Jump to content
Demivrgvs

Kit Revisions (Fighters)

Recommended Posts

WS Breach Ability
I'd leave it for HLA.
I probably agree with you, it's a very effective 5th level spell after all (just like Warrior's Magic Resistance HLA). Refinements used this almost as a standard method by assigning Spell Immunity HLA to Wizard Slayers and Righteous Magic HLA to paladins. Furthermore I'm starting to fear that a on-hit breach effect would make really too easy most fights against spellcasters (especially at low levels) and would be slightly unpractical against high level SCS mages which use PfMW a lot (as the protection spell would block the on-hit effect).
Yeah, no breach for level 1 WS melee, but what could be made, is Dispel Magic kind of spell at low levels(5->) as -2 levels caster with range of about 4 feet, which then is upgraded to Remove Magic kind of spell at level 10, with the same level caster level and same range... the 15th level could give some kind of true sight thing...

And then the HLA would give the WS the Breach ability, with one alteration, as if the fighter hits the target, it's invisibility can't protect it from the effect of the WS Breach ability... if it's on hit ability... as you could make it 9 times per day Spellstrike.

 

Feel free to suggest values, expand concepts and so on...
Y=X=2, except on counter attack, where x=2 to thaco and 3 damage, Y%=25%.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, I do need some help on this matter.

 

Combat Styles

Power Attack - roughly as per 3E. There's a HLA with the same name but I guess that shouldn't be an issue, especially since that stuns rather than adds up damage.
Yeah, would -2 to attack rolls and +2 to damage be fine? I suppose damage bonuses should be always taken under control as much as possible.

 

Maybe lesser (notably so) version of Critical Strike.
Yeah, critical hit chance can probably be used in some way if we wish.

 

Offensive/Defensive Stances - +2 for bonus and -4 for penalty if you ask me.
For the defensive stance I agree, especially early on a fighter may opt for a -4 thac0 penalty if it means he can survive longer (+2 AC should be quite noticeable in BG1) and allow other party members to attack from the flanks or at distance. For an Offensive stance though I'd say that +2 to attack rolls isn't appealing at all to justify a -4 penalty to AC, as the latter probably means each and every enemy attack will hit the fighter.

 

Counter Attack - it might be weird when several fighters mob a single enemy. Sounds more like an Attack of Opportunity. x=3 - to both, y=[25;35], due to being a chance based I'd say it ought to be somewhat high enough to be appealing. Of course, I'd prefer a plain +n apr bonus, were it not for barbarians and blades already around.
Well, we don't have to keep all combat styles if this one isn't perfectly implementable, 3-4 styles should be more than enough to spice up this class imo.

 

Equal trade? And 1 point is 10%?
I don't know what you're talking about, can you explain? :crazyeyes:

Share this post


Link to post

(-x penalty to attack rolls, +y bonus to AC)

-2 to attack rolls, +2 to AC. :crazyeyes:

Share this post


Link to post
- deals extra damage vs. spellcasters (note: not against all spellcasting creatures, only vs. mages/priests)

For me is a Wizard Slayer a fighter against magic users and not a fighter against divine users. So I agree with Ardanis: no priests.

 

Greetings Leomar

Edited by Leomar

Share this post


Link to post

Wizard Slayer

- deals extra damage vs. spellcasters (note: not against all spellcasting creatures, only vs. mages/priests)
For me is a Wizard Slayer a fighter against magic users and not a fighter against divine users. So I agree with Ardanis: no priests.
Ok, fine with me, though vanilla's description was <<these warriors have been specially trained by their sect to excel in hunting and attacking spellcasters of all kinds>>, and his abilities will make him a good anti-divine spellcaster anyway. :)

 

As always, the following is only a first attempt at writing a more extensive description of the class. Feel free to report any typo or suggest improvements, and I'm sure Mike will make it look better. :crazyeyes:

 

"Magic is evil. Magic tempts. Magic corrupts. Wizard Slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and thus train their body and their mind to fight those foolish users. Wizard Slayers can take up any standard or philosophy, though they tend more toward chaos than law. Evil Wizard Slayers hunt down and kill the most powerful users of magic that they can find, as if to demonstrate the ultimate weakness of the wizard and the sorcerer. Good Wizard Slayers commit themselves to expunging evil sorcery from their world, but they too see themselves as examples of how mundane strength can conquer foul enchantments.

 

Wizard Slayers are excellent fighter, but they generally sacrifice extensive martial trainings preferring to dedicate themselves to anti-magic skills. These warriors become innately resistant to magic, and develop abilities which allow them to withstand, hamper, and slain any spellcaster who dares to cross their path.

 

Though Wizard Slayers are well aware of the dangers of magic and won’t succumb to its siren call of power, some eventually learn to tolerate their companions' magic. A few claim that they are leading by example; others rationalize that only by consorting with lesser villains they can defeat greater ones; only a handful accept that in the right hands magic can even be used to good ends."

Share this post


Link to post

Yes and we can argue endlessly wether divine"spells" really are spells like they for sure are when we talk about arcane spells. I feel like Ardanis & Leomar.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, wizardslayer has some note about "sometimes priests". Maybe +bonus for non-lawfull priests?

 

For other things - as wizardslayer is single class - it may for example get 50%-100% more experience to level up - to be something like 1,5x-double class that balances the power it has. To kill mages which can kill a lot of people (liches, archliches, fiends, daemons, abberations, magical beasts) character needs: good saving throws, resistances to stun, hold, fear, imprisonment, maze, mind affecting spells. Also add true sight, breach, spell strike. Add magic/elemental resistances - innate or by spelllike abbilities. Wizardslayer should use handy weapons like throwing weapons that can also be used in melee (avoid fire shield attacking from ranged, or take down that flying beholder) - axes, hammers, daggers.

 

Current wizardslayer has one point of failure - is useless against mages with mantles/prot. from magical weapons.

Share this post


Link to post

Wizard Slayer

While I was updating the first post with the current WS revised progression I've come up with a small idea. I previously suggested to have WS able to cast Detect Illusion, but what about instead having WS dispel illusionary protections like blur, mirror image and II (perhaps at xth level) and destroy illusionary clones (perhaps at yth level) on hit rather than with a spell-like ability?

 

Current wizardslayer has one point of failure - is useless against mages with mantles/prot. from magical weapons.
Yeah, but that is truly necessary imo. I'm fine on having Breach as HLA for WS, but making them able to crush mages too easily wouldn't be fun imo, and surely not balanced. Revised WS will be able to properly fight mages, and epic WS will probably be able to do wreak havoc due to HLAs and uber-high magic resistance, but allowing them to simply kill mages on-sight wouldn't be a good solution.

 

P.S I'll soon start to discuss fighters HLAs, as the five classes are almost finished (except True Fighter combat styles and WS still in discussion features).

Share this post


Link to post

Wizard Slayer

what about instead having WS dispel illusionary protections like blur, mirror image and II (perhaps at xth level) and destroy illusionary clones (perhaps at yth level) on hit rather than with a spell-like ability?

Sounds nice. Discerning Imp Invis from blur/mirror can take effort though. As for values, I guess x=12, y=15. Both based of a save.

Share this post


Link to post

Wizard Slayer

what about instead having WS dispel illusionary protections like blur, mirror image and II (perhaps at xth level) and destroy illusionary clones (perhaps at yth level) on hit rather than with a spell-like ability?
Sounds nice. Discerning Imp Invis from blur/mirror can take effort though. As for values, I guess x=12, y=15. Both based of a save.
I wouldn't discern II from Blur/MI, I'd simply make the melee/ranged attack detect 'Illusionary Protection' and dispel it. I'm not sure about allowing a save though, especially for the Illusionary Creatures (e.g. Misleaded Clone, Projected Image, ...) because it seems strange to me having an illusion actually trying to resist as if it really existed. If it's necessary for balance purposes it's a different matter, would it be a too effective ability without a save? :crazyeyes: I hadn't thought about allowing a save simply because Detect Illusion, Oracle, True Seeing and the like don't allow a save.

 

Now that I think about it, True Seeing doesn't destroy a Simulacrum, but if it's possible to make a WS able to slay a Simulacrum clone with one hit that would be cool imo.

Share this post


Link to post

Wizard Slayer

I hadn't thought about allowing a save simply because Detect Illusion, Oracle, True Seeing and the like don't allow a save.
Makes a point. Yet having a permanent on-hit effect is somewhat more potent than casting low level anti-illusion spells. Inability to land a hit is more common than SI:Divination though. And while magic affects everyone within the eyesight, the on-hit - only the current target. So perhaps you're right. I think I'll suspend my vote then, till someone else says what's their opinion on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post

True Fighter

I recently discovered an issue for TuTu and BGT players which may actually be very unbalancing, and I don't know how to "fix" it. In BG2 the engine doesn't prevent a level 1 fighter from putting all his 4 proficiency points into a single weapon (instead of 2 like in BG1), and a fighter can reach grandmastery at 3rd level (instead of at 9th level). I'd like to know if TuTu/BGT players found this too unbalancing or not, because in my opinion it is, but I haven't tested it in-game.

 

The only way to somewhat restore the rule is to limit the starting proficiency points (at least I don't know any other solution). I may agree on letting fighters get mastery (+++) at 1st level though, because else they would be on par with paladins and rangers which also get other bonuses at 1st level. Else I may simply ignore the problem and let players decide for themselves. Let me know what do you think about it.

 

P.S I still need to decide the correct values but Combat Styles are almost there.

 

Wizard Slayer

I hadn't thought about allowing a save simply because Detect Illusion, Oracle, True Seeing and the like don't allow a save.
Makes a point. Yet having a permanent on-hit effect is somewhat more potent than casting low level anti-illusion spells. Inability to land a hit is more common than SI:Divination though. And while magic affects everyone within the eyesight, the on-hit - only the current target. So perhaps you're right. I think I'll suspend my vote then, till someone else says what's their opinion on the matter.
Good summary of my thoughts. :crazyeyes: I'd like to hear more opinions on this matter yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Kensai

A thought struck me yesterday as I was heading to my bed - why not to impose a combat penalty on those kensai who want to wear robes?

 

-1 (thaco, damage) for lesser ones

-2 (thaco, damage, AC) for archmage's - kensages only, I guess

 

Robes are IR's, of course. Penalties seem balanced to me, and even offer extra possibilities - we can play 'vanilla' kensage, who buffs up and slices them all, or a wizard who trades his combat prowess for more wizardry.

Share this post


Link to post

True Fighter BGT

I recently discovered an issue for TuTu and BGT players which may actually be very unbalancing, and I don't know how to "fix" it. In BG2 the engine doesn't prevent a level 1 fighter from putting all his 4 proficiency points into a single weapon (instead of 2 like in BG1), and a fighter can reach grandmastery at 3rd level (instead of at 9th level). I'd like to know if TuTu/BGT players found this too unbalancing or not, because in my opinion it is, but I haven't tested it in-game.

In my opinion it is a bug and Grandmastery at 3rd level is very cheesy. If you have not the possibility to do it in BG1, so it should be in BGT, too. And if you have fixed it, it would be nice if we let Ascension64 know it. I think that should be fixed in BGT, too.

 

The only way to somewhat restore the rule is to limit the starting proficiency points (at least I don't know any other solution). I may agree on letting fighters get mastery (+++) at 1st level though, because else they would be on par with paladins and rangers which also get other bonuses at 1st level. Else I may simply ignore the problem and let players decide for themselves. Let me know what do you think about it.

For BGT only (++) and for your Kit Revisions... hmmm. If a true fighter can normally get the grandmastery at 9th level, what get the other classes around 9th level? Like you see, I'm not really sure about to give 1. level fighters (+++).

 

 

 

[EDIT]

 

Because of the (+++) at first level I see your bonues for true fighters in the first post:

 

- At 7th level, the fighter gains an additional half attack per round. This increases to a whole attack per round bonus at 13th level.

- At 10th level, the fighter becomes proficient in the use of all types of weapons.

- At 19th level, the fighter becomes specialized in the use of all types of weapons.

I think it fits nicely, if the true fighter can only get grandmastery at 9th level. So I don't recommend to let true fighters have (+++) at 1st level.

 

Greetings Leomar

Edited by Leomar

Share this post


Link to post

Grandmastery at 3rd level

Afaik that's hardcoded issue. IE simply doesn't take the table into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...