Epic Battles

[Essence]

So, I just went and read a whole bunch of threads that I missed while my computer was down, and a thought occurred to me while reading the "Spell damage" thread:

It seems to me that part of the Epic feel of high-level characters should be that battles last longer. The opposite seems true; past a certain level, a battle is over as soon as initiative is determined.

In movies and popular fiction, high-level battles last longer because, at least 90% of the time, both parties are so skilled that neither is capable of landing a hit on the other. When the hit finally comes, however, it swings the battle hard in favor of the hitter. (The other 10% of the time, you have the Barbarian/Wolverene/Pro Wrestler etc, who takes hit after hit without making much effort to defend himself and keeps coming while bleeding from several newly-created orifices. Either way, the battle lasts a long time.)

The question is, can D&D ever replicate this feeling without making battles just a long series of boring die rolls that have to pass before someone finally lands the vital blow?
How, or why not?

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah, the "one shot kill" aspect of epic rules are really what turns me off the most about them in D&D.

As for getting epic style battles to occur, I really don't see why not. They require the following however.

-A turning away from instant death effects, like vorpal and save or dies.
-Damage can't totally blow away hit points. And ACs need to always be competetive.

[Lago_AM3P]

Where did this sentiment come from that battles had to last for minutes?

That's a phenomenom of action and kung fu movies where characters take beatings far in excess of what normal people can handle. When this is emulated in professional wrestling, the wrestlers are actually extremely careful not to hurt each other, but it is still draining. I also blame console RPGs for pushing this idea, especially the later Final Fantasies. This is why it's still shocking, even to me, when I play a AD&D CRPG and the BBEG goes down with a lucky critical.

In comic books, Disney movies, 'realistic' anime, and depictions of battle in fantasy/sci-fi books, epic fights tend to be over in seriously less than 30 seconds.

[RandomCasualty]

1097103710[/unixtime]]
In comic books, Disney movies, 'realistic' anime, and depictions of battle in fantasy/sci-fi books, epic fights tend to be over in seriously less than 30 seconds.

And they generally suck.

It's just not epic to me if it's over in a half a second. I want to see exchanges of blows and everyone getting to pull thier own specialties and countermoves. I mean you're dealing with super experienced heroes here, guys who have seen tons of quests, killed countless monsters and save the world several times. You don't expect them to go down in one shot, and it's disappointing when you do.

We like to see spiderman fighting doctor octopus for a while while swinging over the city and everything... that's epic and memorable. Just having octopus whack him with a lucky arm shot in the opening round is just going to get a "ok that's lame."

The thing is that we're used to people going down in one shot, so when the same happens to the BBEG that happens to his goons, there isn't drama there, unless it was done in some special way.

If it's a straight up face off, we expect blows to be exchanged, if it's just "bang you're dead!" in the opening round, then we feel cheated. Here you have this master villain, some evil necromancer trying to take over the world, and you just popped him in one blow. You wonder how the guy survived that long if he was so easy to kill.

And some heroic style stories can just be pure 1on1s. Spider man versus Dr.Octopus is one such example, as is the Terminator. In such examples, the movie is over in 10 minutes if you go on the one shot kills paradigm.

[User3]

Well, DnD 3.X has several problems:

A. Saves or dies. This mechanic, while easy to implement in the primordial days of the red box, ignores HP, AC, and all the other things we've been using to benchmark the amount of punishment a person can take before they drop. As long as this exists, the game will have one-shot BBEG kills.

B. Inflation: As monster HPs go up, then so do damages on spells and attacks, and so monster HPs, so attacks must go up, etc.... At some point, the monsters got so big that some boner said "ye, 20d6 isn't really enough damage. Can I get that Enhanced and Maximized?"

------
I have some ideas about how to fix all that in "some ideas to make the level system work." I won't highjack your thread with a recap, so check it out.

Basically, I prefer the idea where having a bunch of HPs means that you are hard to kill, rather than the idea that having a lot of HP means that after AC, saves, SR, immunities, and a host of other factors, it might mean that you are hard to kill. Maybe.

And even then, the guy who's getting 90% of his damage from the modifiers on his weapon is still going to one-shot you on a critical or mounted charge.

[Username17]

I personally have no problem whatsoever with battles being over in less than thirty seconds. I think that's awesome. The original Kenshin (the OAV, where he fvcking kills people) has no long fights in it. It's totally pimp, and he's the best swordsman in the world because he cuts down large numbers of named skilled opponents in extremely short time frames.

There is nothing wrong with this approach at all. There is nothing "more epic" with a game lasting more turns.

---

But if you did want people to get a lot of licks in, I suggest you set things up in terms of "lives", like you were playing space invaders or galaga. Your explanation could be in terms of "getting a second wind", or "lucky breaks", or "pulling on magical reserves", or whatever. I don't care.

But the thing where you roll dice and nothing happens, and then I roll dice and nothing happens, and eventually someone rolls a 20 and baby jesus cries - fvck that. That's really boring to generate, and no amount of DBZ-esque description can make that seem "epic" instead of "futile". So you should accomplish things. You should knock your opponent down and they should have a trickle of blood coming out of their mouth. And battles become longer by the number of times they can get up after that happens.

Once you knock someone down, however you actually acocmplish that, they get up during their next round, and go on a rampage. This means that you can't just "focus fire" and keep someone from having an action - they always have an action. This also means that you shouldn't be able to ready actions, but that's a whole different set of problems (I don't actually bring it up often, because most people don't use ready actions, so the fact that they render the initiative system a fragile joke doesn't often come up).

That would have the FF/Wrestling feel you seem to be looking for. Where Lina Inverse seems down and out until she pulls herself up and uses the Ragna Blade and such. You could even have special ultra-moves that are only usable after you've been taken down a number of times. To make things more exciting and encourage comebacks.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

The idea of lives and ultra-moves are cool, and probably somewhere in the right direction.

I agree that going with the GURPS high level paradigm of "wait till someone gets a lucky critical" and then he automatically wins, sucks.

If you want to describe the effect as someone dodging out of the way and taking only minor damage, that's ok, but the damage should still accumulate, and your hit points eventually run out.

The other nice thing I like about epic battles is they allow for some degree of discovery. You might try the first round of attacks and nothing happens, and you get some time to look for a foe's vulnerability. And that's cool.

It's no fun where you start a battle saying "I cast a fireball." and then hear "nope doesn't work, ok the creature acts and now you're all dead."

It's great to wipe out minions in little one round/one hit skirmishes. Because that's what minions are for. Batman should just punch them in the face and they go unconscious. So we can move on to the next minor fight.

But the big bad guys should be epic conflicts, at least in a heroic fantasy campaign.

[Josh_Kablack]

Frank has already brought up the Samurai Showdown idea of the "Rage Gauge"..where you need to get beat up so much before your supermove gauge is fully charged (Sadly Capcom ruined this wonderful game balance device when they stole and inverted it - but that's another rant) so I'l move on to another proto-idea that always seemed intriguing to me. This one comes entirely from a third-party account of the rules to some giant robot wargame system I have forgotten, but the gist of the idea is that in every combat (between two sides) one side has "the advantage" at any given time. The side with "the advantage" is the only side which can take offensive actions, whereas the other side is limited to defensive actions and positional maneuvering, but to make this work, there was a tight cap on how many game turns in a row either side could have "the advantage". I'm not sure how adaptable to RPGs this is, particularily since a number of RPGs tend to have multiple participants who may not all be strictly working together in combats, but it did strike me as a potential way to model a lot of action movie combats - where the hero spends a lot of time running away or just taking punishment from the villan before finally getting in the big finishing move.

[Maj]

I don't think that a roleplaying game like D&D should be able to imitate "epic battles" (by 'epic' did you mean a game term or 'really legendary'? I'm guessing the latter and running with it). On TV and cartoons and stuff, it's totally cool to sit through a ton of combat and fighting because it doesn't really take a long time, but in a combat simulation built with the D&D rules, anything much longer than four rounds of combat starts to suck ass. I know... I've sat through combat sessions that have lasted longer than both Kill Bill movies put together. Kill Bill is way funner to watch.

Now, I may be totally off on this last part, but from where I'm sitting, in order to have more epic battles in combat, you need to seriously streamline the rules surrounding combat. Either everyone needs to be very aware of what the rules are so that little time is wasted with the current system, or you need a new system.

[RandomCasualty]

Well combat needs to last long enough that it's dramatic, but can't last so long it becomes drawn out. It's a difficult balance to achieve but one that's certainly worth it.

[rapanui]

I've always thought that about 5-10 rounds (30 seconds to a minute) is about right for opponents of equal level, whereas battles against mooks should last between 2 and 3 rounds at most.

Also, mook encounters shouldn't be about "depleting resources" but about "showing off how cool you are" by killing the mooks in creative ways.

For lightning-fast duels, the system could accomodate opponents who choose to measure up against each other in samurai-style 3 second showdowns by generating specific rules for the situation. I mean, dowing the whole Sanjuro vs. Samurai w/ Gun thing is hardly the same as Sanjuro takes out 20 mooks. DIfferent systems, I say.

[Lago_AM3P]

Everyone who thinks that epic battles should be a host of countermoves yet should also not take all game session is totally on crack.

There's a very good reason why, in almost every RPG, a round is a short time frame (in seconds). That is because it pretty much realistically frames the amount of difference in mojo a 1st level commoner can dish out compared to an 11th level paladin without having ridiculousness like being able to get off 30 sword slashes before someone else getting a turn.

1) Epic battles be lengthy, i.e. involve a lot of exchange of moves.
2) The timeframe between the characters' actions should last but for a few gameworld seconds.
3) Combat should not take a lot of real world time to get through.

One of these things contradicts the other two. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have epic battles as conceived with these requirements.

Since there is a lot of basis in source material for even 'epic' battles lasting a short period of time, I can't say that I really care.

[User3]

DnD feeling combat is based on the idea that killing mooks costs resources(like HP and spell slots), while killing BBEG costs time.

I don't have a problem where a high level guy is doing whirlwind attacks or multiple attacks or area effect spells and taking small to moderate amounts of damage killing mooks, and the combat ends in three rounds and there are like 20 mooks dead. Insta-kills seem like a way to allow this, but are a terrible idea for these reasons:

A. The party can't take on a higher level villain, since he can insta-kill them. This leads to the DM either not letting the BBEG have insta-kill spells(which seems cheap and contrived to me) or to massive player dissatisifaction as the 1st level apprentice mage kills your whole 4th level party with a Sleep spell.

B. Other alternatives are ignored. There is no reason why Batman's one-hit punch KO isn't just a Stunning Fist use.

The problem is that there is no range of effect within non-spellcaster levels. Some fighters start the game being capable of doing 40 points of damage a turn while others are doing 10. Sneak attack focused rogues turn into virtual blenders with the addition of a Haste effect, Expert Tactician, Two weapon fighting, and Blink, while normal rogues who spent their feats and money differently(perhaps by getting things that make them better adventurers like Boots of Flying or a feat like Investigation from Eberrron) and they do 85% less damage.

The level-based system is a sham, which is why all combats in DnD turn into "super-rounds" that take 30 minutes a piece because of all the AoOs, extra attacks, counting of d6s from spell effects and sneak attacks, saves, tons of unique stacking status effects that require bookwork to track, dozens of combat feats that might be activated in a single turn, etc. I mean, in a single combat, you might need to track 16 different effects requiring rolls or consultation of rules as a result of a single attack action.

Some days I really yearn for the simplicity of the red box.

[Lago_AM3P]

The level-based system is a sham, which is why all combats in DnD turn into "super-rounds" that take 30 minutes a piece because of all the AoOs, extra attacks, counting of d6s from spell effects and sneak attacks, saves, tons of unique stacking status effects that require bookwork to track, dozens of combat feats that might be activated in a single turn, etc. I mean, in a single combat, you might need to track 16 different effects requiring rolls or consultation of rules as a result of a single attack action.

Excuse me, but, what is the point of even having long epic battles if the characters don't even have abilities?

The idea of an epic battle against the King of Evil, Kaioh, being exactly like a battle against the half-orc bandit Keith except LONGER is profoundly depressing and silly.

Don't blame the level-based system on the length of combat (and why it makes 'epic' combat slow to a crawl). The length of combat is because people have lots of sensible options. You'd find your exact same complaint in any system except for combat rules-light systems. These engines definitionally defeat the point of having your epic combat take place here anyway.

[RandomCasualty]

1097169680[/unixtime]]
1) Epic battles be lengthy, i.e. involve a lot of exchange of moves.
2) The timeframe between the characters' actions should last but for a few gameworld seconds.
3) Combat should not take a lot of real world time to get through.

One of these things contradicts the other two. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have epic battles as conceived with these requirements.

There's no contradiction because everything is relative. What constitues "lengthy" and "a lot of real world time" is entirely arbitrary, and every game group is going to have a different idea about it.

The key isn't pure length so much as dramatic effect. If the battle is simply over before you can even get into "battle mode" then it's stupid. There's no place for the sword that snaps when it strikes the adamantine golem without making it the adventurers last round. Or if the golem goes first, maybe the adventurers don't even get a round. That's not epic, that's just stupid.

We want enough time to see our party getting its ass kicked sometimes, so they when the lucky roll or whatever that turns the tides finally comes, it's dramatic. If there's no way for you to get your ass kicked beyond actually being dead, then there's no drama to that. Your group is either dead or they're not.

In a one shot kill game, paranoia is the big issue, it's like the guy trying to locate a hidden sniper. He has to stay low, try to sieze surprise, and usually the actual battle is over quickly. The drama takes place in the paranoia of him crawling from one place to another, not knowing if the next step will place him in the sniper's view and end his life. But that's not heroic fantasy. Fantasy heroes are seldom paranoid, nor should they be. Hercules shouldn't constantly be worried that the next battle he might lose initiative and might be dead. He's confident that he can handle anything and so he goes in boldly.

Paranoia may fit modern games and some horror genres but it doesn't fit well wtih the idea of heroic fantasy. PCs generally don't want to play victims, they want to play heroes. And part of being a fantasy hero is being difficult to kill either based on toughness or divine luck.

I mean look at comic books. Practically no comic book hero ever actually dies. They have so many hit points they'll just end up beat up but live to fight another day. That's what most people want thier D&D characters to be.

[User3]

The length of combat is because people have lots of sensible options.

Now thats just silly. By mid-level, this system needs combats with insta-death attacks, because otherwise the combats will take all day.

Take this example.

Our fighter has a Spell-storing weapon that lets him get a free bullrush when he hits(Forcewave, I think, from one of the Faerun books), and so he doesn't have to move with the rush.

Ok, thats a fine little ability.

Now, he charges an enemy with his reach weapon, and hits, and gets another attack from his Hurling Charge feat which we say he can do since he has Quickdraw even though his weapon is two handed because we had this whole argument last week. He does more than 10 points of damage from his melee attack, so his Knockdown feat activates and we have to look at the rules for 10 minutes to figure out whether he gets knocked down(for a free trip attack) or he gets B-rushed first, since it matters since the rush roll was good enough to provoke an Attack of opportunity by pushing the enemy back out of the fighters threatened area. He takes that AoO, does another 10 pts, and gets another free Trip, but lets say that it fails to hit.

Ok, then we make the first free Trip attack, and when it works we take another AoO from the Improved Trip.

During the Bullrush, the enemy also provoked 2 more AoOs from other PCs and was thrown into a Wall of Fire, so damage has to be rolled and those attacks resolved with their special character-specific shticks like sneak attack damage and saves vs spelcial effects from feats.

Thats one attack action(a guy's actions on his initative count) from one dude. Its no wonder that rounds take 30 minutes with a 4 person party. Just rolling anbd looking at dice from all those rolls is 30 minute's work.

Few combats look like the "I roll a few attacks, then roll damage" of previous editions.

[Lago_AM3P]

And for some reason, that doesn't feel like epic combat to you?

[RandomCasualty]

1097176211[/unixtime]]
Now, he charges an enemy with his reach weapon, and hits, and gets another attack from his Hurling Charge feat which we say he can do since he has Quickdraw even though his weapon is two handed because we had this whole argument last week. He does more than 10 points of damage from his melee attack, so his Knockdown feat activates and we have to look at the rules for 10 minutes to figure out whether he gets knocked down(for a free trip attack) or he gets B-rushed first, since it matters since the rush roll was good enough to provoke an Attack of opportunity by pushing the enemy back out of the fighters threatened area. He takes that AoO, does another 10 pts, and gets another free Trip, but lets say that it fails to hit.

This is generally why we don't want too many options, and want mostly bonuses.

A few options are good, like tripping and stuff, but they should be finite, and chaining actions (like get a free X attack after you do Y) should be avoided except when you really need them, and when used, the chain should be limited to only one link.

The idea of keeping combat speeds sane has to be maintained always. I'm not even sure if I like the idea of 4 attacks. I think we could probably do with 2nd edition and cap it at 2.

The innate problem with abilities like karmic strike or improved trip is that they slow down the game. A simple +1 bonus doesn't slow down the game at all because it's precalculated.

[Username17]

Just adding bonuses is inately unsatisfactory, and "epic" combat of any sort is flat impossible. If everyone, or even one pc, is just getting bonuses, then his combat activities don't change as the game progresses. He'll never become "epic" in feel, because the monsters he faces at high level might as well be the orc highwayman from first level in a squid suit.

Adding filagress takes time, but adding options does not. So long as you have the choice between hurling someone away and knocking them down where they stand, the game is roughly static in time requirements. So long as you keep adding results to the end of your attack (like a bonus throw or an additional attack after they are knocked down), then time requirements will increase accordingly.

---

But of course, stuff like Knockdown isn't even an "option", it's a "bonus". A knockdown attack is just like any other attack except that it has as additional strength check and condition resolution at the end. That's part of the reason I am inately distrustful of your claim that "bonuses" will somehow fix anything. So far, the bonus mentality is what makes things crazy in every aspect of the game.

It makes Save DCs and SR unbeatable for certain characters, it makes melee combat take too long and still be a waste of your time. It's all bad. I'm not seeing a single advantage that is coming out of bonuses as class features. Not even one. It makes the game be less balanced and take longer.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1097178985[/unixtime]]Just adding bonuses is inately unsatisfactory, and "epic" combat of any sort is flat impossible. If everyone, or even one pc, is just getting bonuses, then his combat activities don't change as the game progresses. He'll never become "epic" in feel, because the monsters he faces at high level might as well be the orc highwayman from first level in a squid suit.

Epic is mostly all in description. You may use the same attack and damage roll to cut through an orc that you do at high level. But at high level you can use that roll to slash through thick stone walls and sever the heads of dragons. Of course you still have manuevers like disarm, trip and so forth, you can just do them to bigger stuff now.

The same skills you used to use to dodge a flask of alchemists fire are now used to dodge the roaring flames of a dragon's breath. It's the same abilities you're just using them on an epic scale now, and this is determined by your bonuses.

Adding filagress takes time, but adding options does not. So long as you have the choice between hurling someone away and knocking them down where they stand, the game is roughly static in time requirements. So long as you keep adding results to the end of your attack (like a bonus throw or an additional attack after they are knocked down), then time requirements will increase accordingly.

Well yeah as long as it's a choice between things, it's fine. And I'm not saying you should remove things like disarm or static actions like that. Those actions are good and add options. And it's entirely possible you have stuff that grants bonuses to sunder checks or trip checks or whatever.

But of course, stuff like Knockdown isn't even an "option", it's a "bonus". A knockdown attack is just like any other attack except that it has as additional strength check and condition resolution at the end. That's part of the reason I am inately distrustful of your claim that "bonuses" will somehow fix anything. So far, the bonus mentality is what makes things crazy in every aspect of the game.

Well, it's an ability and not a bonus. A bonus is something numerical. +5 to trip checks, +2 to will saves, +2 to attack rolls with a scimitar. Those are bonuses. While knockdown may grant a "bonus" attack, it isn't a bonus in game terms. Bonuses are essentially about plusses.

It makes Save DCs and SR unbeatable for certain characters, it makes melee combat take too long and still be a waste of your time. It's all bad. I'm not seeing a single advantage that is coming out of bonuses as class features. Not even one. It makes the game be less balanced and take longer.

Because you need some degree of improvement for characters, and options just don't work because you either can use only one option per round (and there is a finite number you can acquire) or you become able to chain actions to form combos and that ends up slowing combat immensely as K already stated.

Basically there's only a fixed number of things you can do to people and sooner or later you gotta start doing the things you already do but do them better.

[Username17]

Epic is mostly all in description. You may use the same attack and damage roll to cut through an orc that you do at high level. But at high level you can use that roll to slash through thick stone walls and sever the heads of dragons. Of course you still have manuevers like disarm, trip and so forth, you can just do them to bigger stuff now.

If that's all it is, you can jolly well just have the Orcs wear Demon Lord suits and never change anything at all.

-Username17

[User3]

I'm against pure bonuses, simply because they make the game less fun and I have to look up a chart to see if I can squeeze another +1 to this or that action. I hate that.

I'd advocate a system where a feat just is a special effect added to a normal or slightly subpar(damagewise) attack, rather than effects being added to a normal attack in a stacking fashion based on conditions.

I mean, why can't we have a Knockback feat that, in addition to a normal attack action, makes them them prone when not saved against, akin to Stunning Fist? Maybe it has a penalty to hit, or it does less damage, or has a hit roll penalized by the size of the creature; that way it would be balanced vs the normal attack action. Not necessary, but we could.

The real problem in the current system is that extra actions are quite easy to get. If special attacks are actually special attacks, then they should take the place of an attack, and wierd "conditional" feats shouldn't get activated that suddenly give you a bunch of extra attacks or special attacks.

I mean, with a 20 Dex and Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip and Knockdown, a second level halfling or elf fighter can potentially get up to 10 extra attacks in one round out of five Trips and five AoOs.

And thats the kind of thing that happens under a situation like "five orcs attack a reach weapon guy."

I'm not even going to talk about 5th level guys with Cleave and Great Cleave.

---------------------------------

By using feat to merge attack actions to special effects, and only allowing one feat to be added to one attack, epic combats can be had with bullrushes and sunders and powerful warriors have a toolbox to deal with situations equal to a mage.

Massive bonuses are nice, but Stunning Fist will save your sorry ass far more often.

[Lago_AM3P]

The real problem in the current system is that extra actions are quite easy to get. If special attacks are actually special attacks, then they should take the place of an attack, and wierd "conditional" feats shouldn't get activated that suddenly give you a bunch of extra attacks or special attacks.

I mean, with a 20 Dex and Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip and Knockdown, a second level halfling or elf fighter can potentially get up to 10 extra attacks in one round out of five Trips and five AoOs.

And thats the kind of thing that happens under a situation like "five orcs attack a reach weapon guy."

I'm not even going to talk about 5th level guys with Cleave and Great Cleave.

Holy Jesus.

K, are you aware that you can only make so many attacks in a combat before all of the monsters DIE?

This means that it doesn't matter whether the stirges are killed by a fighter's great cleave/3.0E whirlwind combo or 8 attacks from a dual-wielding ranger with combat reflexes or just the party wailing away with attacks, which is the system you seem to be advocating.

All it will change is that other people will get to do more in their turn. Which is an argument against party balance, not slowing down from extra attacks.

By using feat to merge attack actions to special effects, and only allowing one feat to be added to one attack, epic combats can be had with bullrushes and sunders and powerful warriors have a toolbox to deal with situations equal to a mage.

Seriously, do you hate fighting classes or something?

Can you give me a reason why a Knight of the Middle Circle or a Frenzied Berserker should be strictly superior to a monk or a fighter? Stringing feats together is probably the only way a fighter-type can pray to be competitive, and that sort of thing is FUN, not boring and game-breaking. Combining karmic strike with combat reflexes with improved disarm with snatch weapon is way more awesome than swinging a sword at a +28 bonus to attack.

Feats and class abilities are the only thing that keep non-spellcasters/non-rogues in melee combat at all and making a pile of their feats worth even less than they are now is lame.

[User3]

Seriously, do you hate fighting classes or something?

Can you give me a reason why a Knight of the Middle Circle or a Frenzied Berserker should be strictly superior to a monk or a fighter? Stringing feats together is probably the only way a fighter-type can pray to be competitive, and that sort of thing is FUN, not boring and game-breaking. Combining karmic strike with combat reflexes with improved disarm with snatch weapon is way more awesome than swinging a sword at a +28 bonus to attack.

Feats and class abilities are the only thing that keep non-spellcasters/non-rogues in melee combat at all and making a pile of their feats worth even less than they are now is lame.

I'm saying the exact opposite, actually.

I'm saying that rather than forcing the fighter to PrC his brains out or chain together 15 feats to get one tactic that actually works, each single feat should be an ability that is good his whole career and that adds to his toolbox in combat.

Rather than whoring out a few stats, they should just get bonuses to damage(they already get bonuses to hit) ro standard(no feat added) attacks.

If wizards are the masters of the AoE attack, then fighters should be the masters of the single attack. I mean, if they aren't doing as much damage to a single target at 11th level as Disintigrate (20d6, or an average of 70 points) as a ranged touch attack, then they might as well not even be playing the same game.

Rather than build some elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to allow the fighter potential to do this kind of damage, where people who aren't good at minmaxing make crap characters and others make uber ones, we could have a feat with a BAB prereq of 11+ and call it Fatal Flaw, where the fighter can make a touch attack(ranged or melee) as his combat action and do 20d6 in damage, plus his weapon damage, enchantments, Str, ect(to compensate for the fact that he can't blow up walls with this power). We'll even let him use it on objects.

Thats my idea. Do a repeat treament for all the fighter feats, and nix the save or dies, and we could actually have a playable system.

[Username17]

I'm saying that rather than forcing the fighter to PrC his brains out or chain together 15 feats to get one tactic that actually works, each single feat should be an ability that is good his whole career and that adds to his toolbox in combat.

....Essentially giving out some toolbox options every level to both the Soldier and the Ice Mage. While the party Ice Mage is getting "Wall of Ice" and "Ice Prison", the Soldier should be getting options like "Hold the Line", and "Submission Hold".

Hold the Line can have a similar tactical function to Wall of Ice, just as Submission Hold can have a similar tactical function to Ice Prison. Just as the Ice Mage can't cast an Ice Prison on somebody while putting up an Ice Wall, the Fighter can't put up a Wall of Self and Grab somebody at the same time.

Mutually exclusive actions which serve a tactical role. If you aren't providing that there's no damn point at all. And of course, if any of your offensive moves aren't levelled up to your character level, there's no good god damned point in you even having them in a free multiclassing system - so the "Yeti Wrestler" character who decides to have "Wall of Ice" and "Submission Hold" should have numeric advantages that are the same as an Ice Mage or a Soldier with the same level and stats with those abilities.

-Username17