PDA

View Full Version : Overpowering Attack (a reason to stay Fighter)



Serpent
11-15-2007, 01:34 PM
Just an idea for all us fighters out there who seem to have been forgotten in the mad rush to accumulate more meta magic feats

Overpowering Attack- requires Fighter level 16. In this mode, you attack slower, but your attacks do double damage.

Note that engaging this mode should not conflict with Power Attack or any other toggles.

This might just offer a reason to stay a fighter.

Oreg
11-15-2007, 01:35 PM
Unlikely they will allow stance stacking...ever.

Serpent
11-16-2007, 09:10 AM
Unlikely they will allow stance stacking...ever.

Thank you for the overwhelmingly supportive response... now any more ideas from any others

Aesop
11-16-2007, 09:21 AM
Unlikely they will allow stance stacking...ever.

Well... they allow metamagic stacking... I suppose those are Meta Stances... but they could make this a meta stance as well. Could be fun

Aesop

oronisi
11-16-2007, 09:26 AM
I hate it. I hate anything that's supposed to force going pure-classed just to be a pure class. I'd rather see them implement a sweet super-powered feat that has a TON of prerequisite feats. Like whirlwind or shot on the run, but to the next level.

llevenbaxx
11-16-2007, 10:01 AM
I hate it. I hate anything that's supposed to force going pure-classed just to be a pure class. I'd rather see them implement a sweet super-powered feat that has a TON of prerequisite feats. Like whirlwind or shot on the run, but to the next level.

Agree, what special feats will my MC characters going to get access to that pures dont?

Just plain dont like all these feat ideas that stem from pure only builds(or any other specific build type).

Im sure they will add more feats to the game that favor all classes. Whats wrong with adding them in as all the others? There is the next teir of Cleave(Unlimited Cleave or something like that). Im not sure how they will impliment it, prolly jus give 2 full radius swings, which will be quite nice.

I would like to see ftrs(and palys and rangers for that matter) get a crit extender like the barb crit rage, I think it was a bad idea to give this to the already hardest hitters, and not the other melee classes. Maybe make it cost a little more than a barb and have to wait a bit longer to pick it up.

I didnt really notice the fighter class was in all that much trouble as I see pure ftrs all over the place and in just about every quest I run but...

redoubt
11-16-2007, 10:20 AM
I think having feats that require a lot of one class are kinda cool. It helps with diversity. I know you will say it will make cookie cutter builds, but I disagree. (Unless they make the feat too good, then yes it will be flavor of the month.)

Favored enemies and twf series, precise shot series encourage lots of levels of ranger.
Extra sneak attack damage encourages lots of levels of rogue.
Barb has to stay pure to get the uber crit enhancement.
Casters have to stay pure to get higher spells.
Fighters get feats noone else does because they specialize in fighting.

I'm not saying the OP has it perfect. I really don't know. But, pure barbs are pretty poplular today. Why not add something for high level fighters?

Its not like you can't multiclass just because there is a high level feat in a given class. You just have to choose which things you want more. (i.e. as a caster, do you want all the metamagics spell swapping or do you want to cast fast. Its one or the other. Yes, thats not feat based, but being forced to choose which benifits you want does have tons of precident in this game.)

redoubt
11-16-2007, 10:26 AM
Agree, what special feats will my MC characters going to get access to that pures dont?

Just plain dont like all these feat ideas that stem from pure only builds(or any other specific build type).
...

I'm not trying to be mean, I just don't understand the argument being posed here (not just baxx, but the others opposed to the OP as well). I'm hoping there is a logic I'm not seeing and its not just whining.

How are special feats for MC any different than feats for pure class?

It seems like the argument is "I don't want Lxx of class xxx to get a special feat, because I don't want to take that many levels of it and I want that feat!"

Look at evasion. You can get it one of two ways. L2 rogue or L9 ranger. If you want it, take that many levels of that class. But you will lose access to something else. Choose, and choose wisely. (Sorry, we can't have it all.)

Serpent
11-16-2007, 10:30 AM
I hate it. I hate anything that's supposed to force going pure-classed just to be a pure class. I'd rather see them implement a sweet super-powered feat that has a TON of prerequisite feats. Like whirlwind or shot on the run, but to the next level.

Just so you know this is a feat that is available in pnp. It allows a fighter to do something that another class can't do. Why should those that play fighters not have something special. Bards have warchanter, virtuoso and spellsinger. Barbarians have the improved crit enhancement. Fighters really don't have an enhancement that makes them special. Most fighters infact take a splash of rogue or pally or rnager jsut to get the added benefits of those classes. I think any pure build should get some kind of reward for sticking with it through all the levels.

ErgonomicCat
11-16-2007, 10:33 AM
I think having feats that require a lot of one class are kinda cool. It helps with diversity. I know you will say it will make cookie cutter builds, but I disagree. (Unless they make the feat too good, then yes it will be flavor of the month.)

Favored enemies and twf series, precise shot series encourage lots of levels of ranger.
Extra sneak attack damage encourages lots of levels of rogue.
Barb has to stay pure to get the uber crit enhancement.
Casters have to stay pure to get higher spells.
Fighters get feats noone else does because they specialize in fighting.

I'm not saying the OP has it perfect. I really don't know. But, pure barbs are pretty poplular today. Why not add something for high level fighters?

Its not like you can't multiclass just because there is a high level feat in a given class. You just have to choose which things you want more. (i.e. as a caster, do you want all the metamagics spell swapping or do you want to cast fast. Its one or the other. Yes, thats not feat based, but being forced to choose which benifits you want does have tons of precident in this game.)

None of those are *feats* though. That's the point. Feats can require certain things, but feats should never require levels in a class.

Class abilities? Sure. Enhancements? Yes. Spells? That's a class ability. *Number* of feats? Okay.

But a specific feat? Nope. That's a fundamental principle of DnD, and just makes sense. You can set the bar at BAB +16 (only melee classes) and 10 particular feats, but don't just say "Fighter 16 required."

ErgonomicCat
11-16-2007, 10:34 AM
Just so you know this is a feat that is available in pnp. It allows a fighter to do something that another class can't do. Why should those that play fighters not have something special. Bards have warchanter, virtuoso and spellsinger. Barbarians have the improved crit enhancement. Fighters really don't have an enhancement that makes them special. Most fighters infact take a splash of rogue or pally or rnager jsut to get the added benefits of those classes. I think any pure build should get some kind of reward for sticking with it through all the levels.

It's not a feat.

It's a fighter substitution level, and *replaces* the fighter's ability to choose a feat.

It is, in essence, an enhancement.

Serpent
11-16-2007, 10:58 AM
It's not a feat.

It's a fighter substitution level, and *replaces* the fighter's ability to choose a feat.

It is, in essence, an enhancement.

I apologize i meant to say ability not feat... anyways yes you are right requiring a bab of +x is always the best way to do things. I'm simply saying that maybe some fighters out there would like a little help, apparently not.

llevenbaxx
11-16-2007, 11:04 AM
I'm not trying to be mean, I just don't understand the argument being posed here (not just baxx, but the others opposed to the OP as well). I'm hoping there is a logic I'm not seeing and its not just whining.

How are special feats for MC any different than feats for pure class?

It seems like the argument is "I don't want Lxx of class xxx to get a special feat, because I don't want to take that many levels of it and I want that feat!"

Look at evasion. You can get it one of two ways. L2 rogue or L9 ranger. If you want it, take that many levels of that class. But you will lose access to something else. Choose, and choose wisely. (Sorry, we can't have it all.)

Thats exactly what we're saying though. There are a ton of feats that could be implimented from PnP into DDO. VERY few(none to my recollection) of them require you to have 14 levels of anything to get them. Sure there are some long progressions that heavily favor the ftr class and there are already class specific feats for every class(many of which are pulled from the general pool but bypass certain pre-reqs).

We(or at least me:)) just dont see the need to add more of these class(and build) specific feats. Why would my pal12/ftr2 not be able to learn this Overpowering attack feat? Sounds like it would have a str req, whats hitting really hard have to do specifically with being a ftr? Why cant my paly hit really hard? Weapon specialization... ftrs are weapons masters, this makes good sense to me that they can be a little more affective with a certain type of weapon. Its balanced, it requires you get focus(a feat any with a +1BAB can get) and gives a small bonus.

Ideas like this just strike me as only me feats, and only for the purpose of creating gaps between them and other builds. There no flavor to it, its just I want to do X2 damage in addition to crits. I think this is a bad idea the same way I think barb crit rage is a bad idea. It creates an unjustified, unrecoverable gap in power for a specific class with a specific build. It may sound like I want all the classes balanced vs each other but its more about having the classes balanced vs the content. DPS is the most viable form of combat in this game due mostly to red named mods and blanket immunities the Devs have implimented(basically its the only combat that ALWAYS works). It only makes sense that you keep the classes reasonbly balanced from a DPS standpoint... and I dont whine.:)

redoubt
11-16-2007, 11:08 AM
None of those are *feats* though. That's the point. Feats can require certain things, but feats should never require levels in a class.

Class abilities? Sure. Enhancements? Yes. Spells? That's a class ability. *Number* of feats? Okay.

But a specific feat? Nope. That's a fundamental principle of DnD, and just makes sense. You can set the bar at BAB +16 (only melee classes) and 10 particular feats, but don't just say "Fighter 16 required."

Maybe we are talking across each other since I don't play PnP and may not term things the same.

From what I can tell in DDO:
Evasion is a feat. (rogue 2 or ranger 9 required.)
Favored enemy is a feat. (Ranger level x is required.)
Weapon specialization is a feat (fighter level 4 required.)
Greater weapon focus is a feat (fighter level 8 required.)
Greater weapon specialization is a feat (fighter level 12 required.)

There are others that show up in the feat list. Are you calling the automatic ones "abilities" instead of feats? If so, that still leaves the advanced weapons feats that fighters already get that noone else does. There may be others, but those are the ones I can think of.

Aesop
11-16-2007, 11:12 AM
well... other than Weapon Spec Greater Weapon Spec Greater Weapon Focus... and a few from the Player Handbook 2 I believe require Fighter levels 14 and 16... maybe 18. Book isn't in front of me right now... I could be mistaken on that... it might just require SPec an Greater and BAB 16 or something like that\


Aesop

redoubt
11-16-2007, 11:17 AM
Thats exactly what we're saying though. There are a ton of feats that could be implimented from PnP into DDO. VERY few(none to my recollection) of them require you to have 14 levels of anything to get them. Sure there are some long progressions that heavily favor the ftr class and there are already class specific feats for every class(many of which are pulled from the general pool but bypass certain pre-reqs).

We(or at least me:)) just dont see the need to add more of these class(and build) specific feats. Why would my pal12/ftr2 not be able to learn this Overpowering attack feat? Sounds like it would have a str req, whats hitting really hard have to do specifically with being a ftr? Why cant my paly hit really hard? Weapon specialization... ftrs are weapons masters, this makes good sense to me that they can be a little more affective with a certain type of weapon. Its balanced, it requires you get focus(a feat any with a +1BAB can get) and gives a small bonus.

Ideas like this just strike me as only me feats, and only for the purpose of creating gaps between them and other builds. There no flavor to it, its just I want to do X2 damage in addition to crits. I think this is a bad idea the same way I think barb crit rage is a bad idea. It creates an unjustified, unrecoverable gap in power for a specific class with a specific build. It may sound like I want all the classes balanced vs each other but its more about having the classes balanced vs the content. DPS is the most viable form of combat in this game due mostly to red named mods and blanket immunities the Devs have implimented(basically its the only combat that ALWAYS works). It only makes sense that you keep the classes reasonbly balanced from a DPS standpoint... and I dont whine.:)


Cool. My argument was never for or against this specific "feat". But more in favor of allowing class or race or level combinations of feats (or maybe abilities). Maybe "overpowering attack" is a progression for everyone. I can be cool with that if the argument is based on logic and/or precident. Having it based on str and bab would make sense to me.

I could also see continueing to superior weapon focus and specialization as fighter only feats. (Sure would love a bit of it on my ranger, but I've gotten past that.)

Or greater crit range. A times 2.5 or 3. on the crit range. This could go either way. Open to anyone with a certain bab, or like greater weapon focus, only available to the "weapon masters".

If you have logic behind it, I don't think you are whining. :D

Vienemen
11-16-2007, 11:21 AM
WotC designed specific advantages for high level fighters (PHBII I think). Most are above lvl 15 I think. There were not many..maybe 3 or 4 total class substitution feats (since thats what fighters get as their special ability). They required a certain number of fighter levels to make a pure (or mostly pure) fighter build to appeal to the masses/compete with other builds. If you like the feat/substitution...make a fighter of the appropriate level. If you dont like them, eh nothing to worry bout. But indeed they should be added...and I look forward to them.

V

GramercyRiff
11-16-2007, 12:09 PM
Maybe we are talking across each other since I don't play PnP and may not term things the same.

From what I can tell in DDO:
Evasion is a feat. (rogue 2 or ranger 9 required.)
Favored enemy is a feat. (Ranger level x is required.)
Weapon specialization is a feat (fighter level 4 required.)
Greater weapon focus is a feat (fighter level 8 required.)
Greater weapon specialization is a feat (fighter level 12 required.)

There are others that show up in the feat list. Are you calling the automatic ones "abilities" instead of feats? If so, that still leaves the advanced weapons feats that fighters already get that noone else does. There may be others, but those are the ones I can think of.

Evasion isn't a feat. It's a class ability or class feature (can't remember the exact term). Favored enemy is also not a feat, it's a class feature/ability. Basically anything derived from your class isn't a feat. Feats are something any class/race can get provided they meet the prerequisites. Class features/abilities are strictly tied to their relevant class. I'm sure DDO lumps class features/abilities with feats to save space in the character sheet.

Think of the weapon foci and the weapon spec's as fighter class features/abilities, rather than feats. Almost all other feats don't require you be a certain class, other than the spellcasting feats (those obviously require some type of spellcasting class).

llevenbaxx
11-16-2007, 12:44 PM
Evasion isn't a feat. It's a class ability or class feature (can't remember the exact term). Favored enemy is also not a feat, it's a class feature/ability. Basically anything derived from your class isn't a feat. Feats are something any class/race can get provided they meet the prerequisites. Class features/abilities are strictly tied to their relevant class. I'm sure DDO lumps class features/abilities with feats to save space in the character sheet.

Think of the weapon foci and the weapon spec's as fighter class features/abilities, rather than feats. Almost all other feats don't require you be a certain class, other than the spellcasting feats (those obviously require some type of spellcasting class).

At the same time though alot of class feats(/features/abilities) are right off the feats list and are attainable by any class that meet the pre-reqs. A rangers combat style for instance, pointblank shot or TWF, just simple feats. Fighter is obviously the nost glaring example as all his class features are just feats, though they must be chosen from a shortened list of combat related feats.

Cowdenicus
11-16-2007, 12:46 PM
Just so you know this is a feat that is available in pnp. It allows a fighter to do something that another class can't do. Why should those that play fighters not have something special. Bards have warchanter, virtuoso and spellsinger. Barbarians have the improved crit enhancement. Fighters really don't have an enhancement that makes them special. Most fighters infact take a splash of rogue or pally or rnager jsut to get the added benefits of those classes. I think any pure build should get some kind of reward for sticking with it through all the levels.

A level 14 fighter has 13 feats, 14 if human, I would say that is pretty special.

axebender
11-16-2007, 12:49 PM
I hate it. I hate anything that's supposed to force going pure-classed just to be a pure class. I'd rather see them implement a sweet super-powered feat that has a TON of prerequisite feats. Like whirlwind or shot on the run, but to the next level.

staying pure should always have its advantages ..if they allowed everyone that multiclassed to have everything the other classes had, it would make no sense..whats the point then? you shouldnt be able to multiclass and have everything from both sides..multiclassing should have a trade off element too it. u gain lvls in one class but give up something in order to gain another

Serpent
11-16-2007, 12:52 PM
A level 14 fighter has 13 feats, 14 if human, I would say that is pretty special.

It is in pnp but in a game were survivability is much more important its not. I would give up a feat to get a lay on hands, or how about the ability to use a wand. Not saying I should be able to do this but fighters need something special. I ask anyone to roll up a pure fighter then have them try to solo any high level quest. Chances are they will not last vs say a pally or a bard, and maybe they shouldn't, but lets face it the only thing they get over any other class is the amount of feats adn the two specific fighter only feats.

Not sure why everyone is so critical of this idea for just one kind of enhancement. Don't really recall anyone being down on he new meta magic system...

Emili
11-16-2007, 01:00 PM
Feat and/or class abilities are one of the same. They serve the same purposes. This conversation is moot... as it is a MC character gives up something from x class to take y class - as it should be. You should not have a better fighter because you splashed pally or rogue in the end their should be a trade-off to it. This is why MC and Pures are suppose to be viable powerwise through the entire system. Equivalent exchange.

Cowdenicus
11-16-2007, 01:01 PM
It is in pnp but in a game were survivability is much more important its not. I would give up a feat to get a lay on hands, or how about the ability to use a wand. Not saying I should be able to do this but fighters need something special. I ask anyone to roll up a pure fighter then have them try to solo any high level quest. Chances are they will not last vs say a pally or a bard, and maybe they shouldn't, but lets face it the only thing they get over any other class is the amount of feats adn the two specific fighter only feats.

Not sure why everyone is so critical of this idea for just one kind of enhancement. Don't really recall anyone being down on he new meta magic system...

I am all for balance, but since the dps of a barbarian and the dps of a fighter are just about equal, you are going to have a hard time convincing me (personally) that fighters are underpowered and need help.

When fighters get their prestige enhancement lines, I expect them to be pretty good, but I dont expect to see them until they come out with barbarian ones and to be honest these 2 classes are in the least need of them.

llevenbaxx
11-16-2007, 01:22 PM
It is in pnp but in a game were survivability is much more important its not. I would give up a feat to get a lay on hands, or how about the ability to use a wand. Not saying I should be able to do this but fighters need something special. I ask anyone to roll up a pure fighter then have them try to solo any high level quest. Chances are they will not last vs say a pally or a bard, and maybe they shouldn't, but lets face it the only thing they get over any other class is the amount of feats adn the two specific fighter only feats.

Not sure why everyone is so critical of this idea for just one kind of enhancement. Don't really recall anyone being down on he new meta magic system...

Thats why you think they need something special? Because they cant solo as well as other classes in endgame content? All classes are not created equal in D&D, all will have areas where they excel and come up short. A ftr(and barbs) shortcoming is they are a more group dependent class. This is where the balance comes in. If you want to be more versatile(a key part of soloing) I would recommend multiclassing or choosing a more fitting line of feats to better suit your desired playstyle.

MysticRhythms
11-16-2007, 01:23 PM
None of those are *feats* though. That's the point. Feats can require certain things, but feats should never require levels in a class.

Class abilities? Sure. Enhancements? Yes. Spells? That's a class ability. *Number* of feats? Okay.

But a specific feat? Nope. That's a fundamental principle of DnD, and just makes sense. You can set the bar at BAB +16 (only melee classes) and 10 particular feats, but don't just say "Fighter 16 required."

How can you require class abilities and not require levels in a class? How is it even different? If the ONLY way to obtain a class ability is to obtain levels in that class, what's the difference?

There are so many examples of 3.5 feats in the "Complete" and other books that do this:

Extra Rage (CompWar)- requires Rage (the only way to get Rage is to have levels in a class that gives Rage)
Staggering Strike (CompAdv) - requires BaB and Sneak Attack (the only way to obtain Sneak Attack is via class levels)
Divine Fortune (PHB2) - requires divine caster level 5
Swift Hunter (PHB2) - requires Skirmish and Favored Enemy

I can go on and on.

I jsut don't see what the difference is in saying a feat "requires Fighter level X"

The basic Player's Handbook even does this with Weapon Specialization.

Serpent
11-16-2007, 01:27 PM
I am all for balance too and if you remove the barb enhancements they do equal out with a fighter. But what about a fighter vs say a sorc or a wizard or heck even a cleric. Its safe to say that balance went out the window long ago. Talking about it now its moot. Fighters are slowly getting left behind, this is my opinion I know, but if an idea doesn't hurt you why not give it some support.

Its like the Pally thread from long ago. They have been a whipping boy class for a long time, yet who gets all the loves, sorcs and wizzy and then a little bard love. Melee classes need some help now too, Cmon if fighters where the over powered ones they would have made the shadows in Vol immune to holy, pg, and given them dr 20/-, yet it was the sorcs that had to get the blanket immunity, not because they were balanced but because they are unbalanced.

This enhancement idea is just that an idea, so if people can think of a way to improve it go for it, I think its a good toss up, twice the damage half the attack speed, not bad imo. But if the question is balance then give it up, there is no balance in this game hasn't really ever been any, otherwise any class could perform any said task, and we all know that is not the case.

Cowdenicus
11-16-2007, 01:32 PM
I am all for balance too and if you remove the barb enhancements they do equal out with a fighter. But what about a fighter vs say a sorc or a wizard or heck even a cleric. Its safe to say that balance went out the window long ago. Talking about it now its moot. Fighters are slowly getting left behind, this is my opinion I know, but if an idea doesn't hurt you why not give it some support.

Its like the Pally thread from long ago. They have been a whipping boy class for a long time, yet who gets all the loves, sorcs and wizzy and then a little bard love. Melee classes need some help now too, Cmon if fighters where the over powered ones they would have made the shadows in Vol immune to holy, pg, and given them dr 20/-, yet it was the sorcs that had to get the blanket immunity, not because they were balanced but because they are unbalanced.

This enhancement idea is just that an idea, so if people can think of a way to improve it go for it, I think its a good toss up, twice the damage half the attack speed, not bad imo. But if the question is balance then give it up, there is no balance in this game hasn't really ever been any, otherwise any class could perform any said task, and we all know that is not the case.

Casters (and I include clerics here) are balanced, they are very weak at the beginning of the campaign and slowly grow in power (at this point into the campaign they are finally starting to hit their stride.)

Fighters on the other hand start off with alot of power and build quickly to about level 10 then start to taper off and plateau.

My level 4 barbarian absolutely rocks through normal and even hard content at his level (and he is soloing that content). My level 2 sorceror runs out of spell points all the time running even solo quests.

Balance.

MysticRhythms
11-16-2007, 01:35 PM
Casters (and I include clerics here) are balanced, they are very weak at the beginning of the campaign and slowly grow in power (at this point into the campaign they are finally starting to hit their stride.)

Fighters on the other hand start off with alot of power and build quickly to about level 10 then start to taper off and plateau.


That's not balance at all. It is actually the antithesis of balance.

These issues, by the way, are one of the biggest changes to the 4.0 PnP ruleset - the idea that classes shall be balanced across all levels.

Serpent
11-16-2007, 01:46 PM
Casters (and I include clerics here) are balanced, they are very weak at the beginning of the campaign and slowly grow in power (at this point into the campaign they are finally starting to hit their stride.)

Fighters on the other hand start off with alot of power and build quickly to about level 10 then start to taper off and plateau.


Umm... that is so far from balanced I would say that would be ... unbalanced. Endgame, thats what we are all talking about, not from beginning to end. At endgame, we are not balanced adn I don't think that matters, it will never get balanced. But as far as content for classes, The melee classes are far lacking in some and it has been sometime since they have gotten any, fighters having gotten the least attention over all the mods. If I recall all we really got was a lowering in our attack rate (and yes I know this was for all classes). Yes we do get a ton of feats, but there are only so many feats that are worth getting, eventually we are going to run out.

This is all just a thought but lets face it melee is seriously behind others.

Cowdenicus
11-16-2007, 02:02 PM
Umm... that is so far from balanced I would say that would be ... unbalanced. Endgame, thats what we are all talking about, not from beginning to end. At endgame, we are not balanced adn I don't think that matters, it will never get balanced. But as far as content for classes, The melee classes are far lacking in some and it has been sometime since they have gotten any, fighters having gotten the least attention over all the mods. If I recall all we really got was a lowering in our attack rate (and yes I know this was for all classes). Yes we do get a ton of feats, but there are only so many feats that are worth getting, eventually we are going to run out.

This is all just a thought but lets face it melee is seriously behind others.

Which is how it should be according to D&D. Also as a side note, melees extra attacks and bonus to hit I would not considered underpowered.

Serpent
11-16-2007, 02:09 PM
Which is how it should be according to D&D. Also as a side note, melees extra attacks and bonus to hit I would not considered underpowered.

Everyone gets those its not based upon class its based upon bab, melee's do have the highest but clerics and bards also benefits from those at our current level. So those are not an exclusively melee ability. This thread was propsing an exclusive melee ability, fighter preferably but any melee at this point

As a side note I have capped a fighter, rogue, bard, cleric, paladin, ranger and a caster. I'm not biased I have seen every side of this argument.

MysticRhythms
11-16-2007, 02:20 PM
Which is how it should be according to D&D.

Says who? This is one of the biggest complaints in the 3.5 ruleset and is supposedly being addressed in 4.0.

Deaths_ward
11-16-2007, 02:28 PM
I'd love to see overwhelming attack, but I'd also like to see a certain other feat line. Not sure where it came from, probably one of the WoTC forum boards.

True Critical
Requirements: Improved Critical, and Fighter level 13, or Base Attack Bonus +17
A character with this feat increases his or her critical threat range by 4 points.
Jenecia a fighter specialized in wielding a scythe takes true critical, her scythe's critical threat range of 19-20 (via Improved Critical) increases to 15-20 with True Critical.

Devastating Strike
Requirements: True Critical, and Fighter level 15, or Base Attack Bonus +19
A character with this feat increases his or her critical hit damage by x3.
Jenecia takes Devastating strike, her scythe normally deals x4 damage with a critical hit, taking Devastating Strike increases this to x7.

Both powerful combat feats, both available to any class that can bring up the BAB, but available to fighters much earlier.

Serpent
11-16-2007, 02:30 PM
I'd love to see overwhelming attack, but I'd also like to see a certain other feat line. Not sure where it came from, probably one of the WoTC forum boards.

True Critical
Requirements: Improved Critical, and Fighter level 13, or Base Attack Bonus +17
A character with this feat increases his or her critical threat range by 4 points.
Jenecia a fighter specialized in wielding a scythe takes true critical, her scythe's critical threat range of 19-20 (via Improved Critical) increases to 15-20 with True Critical.

Devastating Strike
Requirements: True Critical, and Fighter level 15, or Base Attack Bonus +19
A character with this feat increases his or her critical hit damage by x3.
Jenecia takes Devastating strike, her scythe normally deals x4 damage with a critical hit, taking Devastating Strike increases this to x7.

Both powerful combat feats, both available to any class that can bring up the BAB, but available to fighters much earlier.

Two very nice ideas, if you find or remember more please post em

Vienemen
11-16-2007, 02:37 PM
These issues, by the way, are one of the biggest changes to the 4.0 PnP ruleset - the idea that classes shall be balanced across all levels.

And I have read that many people dislike that aspect. I am one as well. Balanced against each other in my opinion is bad. Balance in categories might be more appropriate i.e. casters, melee, ranged etc

MysticRhythms
11-16-2007, 02:46 PM
And I have read that many people dislike that aspect.

It's far from many. The number one complaint about 3.5 was the dominance of the cleric/druid at the high levels of the game compared to the dominance of the fighter at the low levels of the game. There is no point to go past Fighter 10 (and in many cases, Fighter 4) in the current PnP ruleset. It makes far mroe sense to dip Barbarian for the Rage, Ranger for the extra few feats on the front end and then just pick a Prestige Class later.

And with spellcasters, there is practically no point (aside from flavor) to multiclassing into anything that doesn't permit full spellcasting progression. That's a fundamental flaw in the game and far more players of that type exist than the ones who want to maintain spellcaster dominance.

The complainers are just more vocal.

ErgonomicCat
11-16-2007, 02:59 PM
Maybe we are talking across each other since I don't play PnP and may not term things the same.

From what I can tell in DDO:
Evasion is a feat. (rogue 2 or ranger 9 required.)
Favored enemy is a feat. (Ranger level x is required.)
Weapon specialization is a feat (fighter level 4 required.)
Greater weapon focus is a feat (fighter level 8 required.)
Greater weapon specialization is a feat (fighter level 12 required.)

There are others that show up in the feat list. Are you calling the automatic ones "abilities" instead of feats? If so, that still leaves the advanced weapons feats that fighters already get that noone else does. There may be others, but those are the ones I can think of.

Possibly. ;)

Evasion and Favored Enemies are class abilities. But you're right, that they are feats in DDO.

Weapon Spec is an abonimation against God and Man. Seriously. It's just bad design. If you have to be a fighter to take it, it's not a feat, it's a class ability.

Sorry, I forget not everyone cares about minutae like that. ;) I'm ... uh...special that way. :)

MysticRhythms
11-16-2007, 03:22 PM
Weapon Spec is an abonimation against God and Man. Seriously. It's just bad design. If you have to be a fighter to take it, it's not a feat, it's a class ability.
Sorry, I forget not everyone cares about minutae like that. ;) I'm ... uh...special that way. :)

OK. I'm a software programmer. To me it's a Boolean condition.

Are requirements met? Then True. Else False.

"Fighter level X" is just another requirement.

Consider the Rogue special abilities. Note they all have the requirement "Must be Rogue level 10 or higher." These are also in the Player's Handbook. To say they are "bad design" is one thing, but to claim that they are "inconsistent in the rules of D&D" is false.

Twerpp
11-16-2007, 03:25 PM
Agree, what special feats will my MC characters going to get access to that pures dont?



LOL What feats? Whatever free class-specific abilities, feats or other benefits you got from multi-classing that a pure classer has no access to and certainly not for free, maybe divine grace, fearless, immune to disease, spellcasting, bow strength or free TWF to name a few.

I think there should be alight at the end of the tunnel for pure classes in the form of level 20 enhancements, otherwise why should every fighter take 2 pally, why shouldnt every cleric take 1 sorc or pally for sp. And if the feat the OP is talking about is pre-req lvl 16 fighter in SRD then why shouldnt it be so here?

Serpent
11-16-2007, 04:55 PM
So I am gathering from the posts on here and also posts in another thread, that I and others should just multi class, and any disadvantages we have for not doing so is our fault. Class specific abilities at high level should not be allowed cause all the multi classers would not get them and because Multi classing is the smartest thing to do with our current system, those not smart people should somehow be punished for staying pure classed.

Now don't get me wrong I have multi classed characters and find them to be very fun. And I am also of the mind anyone who takes two levels of rogue is just cheating to an extant (I DM in pnp and I hate this there too) not to say I haven't done it. When I posted this thread after discussion with a guildy (it was his idea to post it, I kinda figured that responses would be like they have been) not once did we think that multi classers would be penalized. I felt that pure classers have and are continuing to be penalized simply because they are not taking a level of another class.

So it comes down to what could a pure class get that may make some people stay true and play all the way there to get it, but it seems that it was not a smart idea. I guess my level 14 fighter is taking a level of ranger to get wands at level cap. That way I ahe something to look forward to.

ErgonomicCat
11-16-2007, 05:21 PM
OK. I'm a software programmer. To me it's a Boolean condition.

Are requirements met? Then True. Else False.

"Fighter level X" is just another requirement.

Consider the Rogue special abilities. Note they all have the requirement "Must be Rogue level 10 or higher." These are also in the Player's Handbook. To say they are "bad design" is one thing, but to claim that they are "inconsistent in the rules of D&D" is false.

Those are special abilities. They aren't feats, in PnP. In DDO, they are.

AFAIK, the only PHB feat that required a class level was Weapon Spec. There have been a couple more that have come up.

Fighter Level X is a requirement, but it's a bad one. When designing PrC's, they specifically call out "Do not ever require levels in a *class*." You can require abilities that are specific to a class, such as turn undead, or weapon spec, but you can't require Fighter 4.

Feats, generally, are the same. And they *should* always be the same. It allows more flexibility. Because now, you have bizarre things like the Warblade, who counts as a fighter-2 for the purposes of feats. That's just silly.

My point is more they are inconsistent with the flavor, and *should* be inconsistent with the rules. ;)

Weapon spec is a niche case, because it was an attempt to bring the fighter's Weapon Mastery from AD&D over. But it was a bad idea to do so, that just stuck around.

maddmatt70
11-16-2007, 07:01 PM
I'd love to see overwhelming attack, but I'd also like to see a certain other feat line. Not sure where it came from, probably one of the WoTC forum boards.

True Critical
Requirements: Improved Critical, and Fighter level 13, or Base Attack Bonus +17
A character with this feat increases his or her critical threat range by 4 points.
Jenecia a fighter specialized in wielding a scythe takes true critical, her scythe's critical threat range of 19-20 (via Improved Critical) increases to 15-20 with True Critical.

Devastating Strike
Requirements: True Critical, and Fighter level 15, or Base Attack Bonus +19
A character with this feat increases his or her critical hit damage by x3.
Jenecia takes Devastating strike, her scythe normally deals x4 damage with a critical hit, taking Devastating Strike increases this to x7.

Both powerful combat feats, both available to any class that can bring up the BAB, but available to fighters much earlier.

I would argue the two most likely feats that we are going to see and probably will see sometime in mod6 or 7 are superior weapon specialization and superior weapon focus. Superior weapon focus would be level 16 required and superior weapons specialization well actually that might not come out until mod8 fighter level 18. The two feats that you show here are overpowered. If they changed them for instance true strike improve by one 19-20 becomes 18 - 20 and devasting stike increased damage by one time they would be more feasible with the same level requirements of course..

Aesop
11-16-2007, 08:04 PM
AFAIK, the only PHB feat that required a class level was Weapon Spec. .

Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Spec also are from the Players Handbook. I believe there are a couple in PHB2 as well... Including Weapon Supremacy which has a requirement of Fighter level 18.


Really a fighters only bonus is the Bonus Feats. Having some Feats only being available to Fighters isn't really a bad thing. It balances against the special things that other classes get... like Rage and Mighty Rage and all those. They are options that ensure that someone can take FIghter 18 and get something special that no one else can get... Same with a Barb that takes Barb 20 gets Mighty Rage something no one else can get.

Aesop

Deaths_ward
11-16-2007, 08:23 PM
I would argue the two most likely feats that we are going to see and probably will see sometime in mod6 or 7 are superior weapon specialization and superior weapon focus. Superior weapon focus would be level 16 required and superior weapons specialization well actually that might not come out until mod8 fighter level 18. The two feats that you show here are overpowered. If they changed them for instance true strike improve by one 19-20 becomes 18 - 20 and devasting stike increased damage by one time they would be more feasible with the same level requirements of course..

Actually they're only available to pure/mostly pure fighters that early. If you look at them, as any class but a fighter you don't get access to them until lvl 17+. The point was to give fighters something that brought them up at lower levels so they might compare to other classes.

Fighters of any class have the most 'dry levels', meaning they have the most levels where they get nothing but HP, BAB, and Save progression. these were tagged in there to fill in gaps of different levels.

Staedtler
11-17-2007, 02:21 AM
I'd love to see overwhelming attack, but I'd also like to see a certain other feat line. Not sure where it came from, probably one of the WoTC forum boards.

True Critical
Requirements: Improved Critical, and Fighter level 13, or Base Attack Bonus +17
A character with this feat increases his or her critical threat range by 4 points.
Jenecia a fighter specialized in wielding a scythe takes true critical, her scythe's critical threat range of 19-20 (via Improved Critical) increases to 15-20 with True Critical.

Devastating Strike
Requirements: True Critical, and Fighter level 15, or Base Attack Bonus +19
A character with this feat increases his or her critical hit damage by x3.
Jenecia takes Devastating strike, her scythe normally deals x4 damage with a critical hit, taking Devastating Strike increases this to x7.

Both powerful combat feats, both available to any class that can bring up the BAB, but available to fighters much earlier.

As a DM, whenever a player asks for approval on a feat like this I like to have a little exchange with them. I call it the "Golden Rule Test."

Player: Hey, can I let my fighter have this feat I found online? It's pretty cool!
Me: Let's take a look.... wow, that's powerful.
P: Sure is!
M: Alright, go ahead and take it.
P: Great!
M: But.
P: But?
M: Wouldn't you say any fighter in the game would be silly not to take that?
P: Yeah!
M: Alright. So, you won't be surprised when everything you encounter in this game also has that feat.
P: Oh... um
M: Hope you like going up against a fighter who uses rapiers! Enjoy being criticalled on 11-20 for x4 damage!

I love powergamers in my campaigns. Gives me an excuse to powergame right back at them :)

As for the matter at hand: I don't believe it's been established that a pure class deserves to be rewarded. The idea that playing a pure class is inherently right in 3.x DnD is misguided (it's not wrong, either. it's just not heavily encouraged). Besides, the enhancement system already provides class-specific access to certain boosts.

Hvymetal
11-17-2007, 05:46 AM
Fighters of any class have the most 'dry levels', meaning they have the most levels where they get nothing but HP, BAB, and Save progression. these were tagged in there to fill in gaps of different levels.
See Paladin : :D

lenric
11-17-2007, 06:58 AM
Evasion isn't a feat. It's a class ability or class feature (can't remember the exact term). Favored enemy is also not a feat, it's a class feature/ability. Basically anything derived from your class isn't a feat. Feats are something any class/race can get provided they meet the prerequisites. Class features/abilities are strictly tied to their relevant class. I'm sure DDO lumps class features/abilities with feats to save space in the character sheet.

Think of the weapon foci and the weapon spec's as fighter class features/abilities, rather than feats. Almost all other feats don't require you be a certain class, other than the spellcasting feats (those obviously require some type of spellcasting class).

My only problem with considering greater weapon focus and weapon specialization as class abilities rather than feats is the fact that they ARE feats...you take them as a feat, they are not granted automatically as most/all class abilities are, you have to use your feat for a new level to chose that feat. They are in fact feats. The ability the OP mentioned is in fact a feat, it is a feat that has a requirement of so many levels of fighter, same as weapon spec and weapon focus. I for one say awesome add it into the game, there aren't enough pure build anythings out there, and anything that can make those builds more appealing as well as adding in more pnp content is fine by me. :)

Griphon
11-17-2007, 12:53 PM
None of those are *feats* though. That's the point. Feats can require certain things, but feats should never require levels in a class.

Class abilities? Sure. Enhancements? Yes. Spells? That's a class ability. *Number* of feats? Okay.

But a specific feat? Nope. That's a fundamental principle of DnD, and just makes sense. You can set the bar at BAB +16 (only melee classes) and 10 particular feats, but don't just say "Fighter 16 required."

Right... Lets go dig into the D&D PHB... *shuffle shuffle*
Oh.. Here it is!
Weapon Specialization... Requires a certain number of fighter levels.

Oh my gods.. It -is- a Fundamental Principle of DnD! Fighters get special feats to give an edge over other classes.. (not to mention the NUMBER of feats they get). So yeah... A feat straight from the PnP game IS a DnD....

Please... Read.. the.. BOOK.. before making comments like these. The more you know.. The less you are going to say something thats just blatantly incorrect.



Think of the weapon foci and the weapon spec's as fighter class features/abilities, rather than feats. Almost all other feats don't require you be a certain class, other than the spellcasting feats (those obviously require some type of spellcasting class).

No.. Please don't! Please think of 'Weapon Specialization' as a Feat. Because.. it is! I mean.. it's listed in the feats.. It's described in the FEATS section. It's selectable by those who meet the requirements at any time they meet the requirements.. This means.. it's a feat! It's not earned merely just by leveling up in the class. That is a Class Feature/Ability.

Please try not to spindoctor rules just because they don't meet your liking. If you want to do that? DM. It's your call then.


Feat and/or class abilities are one of the same. They serve the same purposes. This conversation is moot... as it is a MC character gives up something from x class to take y class - as it should be. You should not have a better fighter because you splashed pally or rogue in the end their should be a trade-off to it. This is why MC and Pures are suppose to be viable powerwise through the entire system. Equivalent exchange.

The only thing I have problem with this one is the very first statement. As I said above, they are not the same. Pretty much for the same reasons as above. Example? 2d6 Sneak Attack? I can not purchase this at any time. I only receive this as at a certain level in rogue. (Um.. no book handy to verify the level.) That makes it a class ability.

GeneralDiomedes
11-17-2007, 01:47 PM
Muticlassing has advantages: versatility, ability to combine class features in powerful ways

Pure classing has advantages: access to more powerful class features

If pure classes didn't have carrots dangling at high levels, there would be no reason to stay pure. Everyone would multiclass. Whether you call them feats, abilities, enhancements or features .. it doesn't matter. What matters is that all player choices must come with advantages and disadvantages to make a game system interesting.

And guess what .. a complex game system like DDO has more than enough feats, abilities, enhancements and features to allow for the odd feat that has a class level prerequisite.

Serpent
11-17-2007, 02:08 PM
Muticlassing has advantages: versatility, ability to combine class features in powerful ways

Pure classing has advantages: access to more powerful class features

If pure classes didn't have carrots dangling at high levels, there would be no reason to stay pure. Everyone would multiclass. Whether you call them feats, abilities, enhancements or features .. it doesn't matter. What matters is that all player choices must come with advantages and disadvantages to make a game system interesting.

And guess what .. a complex game system like DDO has more than enough feats, abilities, enhancements and features to allow for the odd feat that has a class level prerequisite.

That is exactly my point, A feat or ability thats is class specific shouldn't and wouldn't affect the game except some people would cry that they can't use it in there current build.

Griphon
11-17-2007, 03:43 PM
Yes. I agree..

It's not like the ones currently in game are breaking anything, eh? :)

How ever.. The feats posted by um... (not gunna quote the person, did that three times today!) MysticalRhythms? I think are over the top! Unless MR was mis-remembering the numbers. :) An +1 increase in Increment and Damage Multiplier would not be out of bounds. (I've mentioned the Weapon Master PrC in another thread, and yeah.. I know it's 3.0. But it still works in 3.5.)

I think setting these up as Enhancement based PrC like the Bard's special abilities would put the Fighters back on Par with the Barb's Rage Crit bonus. (That Rage Crit thing is just Silly Powerful!) Or.. If not as a PrC Enhancement, just as a normal one then.