fighter fix, new approach - Page 3 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


fighter fix, new approach

   
I agree that fighters are overspecialized, but making them completely unspecialized is not the solution.
Having all the tricks of the trade available to you (though you can only change them practically once a day) is not the answer, even wizards are limited by the amount of spells they know (and a good DM should limit the amount of spells a wizard could get, you shouldn't have ALL the spells in all the books at your repertuare).
Save-vs-DM's variant does make the fighters more balanced, but it removes the unique flavor you could get.
Personnaly, and I think I've said this before, I prefer to have some kind of fighting style (where tome of battle made right, though for me it more or less stops there), each style should allow you diffrent attack options based on the style but unique enough to not be like all the other styles.

RPG is based on the rock-scissors-paper system, all your tricks are bound not to work on someone (though wizards obviously break this with the many no-save, no-SR spells out there).
Not all fighter tactics work on size- spring attack is one such option, power attack is another.
However non-core classes have much more to offer, I almost never take fighter above 1st or 2nd level if I can help it.

In addition to whatever else people change, it might be nice if a single feat got you a progression of abilities, like TWF leading automatically to ITWF a few levels later without spending more feats. That helps fix the "it takes too many feats to do anything" problem and the closely related "fighter feats are weak compared to everyone else'" problem.

I never thought about such an "improves automatically" ability until I saw how they did gliding/flying with the Raptoran race.

I'd love the idea of fighters taking "Paths" ever 2 levels instead of feats.

1 path could be 2-weapon fighting, 1 path could be power-smash, etc. The paths are feat trees where you automatically get feats every 3 or 4 levels. This means the paths they start early on are more fleshed out while the paths they take later in their career aren't as fleshed out...something like that..

Probably not a bad method for building a lot of classes, come to think about it. Monk included, what with all the theoretically possible fighting styles.

In fact, you could almost subsume the Barbarian into the Fighter by making that one 'path.'

Barbarian would be focused on his one path though...the fighter would have maybe 2 or 3 paths, possibly related ones (you could have a 'path' for specializing in a weapons, weapon focus, spec, imprv. crit, etc.)

Why have barbarian though if you already have diffrant paths? you could simulate the barbarian class very easily with a path (on that include +2 hp perhaps, and rage etc...).
Making one homebrew class right is hard enough (not to mention one that has so many diffrant paths to take), making two with similar builds are just overdoing it (and what kind of path can a barbarian take? either then rage, the other paths should be a part of ranger not barbarian, I mean wilderness scout and such).

It sounds like we're about a hair's-breadth away from making a generic "noncaster warrior" class which encompasses Fighter, Barbarian and Ranger.

It does, and to be honest, I'd avoid that, because the 3 are pretty different. Barbarians are designed to replicate more primitive tribal cultures, rangers to be the more field oriented tracker types with a touch of casting, and fighters to represent... well, everything else.

Both three classes have overlaping concepts (espcially ranger-barbrian and barbarian-fighter).
If were making (and were not obviously but still) a verestile fighter, why not encompass all of them? it's verestile, you can make a raging primitve fighter and call it barbarian, only the mechanic changes not the actual concept of the class (just like you could homebrew that sorcerers don't exist and use the UA variant spell-pool to create a conceptual sorcerer out of the wizard).
The spellcasting aspect of the ranger is outside the scope of the (new) fighter class though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzeentch View Post
It does, and to be honest, I'd avoid that, because the 3 are pretty different. Barbarians are designed to replicate more primitive tribal cultures, rangers to be the more field oriented tracker types with a touch of casting, and fighters to represent... well, everything else.
On that point, did anyone pay attention to my last post?




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-19 07:45:15am local time
Myth-Weavers Status