Kit Revisions (Fighters)

[Ardanis]

1. Offensive Stance

I think -AC penalty is more suitable for the contcept instead of penalty to attack rolls.

This is more like 3E's Power Attack feat, that allows stronger blows at reduced accuracy.

Ideally, all the four parameters - thaco, damage, AC and ApR - should be able to boost each other at the cost of own decrement, but that would be twelve separate abilities, so I think it is best to stick to canon PnP ones.

[Demivrgvs]

Berserk

I think that "Non-controllable" disadvantage is enough rather than "attacking party".

If that was possible I would go for it yes. It has been suggested the "on hit" variant exactly because it lowers the chance of having the Berserker turn against your party.

 

And the condition would happen when Berserker's HP is below under 25%+be struck by enemies. The non-controllable demerit may be troublesome effect but it's not serious thing imo because Berserker will still keep attacking and charging to enemies anyway.

Combining the two conditions may be problematic from the technical point of view...I'll think about it a little and let you know.

 

Offensive Stance

I think -AC penalty is more suitable for the contcept instead of penalty to attack rolls.

As Ardanis says. I'm simply following PnP, and if there's one thing true fighters can easily trade is their thac0 (many players consider it too good compared to opponents AC), isn't it?

 

Barbarian & Wizard Slayer

Since they are the one of Fighters, allowing +++ any weapon proficiency makes them more unique imo. Is it too powerful?

Barbarians are fine as they are, but Wizard Slayers will get Mastery +++, yes.

 

Beta Release

BTW, do you plan to test through Beta version before official release? If yes, I'll be glad to be beta tester!

Thanks. I think I'm going for an open beta.

[Ardanis]

I keep insisting that WS should get grandmastery back, if they are limited to leather armor. With sub-optimal weapon skill and protection they will only be useful against wizards, but hardly anybody else.

[Demivrgvs]

Wizard Slayer's disadvantages

I keep insisting that WS should get grandmastery back, if they are limited to leather armor. With sub-optimal weapon skill and protection they will only be useful against wizards, but hardly anybody else.

But keeping only the armor restriction is far from enough imo. In exchange for that (which within IR isn't a huge penalty imo, noticeable but not too severe) they get disruptive attacks, permanent magic resistance, the ability to reflect back spells, counter illusions and breach combat protections. Too much for too little imo.

 

Mastery +++ may be sub-optimal, but they still are better than non-enraged barbarians (+1 thac0, +1/2 apr), and much better than unbuffed paladins and rangers (faster lvl up on top of Mastery's bonuses).

 

Btw, except the Spell Disruption feat (which is specifically anti-mage only), most of the class features make him excel against any type of spellcaster, including creatures with magical abilities (e.g. genies, demons, etc.). Afaik BG is full of those, and they actually tend to be the most threatening opponents. Am I wrong?

 

Last but not least, this kit is supposed to be specialized (to fight magic wielders), thus I give for granted it has to be inferior to True Fighters when facing non-magical opponents. True Fighters are at a serious disadvantage against mages imo, WS instead will still be able to fight other warriors without too much troubles. Yes, they won't dominate martial/physical duels, but that's not what they trained for, and they still do it better than almost all classes (except true fighters and other figther kits). If we don't add some serious disadvantage, why should I play a True Fighter instead of WS?

[Kalindor]

I agree with Demivrgvs's sentiments about the wizard slayer. Magic Resistance and the disruptive abilities are quite a boon. As stated, they are better fighters than Paladins and Rangers (w/out buffs) and possess abilities of comparable utility to them. In fact, I am wondering if the wizard slayer and inquisitor do not share the same niche?

[leania]

Mmm... Any news?...

[Demivrgvs]

Mmm... Any news?...

I've spent most of my time on IR V3.1 actually, not only because I wanted to try new things out (e.g. the new Cloak of Displacement) but also because of 1ppV4 and few other things.

 

Regarding KR instead, I've done almost everything once again (new Fighter's Called Shot, a re-revised Barbarian's Rage - it now almost perfectly matches PnP WF variant -, and few other things done slightly differently compared to what the first post currently shows). The only thing left is the Wizard Slayer, mostly because I changed it, completely. I won't be around for almost a week, and I'll now work silently until release (@Ardanis, I'll look for you though), but expect quite a lot of surprises before the end of August.

[leania]

I've spent most of my time on IR V3.1 actually, not only because I wanted to try new things out (e.g. the new Cloak of Displacement) but also because of 1ppV4 and few other things.

 

Regarding KR instead, I've done almost everything once again (new Fighter's Called Shot, a re-revised Barbarian's Rage - it now almost perfectly matches PnP WF variant -, and few other things done slightly differently compared to what the first post currently shows). The only thing left is the Wizard Slayer, mostly because I changed it, completely. I won't be around for almost a week, and I'll now work silently until release (@Ardanis, I'll look for you though), but expect quite a lot of surprises before the end of August.

 

Thank you for the announcements!

[Grammarsalad]

EDIT: Not sure what happened there. Let me try again.

[Dakk]

EDIT: Not sure what happened there. Let me try again.

By all means.

 

[Grammarsalad]

True fighter:

 

Looks good. In the description of the stances I think you should say exactly what he gets at which level. Reading, "...Every other nine levels damage bonus and attack roll penalty increase by one..." I'm trying to decide if he gets his first bonus at 9th or 10th level. I get that the first bonus comes at 10th level because of the maximum but perhaps it should just say that they get a +3/-3 at 10th level and a +4/-4 at 19th level for clarity.

 

I really like that stances give something to look forward to at higher levels in addition to the bonus attack at 13. I really like the proficiency and specialization bonuses for flavor if nothing else.

 

What are your thoughts on the 'combat maneuvers?'

 

An idea that just came to me:

 

What about an idea that makes them a little more versatile? That is, given them a daily ability called 'Combat Maneuver' that gives them a special selected from a list (like your parry, disarm, but also 'called shot' for ranged weapons) that expires after 24 hours if not used. So perhaps the ranger or thief scout reports a legion of archers. Use combat maneuver to give yourself a called shot like ability to even the odds. Spiders. Parry (say) to keep yourself protected on the front lines while the sorcerer zapps them. Just throwing that out there.

 

I would like to see something more fill out those mid/high levels (10+) to make dual class a little more painful...

 

Barbarian:

 

Some of the text in the description is redundant. As they have the disadvantage "Cannot dual class" and given that they cannot multiclass, then they don't need to mention in the enrage description "...However, the barbarian will also be unable to perform actions that require concentration, like casting spells or using thieving skills." I think you can just get rid of this sentence.

 

As for the class itself I really like it! It's nice to get somethign more streamlined. That said, losing the immunities does hurt a lot though. One nice thing was that I could always count on my dual axe wielding half-orc barbarian in a vampire fight. Activate rage and he'd fearlessly enter the fray. Now he's a little scared which doesn't seem right. Honestly, I think the ability should grant immunity to fear starting at 1st level and immunity to level drain at a higher level.

 

Berserker:

 

Rather than say, "...when enraging" you can probably just say, "when raging." This helps to distinguish the ability from the barbarians enrage ability.

 

I think this ability should also give immunity to level drain at a higher level for the same reason as the barbarian above. I understand that it might be 'out of place' but it increases their spell caster dependence which I think is out of place. "Yea, I'm gonna charge that vampy just as soon as the maggie protects me from her bite."

 

"Cannot use Defensive Stance..." interesting. So does he get offensive stance? What about the barbarian?

 

Kensai:

 

I really like improved critical! I really like it. Perhaps they should receive more at higher levels though. It would be nice if this one gave kensages and kenthieves (or what is the term?) more to regret.

 

Wizard Slayer:

 

I'm so so so so so glad you are getting rid of their magic item restrictions!

 

 

I don't think they should get reflect magic at level 1. Also, I think they should be able to wear medium armors. Right now I'm not sure about this one. When I get a chance, I'm going to put this in an excel document to get a better picture of how they compare to each other.

 

EDIT: started the spreadsheet. I doubt you're doing it but the barbarian definitely shouldn't get any stances.Only have level one right now but Wizard Slayers do seem to be behind. I assumed that BG:EE will restrict 1st level fighter types to specialization so one can assume they on par with other fighters there but I don't think their disruption ability will be robust enough to compensate for the lack of protection.

 

Advantage over true:

 

Spell disruption

 

Disadvantage:

 

No shield or medium/heavy armor.

 

At this level I don't think that they will face very many spell casters but they will face a number of enemies that will tear through their studded leather armor and absence of shield like tissue paper. The advantage they have over spellcasters has to be statistically reduced by the frequency that they face them and at this level I don't think it's frequent enough to justify their lack of protection.

 

I still don't think they should get reflect magic at first level but heavier armor and/or shield (I think they should be able to use a shield and medium armor) would probably be ok.

[Demivrgvs]

First of all, sorry but I edited your post to remove that huge wall of text you quoted (the entire first page of this topic!). I hope you don't mind.

 

Second of all, I was about to update that post, because what you're commenting on is very outdated sorry. I haven't drastically changed anything but there's a lot more on the floor now. Anyway, let's reply to your comment.

 

True fighter

Looks good. In the description of the stances I think you should say exactly what he gets at which level. Reading, "...Every other nine levels damage bonus and attack roll penalty increase by one..." I'm trying to decide if he gets his first bonus at 9th or 10th level. I get that the first bonus comes at 10th level because of the maximum but perhaps it should just say that they get a +3/-3 at 10th level and a +4/-4 at 19th level for clarity.

Well, 9+9=18 thus it seemed obvious to me the first step was at 10th lvl. Maybe it's because I'm an engineer?

 

I really like that stances give something to look forward to at higher levels in addition to the bonus attack at 13. I really like the proficiency and specialization bonuses for flavor if nothing else.

 

What about an idea that makes them a little more versatile? That is, given them a daily ability called 'Combat Maneuver' that gives them a special selected from a list (like your parry, disarm, but also 'called shot' for ranged weapons) that expires after 24 hours if not used. So perhaps the ranger or thief scout reports a legion of archers. Use combat maneuver to give yourself a called shot like ability to even the odds. Spiders. Parry (say) to keep yourself protected on the front lines while the sorcerer zapps them. Just throwing that out there.

Ehm...this is one of those things I've done but not updated. Fighters can now make Called Shot with both melee and ranged weapons (Archer's Called Shot are ranged-only) once per day for every 4 lvl, starting at 4th lvl (as per vanilla CS). The difference with vanilla's CS is that I'm splitting it in various abilities (e.g. hit the arm to disarm, hit the leg to slow down or trip). I'll updated the post on this matter asap.

 

I would like to see something more fill out those mid/high levels (10+) to make dual class a little more painful...

Indeed, but finding something unique and appropriate is difficult. My first idea was to give them Improved Criticals as Kensai, else I had a strange idea inspired by Pathfinder's Teamwork feats. For example at 11th, 14th and 17th lvl the Fighter could get become the master of teamwork combat granting various bonuses to nearby allies (+x to AC for defensive manouvers or +x to thac0/damage for flanking) via either permanent bonuses or shouts.

 

Barbarian

Some of the text in the description is redundant. As they have the disadvantage "Cannot dual class" and given that they cannot multiclass, then they don't need to mention in the enrage description "...However, the barbarian will also be unable to perform actions that require concentration, like casting spells or using thieving skills." I think you can just get rid of this sentence.

You're probably right.

 

As for the class itself I really like it! It's nice to get somethign more streamlined. That said, losing the immunities does hurt a lot though. One nice thing was that I could always count on my dual axe wielding half-orc barbarian in a vampire fight. Activate rage and he'd fearlessly enter the fray. Now he's a little scared which doesn't seem right. Honestly, I think the ability should grant immunity to fear starting at 1st level and immunity to level drain at a higher level.

I was indeed going to suggest giving the Barbarian various "upgrades" to his Rage a la Pathfinder's Rage Powers. A good candidate for a mid-low lvl upgrade is indeed Fearless Rage, but I'm not sure immunity to evel drain is appropriate, it seems just a convenient thing. Btw, a frenzied Berserker isn't afraid of getting harmed or level drained, he simply doesn't care as long as he survives and all the opposition is obliterated.

 

Berserker

Rather than say, "...when enraging" you can probably just say, "when raging." This helps to distinguish the ability from the barbarians enrage ability.

I thought about calling the rages in different way (e.g.Rage and Frenzy respectively) but haven't opted fot it, at least for now.

 

I think this ability should also give immunity to level drain at a higher level for the same reason as the barbarian above. I understand that it might be 'out of place' but it increases their spell caster dependence which I think is out of place. "Yea, I'm gonna charge that vampy just as soon as the maggie protects me from her bite."

See above.

 

Stances

"Cannot use Defensive Stance..." interesting. So does he get offensive stance? What about the barbarian?

The current post is kinda messy I know. The idea was to give Offensive Stance (PnP Power Attack) to Barbarian and Berserker, and the Defensive Stance (PnP Combat Expertise) to Kensai. Arda would actualy not give OS to Barbarian though, and I'm tempted to agree with him.

 

Kensai

I really like improved critical! I really like it. Perhaps they should receive more at higher levels though. It would be nice if this one gave kensages and kenthieves (or what is the term?) more to regret.

I'm adding Parry (melee only AC bonus) at mid-high lvls in order to have something more to look for for a single class Kensai.

 

Regarding Improved Critical, I'm really torn on this. I'm surely going for a +5% chance, but I fear +10% could get unbalanced for 2handers kensai because they get a 2x multiplier from the weapon style, which generally means scoring criticlas on 19-20 instead of 20, but with KR's Improved Critical it already goes from 19-20 to 17-20! I'm afraid granting Kensai +10% chance to score criticals would make 2hander Kensai too much appealing over a dual wielder, because it would score criticals on a 15-20, aka 30% of times!

 

Wizard Slayer

I'm so so so so so glad you are getting rid of their magic item restrictions!

It made no sense. It would have only on a completely different scale, such as a superstitious monk/barbarian-like character who gets tons of innate abilities and cannot use ANY magical equipment...but in our case that restriction it really made no sense imo.

 

I don't think they should get reflect magic at level 1. Also, I think they should be able to wear medium armors. Right now I'm not sure about this one. When I get a chance, I'm going to put this in an excel document to get a better picture of how they compare to each other.

This is the class I've secretly changed the most, wait for my update.

[Kalindor]

Regarding Improved Critical, I'm really torn on this. I'm surely going for a +5% chance, but I fear +10% could get unbalanced for 2handers kensai because they get a 2x multiplier from the weapon style, which generally means scoring criticlas on 19-20 instead of 20, but with KR's Improved Critical it already goes from 19-20 to 17-20! I'm afraid granting Kensai +10% chance to score criticals would make 2hander Kensai too much appealing over a dual wielder, because it would score criticals on a 15-20, aka 30% of times!

 

This sounds powerful, I propose making such a large critical range apply only to single-weapon fighting style to offset the loss of two-handed weapon or two-weapon styles' additional bonuses.

[Grammarsalad]

Ok, looking forward to the update! : D

 

I agree that the barbarian doesn't need offensive stance. frenzy, movement, d12 hd, and backstab immunity are decent tradeoffs for the stances.

 

My spreadsheet tells me that it's probably ok to give both stances to the kensi. It seems appropriate in any case. I understand things have changed but as it is in the beginning they give up plate armor and missile weapons for melee superiority. The bonus to ac doesn't mitigate the loss of armor even in melee though they clearly gain in melee damage output with the + 1 to hit and damage but they lose the ac bonus from no helmet (or immunity to critical if an old version--not sure offhand if that feature is in ir yet actually-- or with ir at all). They aren't getting brazier s so early in the game and in any case I'm sure that the benefits of os aren't always there especially in the early game. Granted their other bonuses make it a superior option for them in melee but thats exactly how it should be imo.

 

Personally I think it's ok if two handed weapons are more appealing to a kensi than dual wielding. Dw is always very appealing because you get bonuses from two weapons. In any case, that bonus is still appealing to dw as presumably both weapons would get the increased critical chance.

 

I think it's great that you are using pathfinder for inspiration. Rage powers are one of their cooler concepts!

 

Edited out phone wonkiness "...using pathfinder for inflation." lol!

[Grammarsalad]

Regarding Improved Critical, I'm really torn on this. I'm surely going for a +5% chance, but I fear +10% could get unbalanced for 2handers kensai because they get a 2x multiplier from the weapon style, which generally means scoring criticlas on 19-20 instead of 20, but with KR's Improved Critical it already goes from 19-20 to 17-20! I'm afraid granting Kensai +10% chance to score criticals would make 2hander Kensai too much appealing over a dual wielder, because it would score criticals on a 15-20, aka 30% of times!

 

This sounds powerful, I propose making such a large critical range apply only to single-weapon fighting style to offset the loss of two-handed weapon or two-weapon styles' additional bonuses.

 

Is this possible? I'd love to see more single weapon options

 

EDIT: Also, we can calculate just how (or if!) good this really is for THW over TWF...

 

EDIT2: what roll (on d20) would be a reasonable average for a hit at the level they would get the +10%? High level fighters hit just about all the time in my experience but I can't quite say exactly how often. Hmmm... I have to quantify this so I'll just estimate at 70%. Can't do it now but that's what I'll use unless someone tells me different.

 

EDIT3: I'm not a mathematician (or an engineer!) so please feel free to check my math.

 

X=Avg 2hw damage

Y=Avg Main hand damage

Z=Avg off hand damage

 

A=% hit, B=Off Hand % hit (B=A-0.2 [min 0.0] where A=0.0 to 1.0)

 

Basic equation: (A(3X) + 0.3(3X)) - ((A(3Y)) + ((0.15(3Y)) ) + ((B(Z) + 0.15(Z))))

Assuming 3 base attacks +1 offhand for dual wielders, Grand mastery in weapons and 2 or 3 pip's in weapon style.

 

I think it's reasonable to assume that X= Y+2 (extra die damage +1 thw dam bonus ), Also, X=Z+3 (two extra die and thw dam bonus) though I'd have to take a closer look at IR to be sure.

 

Assuming 70% chance to hit with the above assumptions we have

 

((0.7(12) + 0.3(12)) Two Handed Damage

- (((0.7(6) + (0.15(6))) Main Hand damage +((0.5(1)) + 0.15(1)) Off Hand damage (reduced to 1 to simplify))

 

 

12

- (5.1 + 0.65)

6.25 additional damage per round. Over ten rounds that's 62.5 which is about a death spell so it's not insignificant. For the Kensai this bonus is significantly higher when Kai strike is on.

 

However, there are intangibles that are outside this equation and which would be very difficult to put into it.

 

#1: Speed. Weapon speed (I assume) is useful both to disrupt a caster before they get off a spell and to down bad guys before they down you. Assuming IR, dual weilders will likely be using smaller, faster weapons which likely help to disrupt spellcasting a little faster than two handed weapons. I know that two handed weapon style adds to the speed of the weapon but I assume that it doesn't make two handed swords as fast as short or long swords.

 

#2: While we can generally assume that two handed weapons' magical specials are offset by any main hand weapon's bonuses (e.g. poison; AC Bonus; bonus saves, etc.) there is still the magical bonuses gained when equipping an off hand weapons. This, IMO, is the real benefit of wielding two weapons. I have no problem with the possibility that a kensai (or anyone) wielding a 2hw will actually do more damage than someone wielding 2 weapons. Personally I think single weapon style is a lost cause but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

 

#3: Dual wielding is more costly in terms of proficiency slots. But it must be remembered that they do outshine single weapon proficiency in almost every way possible (except weapon speed; can get AC bonus from the right weapons) and are still second to 2hw in damage output (where otherwise they might be about equal or at least on par--not quite sure.)