StrMod+Attack Bonus) or be pushed to the side and fall prone. 
Shield Bash:  Choose any number of targets within 5 feet; for the next round, attacking any target other than yourself imposes Disadvantage on that attack.   As a reaction you can make an melee attack using your shield against any target that chooses to attack a target other than yourself.  If this attack hits and the target is your size or smaller, you can spend a martial damage die to either push the target back one square or knock them prone.  If you spend two dice, you can both push them one die and knock them prone.
Hold the Line -Entering any square within your reach costs your enemies one extra square of movement.   You gain one additional reaction which must be used for opportunity attacks.  If you make an opportunity attack against an opponent who leaves a square within 5' of you, and you hit, that opponent loses the remainder of their move.   
Protect:  as is

Slayer:
Cleave -  If you make an attack on your turn and drop an enemy to 0 hit points, you can make an attack against another enemy within 5'.  If you have any martial damage dice left, you can spend them to move before making this attack.  For every martial damage die you spend, you can move 5'.
Crack Skull - If you make an attack on your turn, you can attempt to stun the target.  If you hit, the target gets a ConSave (DC 10 + Str + Attack Bonus).  If the target is nonhumanoid, larger than you or if the target is wearing a helm, it gets advantage on this save, although you can negate this advantage by spending one MDD.  If it fails, it is stunned until the start of its next turn. If you spend three martial damage dice, you can extend this stun till the end of its next turn.
All-Out Assault- As an action you can attempt an all-out assault.   Make a melee attack.  If the attack hits, you can spend a martial damage die to make a second melee attack on the same target.  If this attack hits, you can spend two more martial damage dice to make a third melee attack on the target.     
Charge - As an action, you can charge across the battefield to reach your foe.  If you start your turn at least forty feet away from your opponent, you have advantage on your attack.  [they didn't see it coming/ thought you were too far away to reach them.]  If you hit, you can push them 5' and knock them prone.  If you spend a martial damage die on this charge, the target must Contest their Will against your Charisma + Intimidate Skill Die if you have one or be Frightened until the end of their next turn.  If you spend three MDD, all enemies within 5' of the target must make this check (the attacker only rolls once for the intimidate).
Weapon Based Maneuver ....



So - what about these?


Carl

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:53AM, CarlT wrote:

[

My thoughts:

First: I keep seeing people propose abilities that any first level fighter could do in 4E - and then charging them multiple MDD for it.  I don't see it.  They should be able to do basic maneuvers free - and then power them up with additional dice

We can always adjust the damage later.  Lets get them using cool evocative maneuvers first.

That's a fair poiint, and I think the direction that Mearls talked about going in the google hangout (Fighter maneuvers will have a zero-dice baseline cost, and then you give up dice to super-charge the effects) is going in that direction. 

However, I think the sweet spot we're aiming for is halfway between the dizzying array of choices (often redundant, far too many different status effects, etc.) of 4e and the 5/28/12 build of the Next Fighter. 

Duelist:
Spring Attack (changed)- Move 10 additional feet (no cost); spend one MDD to move through enemy-occupied squares without AOO.
Lunge (changed) -  Your reach is increased to 10' (no cost).  You gain advantage on this attack, however if you miss you grant advantage to all melee attacks until the start of your next turn.(
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.  
Taunt -  As an action, you can taunt your opponent; the taunt is a check opposing your Charisma against his Will.   If the opponent loses the check, he must attack you on his next action; if he is prevented from attacking you, he suffers no penalties.  You can take another action during this turn, as long as that action is not an attack, triggering a magic item or requires speech.
Needs one more.  Probably a weapon (light blade) based maneuver.

1. Non-scaling maneuvers are BAD. 
2. In general, what the Fighter lacks are impressive maneuvers that live up to the cost in damage dice - this is even more true with the move to Weapon Dice. And the thing is, Fighters aren't lacking in accuracy at the moment. What they are lacking are impressive attacks - I liked the idea of trading off maximized damage with the chance of granting advantage, since that's what lunging does bascially. 
3. That's ok, but less interesting than my version. Also, it's not really what a Riposte does in fencing.
4. I agree; I just couldn't think of one last night. 

Sharpshooter:
Move Defensive Roll over to Duellist. 
Add Kill-Shot - spend 3 MDD to maximize damage against 1 target, but MDD don't refresh for 1 round. 
Add Pinning Shot - when in melee range with target, send 1 MDD to make a ranged attack that does normal damage and reduces target's movement to zero for one round unless passes Strength check at DC 10 + your Dex bonus. Spending 2 MDD adds +2 to DC, 3 MDD adds +4. 
I'm not a big fan of maneuvers that just pump up the damage.  They have a place - but don't really do much for the boring aspect.

Marksman
Precise Shot: Your attacks ignore half cover; characters with three-quarters cover are treated as if they have half cover.  If you spend a martial damage die, you can ignore 3/4 cover and treat full cover as 3/4 cover.
Prone Shot:  You do not suffer any penalties for using a bow while prone.
Pinning Shot:  While within 10' of a target, you can make a pinning shot (no cost).  If the attack hits, the targets movement is reduced by 10'.  If you spend martial damage dice on the attack, you can reduce the target's speed by an additional 10' for every die you spend.  If you reduce the targets movement to zero, the target must spend an action to free themselves.
Kill-Shot:  If you spend one round observing your target and your target remains in your line of sight during that time, you can double the number of martial damage dice you can spend.  If your target is unaware of your presence during this time, you can triple the number of Martial Damage dice you spend.
Volley:  as is.

1. I disagree. Big hits are exciting, and they're what Fighters lack at the moment. Whereas accuracy isn't exciting. 
2. Again, non-scaling Maneuvers are bad design. As are passive bonuses.
3. I like that version of pinning shot. 
4. I think that version of Kill-Shot needs to be re-worded. I'd say "double the number of weapon dice spent this round." Unawares of your presence is really more of a rogue thing than a Fighter thing. 

Protector:
Trip - As an action, you can make a melee attack and if you hit your target is knocked prone if it is your size or smaller.  If you spend one die, you can knock a target that is up to one size larger than yourself prone and the target must spend its entire move to get up.  If you spend three dice, you can knock a target that is up to two sizes larger than yourself prone, and the target must spend its entire move to get up.
Shove Away   - As an action, you can make a melee attack and if you hit you can push a target that is up to your size or smaller one square.  If you spend one MDD, you can push a target that is your size or smaller up to 15, or a target that is up to one size larger than yourself 5'.  If you spend three MDD, you can push a target that is up to two sizes larger than yourself 5' or target up to one size larger than yourself 15'.   If the target is pushed 10' or more, it falls prone.  The target must be pushed in a straight line away from you and if the target's path passes through the square of any creature its own size or smaller, that creature must make a Dexterity save (DC 10+StrMod+Attack Bonus) or be pushed to the side and fall prone. 
Shield Bash:  Choose any number of targets within 5 feet; for the next round, attacking any target other than yourself imposes Disadvantage on that attack.   As a reaction you can make an melee attack using your shield against any target that chooses to attack a target other than yourself.  If this attack hits and the target is your size or smaller, you can spend a martial damage die to either push the target back one square or knock them prone.  If you spend two dice, you can both push them one die and knock them prone.
Hold the Line -Entering any square within your reach costs your enemies one extra square of movement.   You gain one additional reaction which must be used for opportunity attacks.  If you make an opportunity attack against an opponent who leaves a square within 5' of you, and you hit, that opponent loses the remainder of their move.   
Protect:  as is

1. For Trip, I think this needs a bit more modulation between 1 Die and 3 Dice.
2. Ditto for Shove Away, which I think needs a better name.
3. I like the change to Shield Bash for the most part, but I don't think the "choose any number of targets" synchs up well with the scaling of the dice. I also don't like loading everything on to one Reaction.
4. Ditto. Too much is being loaded on one Reaction.

Slayer:
Cleave -  If you make an attack on your turn and drop an enemy to 0 hit points, you can make an attack against another enemy within 5'.  If you have any martial damage dice left, you can spend them to move before making this attack.  For every martial damage die you spend, you can move 5'.
Crack Skull - If you make an attack on your turn, you can attempt to stun the target.  If you hit, the target gets a ConSave (DC 10 + Str + Attack Bonus).  If the target is nonhumanoid, larger than you or if the target is wearing a helm, it gets advantage on this save, although you can negate this advantage by spending one MDD.  If it fails, it is stunned until the start of its next turn. If you spend three martial damage dice, you can extend this stun till the end of its next turn.
All-Out Assault- As an action you can attempt an all-out assault.   Make a melee attack.  If the attack hits, you can spend a martial damage die to make a second melee attack on the same target.  If this attack hits, you can spend two more martial damage dice to make a third melee attack on the target.     
Charge - As an action, you can charge across the battefield to reach your foe.  If you start your turn at least forty feet away from your opponent, you have advantage on your attack.  [they didn't see it coming/ thought you were too far away to reach them.]  If you hit, you can push them 5' and knock them prone.  If you spend a martial damage die on this charge, the target must Contest their Will against your Charisma + Intimidate Skill Die if you have one or be Frightened until the end of their next turn.  If you spend three MDD, all enemies within 5' of the target must make this check (the attacker only rolls once for the intimidate).
Weapon Based Maneuver ....

1. The change to Cleave is not as useful, when you consider that Move can already be split up between before and after you attack, and because the Slayer already has access to Spring Attack.
2. Needs more modularity between 1 and 3 dice.
3. I like All-Out Assault, but I liked the idea of granting advantage unless you invest a bunch of dice.
4.  I think Charge should be renamed "Furious Charge," and I think 40 feet is problematic. I'd change the first sentence to read, "as an action, you can move up to your movement speed and attack." (That way, a human Fighter could Move, then Charge, to make contact with their enemy, if necessary)

I would just like to point at Sleeps last post to show why I don't ignore people. He and I seem to disagree on everything and I get to the point (like in this thread) where I am convinced he is just an old edition warrior who hides it behind a clever smoke screen and then he comes out with that.

I think it is a good starting point at the least. Using that I could see a Knight fighting style based around Sword, Mace and Lance with Horseback riding skill tricks (and maybe Athletic/strength Constistion?) and Heavy armor prof.

Feb 9, 2013 -- 12:21PM, jonathan_sicari wrote:

I would just like to point at Sleeps last post to show why I don't ignore people. He and I seem to disagree on everything and I get to the point (like in this thread) where I am convinced he is just an old edition warrior who hides it behind a clever smoke screen and then he comes out with that.

I think it is a good starting point at the least. Using that I could see a Knight fighting style based around Sword, Mace and Lance with Horseback riding skill tricks (and maybe Athletic/strength Constistion?) and Heavy armor prof.

And see there we go that sounds like a classic knight style guy right there to me: heavy armor, sword, mace, lance maybe throw the noble background on top of that and you have your self a nice non-paladin knight of the round table type guy.  For his skills I'd go Ride, Balance, then either handle animal or knowledge warfare maybe  Definitely ride and balance the third skill .

I'd love to see some mounted combat style maneuvers available for that fighting style (mounted combat seems less skill trick and more combat maneuver). 


 

Why are non-scaling maneuvers bad?


In other words - if they retain a consistantly useful effect - why are they bad?



It is like spells - some spells need to scale.  Some spells 'scale' because they remain equally effective against your enemies regardless your enemies level.



And those maneuvers were left without a cost  - which makes their effectiveness scale because it means that the subsequent attacks can benefit from the MDD damage.


In short - the effectiveness of the maneuvers without multiple MDD costs scales very nicely with increased number of MDD.

 


To put it another way :   They do scale.  The scaling is just part of the attack not the maneuver.  

       

If the maneuver were written in 4E form - so that the attack and the maneuver were combined into a single entry - this would be more explicit.  Don't get caught up in looking at the maneuver along - look at the effect of the manevuer on the fighter's whole action.
 
Carl

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:53AM, CarlT wrote:

 
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?

Feb 9, 2013 -- 9:45AM, Vikingkingq wrote:

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.


    

Protector:
Trip - As an action, you can make a melee attack and if you hit your target is knocked prone if it is your size or smaller.  If you spend one die, you can knock a target that is up to one size larger than yourself prone and the target must spend its entire move to get up.  If you spend three dice, you can knock a target that is up to two sizes larger than yourself prone, and the target must spend its entire move to get up.
Shove Away   - As an action, you can make a melee attack and if you hit you can push a target that is up to your size or smaller one square.  If you spend one MDD, you can push a target that is your size or smaller up to 15, or a target that is up to one size larger than yourself 5'.  If you spend three MDD, you can push a target that is up to two sizes larger than yourself 5' or target up to one size larger than yourself 15'.   If the target is pushed 10' or more, it falls prone.  The target must be pushed in a straight line away from you and if the target's path passes through the square of any creature its own size or smaller, that creature must make a Dexterity save (DC 10+StrMod+Attack Bonus) or be pushed to the side and fall prone. 
Shield Bash:  Choose any number of targets within 5 feet; for the next round, attacking any target other than yourself imposes Disadvantage on that attack.   As a reaction you can make an melee attack using your shield against any target that chooses to attack a target other than yourself.  If this attack hits and the target is your size or smaller, you can spend a martial damage die to either push the target back one square or knock them prone.  If you spend two dice, you can both push them one die and knock them prone.
Hold the Line -Entering any square within your reach costs your enemies one extra square of movement.   You gain one additional reaction which must be used for opportunity attacks.  If you make an opportunity attack against an opponent who leaves a square within 5' of you, and you hit, that opponent loses the remainder of their move.   
Protect:  as is

1. For Trip, I think this needs a bit more modulation between 1 Die and 3 Dice.
2. Ditto for Shove Away, which I think needs a better name.
3. I like the change to Shield Bash for the most part, but I don't think the "choose any number of targets" synchs up well with the scaling of the dice. I also don't like loading everything on to one Reaction.
4. Ditto. Too much is being loaded on one Reaction.

Slayer:
Cleave -  If you make an attack on your turn and drop an enemy to 0 hit points, you can make an attack against another enemy within 5'.  If you have any martial damage dice left, you can spend them to move before making this attack.  For every martial damage die you spend, you can move 5'

1. The change to Cleave is not as useful, when you consider that Move can already be split up between before and after you attack, and because the Slayer already has access to Spring Attack.

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.


   
   

  .
Crack Skull - If you make an attack on your turn, you can attempt to stun the target.  If you hit, the target gets a ConSave (DC 10 + Str + Attack Bonus).  If the target is nonhumanoid, larger than you or if the target is wearing a helm, it gets advantage on this save, although you can negate this advantage by spending one MDD.  If it fails, it is stunned until the start of its next turn. If you spend three martial damage dice, you can extend this stun till the end of its next turn.

2. Needs more modularity between 1 and 3 dice. 


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.

   Charge - As an action, you can charge across the battefield to reach your foe.  If you start your turn at least forty feet away from your opponent, you have advantage on your attack.  [they didn't see it coming/ thought you were too far away to reach them.]  If you hit, you can push them 5' and knock them prone.  If you spend a martial damage die on this charge, the target must Contest their Will against your Charisma + Intimidate Skill Die if you have one or be Frightened until the end of their next turn.  If you spend three MDD, all enemies within 5' of the target must make this check (the attacker only rolls once for the intimidate). 

     

4.  I think Charge should be renamed "Furious Charge," and I think 40 feet is problematic. I'd change the first sentence to read, "as an action, you can move up to your movement speed and attack." (That way, a human Fighter could Move, then Charge, to make contact with their enemy, if necessary)

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.



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       

Jan 30, 2013 -- 8:42AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

Feb 9, 2013 -- 10:37PM, Garthanos wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:53AM, CarlT wrote:

 
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

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. 

Feb 9, 2013 -- 11:06PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

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

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. 

Feb 9, 2013 -- 10:53PM, CarlT wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 9:45AM, Vikingkingq wrote:

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.

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:53PM, lokiare wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:34PM, xladyfayre wrote:

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.

Feb 11, 2013 -- 12:42PM, xladyfayre wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:53PM, lokiare wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 3:34PM, xladyfayre wrote:

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...

Jan 30, 2013 -- 8:19AM, Lawolf wrote:

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.

Jan 30, 2013 -- 8:19AM, wrecan wrote:

Jan 30, 2013 -- 8:05AM, Orzel wrote:

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.