Playing the Same Game

[Draco_Argentum]

In general I'd go with one style. If there was a goodly pool of style independant abilities a character could pick up a second or third style and still use most of their stuff so people who wanted to go the versatile route could. I wouldn't like to force people to have more than one style though.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Having played a metric crapload of Soul Calibur III lately, my 5-year-old son digs on just picking the guy with a single style and picking his weapon and kicking my ass. I--at 35--, however, like experimenting with what I can do, mastering new moves, and seeing the specials involved in each different technique available to my custom characters.

Using that as a model, it's probably good to assume people will want, ideally, both and have it scale--at low levels, you'll have only one fighting style, but that style will continue to be useful as you progress (the Soul of Kilik is not inherently better than the Dagger).

Unfortunately, there's going to be some prick out there who writes a prestige class that eliminates the other weapon styles just as a power-up to one weapon style to totally break the carefully processed balance.

We need to hunt him down and kill him in the shell.

[dbb]

If people are getting to make choices at all, they probably ought to be meaningful choices. So the answer is either "no, they don't get to pick up a new style" or "yes, they do, and it's good", unless the difference between the styles is so extreme that sometimes having a really bad Ni Ten style is actually better than having a really good Italian Fencing style.

I think the right answer is "yes, they do, and it's good".

--d.

[Username17]

Robin Hood was the best with a bow, the second best with a sword, the second best with a staff, and so on and so forth. Would people like to have a primary fighting style that they rocked at, and secondary fighting styles that they fought like a cohort in, or would they like to roxxor all of their fighting styles?

Or to put it another way:

Knight is mounted with a lance, he gets off his steed to go inside and whips out his sword and shield (his secondary fighting style). Is he at a disadvantage here if he comes across a mercenary fighter who has been a sword and shield footman from the beginning?

-Username17

[Essence]

Each Fighter should have n Fighting Styles that he is equally proficient in, and 1 Fighting Style his is totally badass at, exactly like your Robin Hood example.

[fbmf]

Knight is mounted with a lance, he gets off his steed to go inside and whips out his sword and shield (his secondary fighting style). Is he at a disadvantage here if he comes across a mercenary fighter who has been a sword and shield footman from the beginning?

Yes. Maybe not a hugr disadvantage, especially if he is higher level than the merc, but a disadvantage nonetheless.

Game On,
fbmf

[dbb]

Yes, but we need to be super-careful with fighting styles like "mounted combat" where the ability to use the style is heavily dependent on environmental factors -- it would suck to have the Knight end up wearing the clown suit for a whole story arc because the DM wanted to run "Descent Into the Depths of the Earth".

--d.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

With Frank's suggestion that's less of a problem. If the DM chooses to run a dungeon exploration mission, the knight is still very servicable with Sword and Board style.

-Desdan

[dbb]

It is less of a problem, definitely. The mounted-warrior type Knight having to fight without his horse is like the Cleric having to fight in an anti-magic field -- he can still do stuff, he just can't do as well. That's okay, as long as over the course of the campaign, the number of fights that happen in anti-magic fields is roughly equivalent to the number of fights that happen in dungeons.

Except they usually aren't. Being a mounted fighter is one of those concepts that gets completely screwed by an adventuring environment that's actually really common. So what I'd rather see would be a "Knight" fighting style that has mounted-combat moves (lance charge, etc) but not exclusively mounted-combat moves. (The Samurai should probably have some mounted-combat moves also, I'm thinking Mounted Archery type stuff specifically). That way, the Knight is still at a disadvantage against the Mercenary (or whatever the dedicated sword and board guy is called) when he has to fight on foot, but more because he lacks the same variety of options than because those options he does have are numerically inferior. Make sense?

--d.

[RandomCasualty]

1151005896[/unixtime]]Yes, but we need to be super-careful with fighting styles like "mounted combat" where the ability to use the style is heavily dependent on environmental factors -- it would suck to have the Knight end up wearing the clown suit for a whole story arc because the DM wanted to run "Descent Into the Depths of the Earth".

--d.

Yeah, mounted characters need to be good at doing other stuff at a minimum. Other characters probably should have some other styles too though it's hard making style differences profound enough that you'd want to change styles.

[Draco_Argentum]

1150994339[/unixtime]]
Knight is mounted with a lance, he gets off his steed to go inside and whips out his sword and shield (his secondary fighting style). Is he at a disadvantage here if he comes across a mercenary fighter who has been a sword and shield footman from the beginning?

I think yes by default but if you want to be badass with two styles that could be an option.

Mounted should probably have only a few abilities that are mounted only. Most of mounted guy's abilities should be style independant so that he can get off his high horse without being a cohort's cohort.

The only style I'm willing to make mandatory is ranged. Either that or all melee dudes need to fly. I prefer not requireing flight for flavour reasons.

[User3]

One problem with the "mounted knight" in D&D is thay're basically forced to be chargers. Which is great, until they're dismounted. Then you realize that they were mounted because their speeds in armor are ~20 feet. And charging no longer makes sense. But you're stuck with all those feats that make charging (unmounted) with a lance really attractive.

So in that respect, mounted charging needs to be separated from charging on foot. Without costing more than it does now in terms of a character's versatility.

[Crissa]

Ya know, Sword and board from the horse isn't all that bad, and I think the Knight should be just as good as the sword and board fighter - just different.

Fighter hits hard (His sword acts as an additional +X), Knight defends better (His armor act as an additional +X), Samurai does it with style (Denies his opponent AOO).

I like that 'one great style' plus a handful of secondary good styles, but I want the one great style to be choosable, and the secondary styles not to whither on the vine or be a great disadvantage - they're an advantage.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Heres something that the WotC version reminded me of.

Brew potion is an out of combat activity. It makes no difference at all who actually does the brewing. So why shouldn't a fighter be able to take Craft(Alchemy) and brew healing or invisibility potions?

[Username17]

So I started up a new campaign, and the players, after carefully looking over the ten page document I had prepared of all the campaigns I'd be willing to run, decided to play a game as 1st level characters who were 12 year old kids aspiring to perform enough youth hooliganism to join Team Rocket.

That's fine. Here's where it goes crazy: while the players are in general playing pretty playable characters (Cleric, Rogue, Dread Necromancer, Pokemaster), one of the PCs is a Spirit Shaman. Yes, that's right, spirit shaman.

For those of you who don't know, the Spirit Shaman casts spells off the Druid list, but instead of doing all the really broken things that Druids do, he gets an imaginary friend who tells him to do things. And that's it. Don't get me wrong, the thing where I as the DM get to put a sock on my hand and give him strange advice all the time is awesome, but there's not much there mechanically.

So on a similar question to the rest of this thread: What should a Spirit Shaman be doing? I'm thinking the full version will probably make an appearence in Tome of Trees. But in the meantime, what should they be doing in dangerous combats. Right now they can select a single Druid spell that they can cast spontaneously each day and then they can cast that spell. It's pretty limited. Kind of like if you got extra spells but were required to prepare the same spell in every slot. And it's Druid spells, which as we know don't get super exciting for several levels.

So there's a lot of room for improvement here. But what should their role be?

[User3]

1151173448[/unixtime]]So there's a lot of room for improvement here. But what should their role be?

Less "Favored Enemy" type mechanics (meaning less DM compliance) ... and more of the type that you can actively manifest.

Spirit Shamans should be able to have special summoning or binding capabilities with the spirit world. Their spirit familiar should be able to enhance or facilitate specialized divinations - thereby making the shaman's "mystical insight" capabilities both unique and powerful.

[ambersloan]

Many excellent ideas are offered up in this thread, but nothing can change the fact that in D&D high-level gaming fighters are all but useless for the reasons elucidated,and no amount of tinkering/house-ruling will change that.If you really enjoy your 3.5 fighter,stay with low to mid level gaming. Or only play in a low magic world (a la Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay).

The magic system and its various users have been broken all the way back to the three booklets, but what does one do with it? If you seriously cut down magic, are you really doing much more than roleplaying a tabletop miniatures combat game? Magic is the difference,the appeal,and IMO trying to adjust the fighter classes will not work.

One may as well retire your fighter at 10th level and be done with it.

[Oberoni]

Nah.

[Username17]

What if the Spirit Shaman had a reasonably complete set of divinations and force effects that they could cast spontaneously off of like a Warmage and then also had the ability to retrieve small numbers of Druid spells to add to their daily spell list on top of that?

Would a character able to cast entangle and a pile of Divinations and [Force] spells make for a playable 1st level character?

What about having a Wisdom-based Bardic Knowledge ability? Does that sort of thing feel useful? It's pretty much flavor text - your sock puppet gives you a running naration about what things are and how they are important, but does that feel like your character has cool special insight, or does that feel like the DM is pushing your character around? (both are probably true)

As to interaction with the Spirit world... that's a problem. D&D doesn't really have a "spirit world". It pretty much just has the Ethereal Plane, which is a place that you can totally go. Should Spirit Shaman simply get all the Ethereal stuff at a very early level? I don't actually see anything game breaking in letting 4th level spells simply put you on the Ethereal - it's not like you can't do all the same crap with dimension step at 3rd level.

See invisibility as a 2nd level class feature? That + Magic Missile would make them something that might be able to stand up to a Shadow at 2nd level. The world has been waiting for that for a long time.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Well, sounds like a quandry I'd give you, Frank, and an answer I'd like.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Sounds pretty workable. Force effects guy would make the party love you when theres an incorp around.

My take on a spirit shaman would have divinations so they can talk to spirits and earth/air/fire/water(/wood if this is an eastern themed one) spells. Having a local earth spirit make the ground spikey or quicksandy would be cool. I think I'd require something to be present so that you can talk to the spirit. So no fireball unless theres a fire of somekind so you can ask its spirit to blow up your foes.

[Username17]

Well, I don't want it to sit too firmly on the toes of the "Fear my Five Kinds of Walls Elementalist.

On the martial classes... I think that combat should have more options in general, especially for people with a high BAB. Imagine, for example if:

• You can trade BAB for damage at any time.
  
• You can trade BAB for AC any time.
  
• You can add your BAB to your damage at any time and provoke an attack of opportunity.
  
• You get extra AoOs for having more BAB.
  
• Your iterative attacks were at a penalty small enough that they were actually useful.
  
• You could perform daring manuvers like leaping onto a dragon's back, aim for a weak point in the armor of a powerful enemy, or Dive for cover without having o spend a fvcking feat every time.

Then characters could go out there and have some actual abilities without having to spend all their class features and feats on accounting bullshit that doesn't even keep their head above water. Do you think it's a coincidence that Fighters stop being good at almost exactly the point they get their second attack? Or that the point they stop mattering at all at about the same level they get their third attack?

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

If all the BAB shuffling went innate that'd be good. Those abilities are less interesting than I'd like a class ability to be.

Not that this is news but warrior types should be getting at least one interesting move each level.

[Username17]

I'd be tempted to give Fighters 2 new decent abilities every level, that's what Wizards get after all. Unfortunately, that quickly becomes as unmanageable as Wizards are.

So perhaps one cool thing per level is a good compromise. Note that a lot of things they try to pass off as abilities (Great Cleave for example) aren't even abilities.

I would also like Fighters to have built-in in-game power pick up equivalents to Wizard's spell learning. Perhaps people with Martial Weapon Proficiency can train with an exotic weapon and get proficiency in it? That would fit the Money + Time = Options method of power creep that Wizards wake up with.

But I think the biggest foundations are the realization that there's no such thing as an empty Eizard level even if it doesn't say you get anything on the chart, and the ralization that feats like "Impoved TWF" that simply keep your character from getting worse, aren't abilities and should be free.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

The main thing with fighter abilities is that they look more like a combo deck than anything else and this leads to the problem of fighters having one exclusive fighting style and that's it.

Unlike wizard spells, fighter feats don't scale, but they do however synergize really well. A wizard can focus on fire attacks and learn scorching ray, fireball, burning hands, orb of fire and wall of fire. However, each of these is an individual attack and does'nt benefit from the wizard knowing all of them. The damage of fireball is solely contingent on the wizard's caster level and not by what other fire spells he knows. In fact, he really doesn't even need those other spells most of the time. Specialization like this in fact cripples the wizard as opposed to helps him, because his options are much mroe limited than a guy who could fireball, haste his teammates and create silent images.

Compared to the fighter who takes power attack, weapon focus (greatsword), shocktrooper, weapon spec(greatsword) and cleave has his abilities almost completely synergize. All of those can work with each other on the same attack action. And this makes super specialization really pay off for fighters.