Talk:Weaponmaster (3.5e Class)

Ratings

 * The BAB was a transcription error on my part which I have now fixed. My bad.


 * I prefer classes that enable flavorful characters to classes that are flavorful in themselves. I designed this class to handle various lightly or un- armored fighter concepts, without stealing the fighter's thunder. I care far more about that than whether the class is exciting to read. --Ideasmith 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the criticism of dull is more tailored towards towards the class features than the readability. Only one level where it gets something that's not a bonus feat makes me cringe. Bonus feats are OK to fill in some levels, but I don't believe they should ever be the crux of the class. And that's what this class is to me; everything else is just some passive combat bonuses that remind me of the monk (not a flattering comparison). - TG Cid 23:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By that reasoning, fighter would be a nonviable class, which would not fit my experience playing fighters in 3.5. Or, really, my experience playing fighters in earlier editions, when they didn’t even have feats. --Ideasmith 13:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In previous editions, all creatures and characters had far less HP than the HP bloat that occurred in 3.5, which is why fighters were decent--1d8+10 damage in past editions was pretty awesome, especially when you take into account different weapon speed, proficiency ratings, and the like, but in 3.5 creatures can have 100+ HP easily, which makes fighters far less viable than they were in AD&D. --Ghostwheel 17:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see how that makes 3.5 fighters weaker. I don't see how it makes them dull, except insofar as making them weaker might make them more dull, which would be a balance rating issue. --Ideasmith 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason that it makes them dull is because fighters for the most part have 3 options per round; move-attack, full attack, or charge. Sometimes they can mix things up by attempting to trip or the like, but in that case they must be built for that maneuver or do it badly much of the time. However, if they completely focus on that, then that becomes their default action, which they'll spam endlessly. And that's why they're dull--they don't have lots of meaningful options and just do the same thing more-or-less every round, which is pretty boring. --Ghostwheel 02:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is more options than I usually use when playing a fighter, and if I had been bored, I would certainly have noticed. I am sure that some people are bored playing fighters, but others aren't.--Ideasmith 17:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Class Feature Weirdness
The lack of weapon and armor proficiency, and the structure of this class, makes it preferable to take 1 level of fighter first. You miss out on focus damage for your first level, but since you have to spend a feat on a weapon and your bonus feat on weapon focus to benefit at first level anyway, you're better off doing something else. You may want to let them select a couple of martial weapons to start with.

The AC bonus is near worthless. You don't give them an additional attribute to AC, so they have crap for AC until they get magic bracers. They are basically behind the wizard in terms of AC, and that's really crappy for a class that's supposed to be on the front lines. And you have ass for hit points on top of it. They can get around that by spending a feat or two, which they have eventually, but they suck at either offense or defense at low levels. They either need something else to AC, I'd argue for Str or Con, or light armor. Without those though, you're better taking a level of Fighter again since Full Plate is already better than the level 20 AC ability.

Even if you're not a human or your favored class isn't Fighter, I'd say you're better off taking half of your levels as fighter. You only miss out on a couple of skill points and a couple of feats over 20 levels. And that looks like a result of bad design calls in the above abilities to me.

Also, what's UMD doing here? - Tarkisflux Talk 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Have now given them free Weapon Focus (or equivalent), light armor and 8-sided hit dice. Also dropped UMD, lacking a good answer to your question. How does it look now?--Ideasmith 03:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks better. They still have to take Martial Weapon Proficiency to wield a decent weapon at level 1, and they can't start off with an exotic at all, but now they can take a weapon and something else now (like TWF since they can't use a shield anyway) and still benefit from class features. I'd consider moving up the AC advancement so that the boosts happened 2 levels earlier, but it's not a big deal. The improved hit dice are a nice change as well, since you expect them on the front lines.


 * In general, the extra damage, bonus feats, and skill points in exchange for 1 hp per level on average make them better than a fighter, but not in ways that change their balance level. So it works at the balance point, but it feels like it's stepping on toes. You can still be a better fighter than the base fighter by multiclassing with this, and I'm not really sure how I feel about that or what could be done to correct it without hosing the class. Is this intended to be a fighter replacement, or an accompaniment? - Tarkisflux Talk 06:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Intended to be played in games in which fighters are also being played. (Some other goals were: light/no armor as a solid choice; simple weapon use as a solid choice; almost as effective in combat as a fighter, with better skill use compensating). Would dropping the BAB to medium be helpful?--Ideasmith 13:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want them almost as effective in combat as a fighter, giving them full BAB and more feats is not going to get you what you want. It's everything the fighter has going for it (except armor, and they have a viable alternative) and then more. I'd suggest dropping their BAB to medium, dropping their feat progression to the same as the fighters, and maybe writing a new ability at 3rd or 5th level that said they qualified for feats as if they had a number of Fighter levels equal to their Weaponmaster levels -2 or -4 (1 less than the level it comes in at basically). That way it's clear that this isn't supposed to just be treated as fighter levels.


 * Also, not sure if you wanted to add their AC bonus ability to light armor or not, but when I was suggesting it above I had that in mind. It still doesn't at present. - Tarkisflux Talk 04:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted BAB & Feats as you suggested, added the class feature you suggested and some flavor abilities that aren’t intended to affect balance. Thank you for your advice.


 * As for the AC bonus, it is indeed intended to work with light armor. As far as I can tell it does. What am I missing?--Ideasmith 17:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)