I haven't changed anything yet.  I've frankly never understood the concept of creating an "incentive" for the players to use certain classes, weapons, spells, or whatever.  I don't really care what they play or what weapons and spells they use.  If no one wants to play a fighter, no one plays a fighter.  What difference does it make?  (Not trying to bust your chops - I just don't see the problem.)

With respect to your GM's specific decision, I personally disagree with it.  Fighter subclasses are supposed to inherently deal out more damage than, say, thief subclasses, and weapon mastery allows for this.  However: his campaign, his rules.  It's certainly not worth arguing over.

Last edited by Blackadder23 (3/13/2014 12:52 pm)

Hmm.  That's a good point.  I hadn't thought of that. 

To your original thought. I guess what I meant rather than 'incentivize' was that it seems the standard Fighter is significantly under-powered when compared to the other sub classes.  Some players may be de-incentivized to play it when the sub classes are significantly better.  But now that you mention it, the heroic fighting ability is a pretty good benefit.

In any event, I'm playing a standard fighter so the rule change by my gm doesn't impact me at all.  It was more of a curiosity than anything else. :-)

That's okay, I badly misquoted the heroic fighting rule the first time. But it's still pretty good - and it applies to any melee weapon.  So a high level fighter can pick up a chair and lay waste to everyone in a tavern in a couple of rounds.

I did want to make one more point in response to this...

Druvas wrote:

there's no reason to ever play a Fighter (save for flavor)

...because I actually think the opposite is more often true.  If you just want to fight, you play a fighter.  You play one of the subclasses because you want the flavor.  They all have special abilities, but they're narrow in scope and often come with baggage.  Most of the cataphract's abilities are related to mounted combat.  They're good, but how often does mounted combat occur in most campaigns?  I can count the number of times I've seen it in over thirty years of gaming on one hand.  Rangers and barbarians are good in the wilderness - which is more generally useful than mounted combat - but a lot of their abilities restrict the armor they can wear.  A paladin must be chivalrous, or else.  Warlocks gain some ability to cast spells (although it's frankly nothing to write home about) but can't wear heavy armor without risking spell failure (the warlock in my campaign failed almost every time he tried to cast a spell in plate mail, which was hilarious).  And all of this at a greater XP cost.  I think first-time players of AS&SH might be attracted to the "shiny" subclasses, but I think in the end you'll see the basic "meat and potatoes" classes played more - regardless of how weapon mastery is handled.

But that's just my opinion.

lol.  Are you trying to say that a fighter can fight?

Another thing often overlooked is the XP factor. Straight fighters require the least XP for advancement, and they have the easiest requirement for a 10% XP bonus. This (in campaign play) inevitably leads to faster level advancement (more hp, better saves, better fighting ability) for the fighter when compared to his fighter subclass companions.

The Butcher wrote:

Nevertheless, I can still see a role for Fighters in my game world and at the game table. The XP progression is a decent incentive and the Weapon Mastery rules make for a fairly versatile and powerful class at relatively low levels.

Plus, of course, I suppose some people may not want the thematic baggage they may perceive comes along with the subclasses.
 

Sometimes I just want to be a fighter!  I like the fighter for its simplicity.

In my campaign, rangers don't have spells. I feel in Sword & Sorcery, magic is not something you just pick up, but a very complex system known to only a small closed elite of shamans and mages.
It makes more sense for paladins (which don't exist in my setting, but anyway), but I think for rangers it is out of place.

Also, the eldretch horrors of the Outer Dark are so strange an alien that most rangers don't know about them either. Instead of being expert hunters of these creatures, my rangers get their bonuses against "magical beasts", lile basilisk, manticores, wyverns, and so on.

With the scout class, I think it's not entirely a bad idea to make rangers hunters of the supernatural with magic powers of their own, but I simply prefer the more old school approach to rangers.

Another thing I did was altering Turn Undead to Turn Spirits. Since my campaign is much more shamanistic with undead playing a minor role, priests can turn or control spirits like evil clerics command undead. All I needed to do was to assign a Spirit Type rating to all the monsters that are considered spirits.

Last edited by Yora (4/07/2014 10:27 am)

RedJowel wrote:

Ive been playing streight fighter that has dreams of command,  a great class if you look foreward to the level nine stronghold perk where, following the guidlines, virtually hands over the biggest army at the least amount of experience.  So as far as incentive goes.....

Im also in a good situation as we are traveling with a band of mook vikings, and  I make a point to call sheild wall and use heroic fighting at every oppurtunity,  Not that fighters will always have that option,  but  being preapred to use these tactics has allowed the party to accomplish raids far beyond the reach of the PCs alone, and what i think our gm originally intended to be a cluster of useless NPCs that served to get us from one place to another and die has become an indispencible fighting force using just basic tactics.  I only just hit level three, and I never outperform everyone else at anything, but there is something to be said about being that level headed chieftain-esque warrior who keeps the party togethor and is respected by all

What a great first post! Welcome to the board.

 

Totally. I *love* hearing about all this from the players' POV!

Welcome a-board, RedJowel!