Fighter

[zombiehands]

I was wondering what would break if the fighters weapon specialization ability just gave him +1 to hit and damage with weapons (yes all of them)?

I always hated 2e weapon specialization since it made fighter choose just one weapon and sort of forced the DM to allow finding that specific type of weapon. I fondly recall my 1e fighter (pre UA) switch weapons to hit heavy armor foes and using the best weapon they found.

What are your thoughts of allowing style specializations instead of weapon? For Example

Weapon and Shield: +1 to hit, damage, and AC when using a shield
Two-handed Weapon: +1 to hit +2 to damage
Archery: +2 to hit, +1 damage
Two Weapon: +1 to hit with each weapon, +1 AC

[Treebore]

I do several things that allow a fighter to be more of a "Fighter", ie weapons and combat master. First off I allow them to select and additional specialization in a NEW weapon every 3 levels. In addition to improving that initial specialization to +2 every 4 levels. So at Level 3 they pick up a new Specialization, and at level 4 their original specialization goes p to +2. Then at level 6 they get to select a new weapon to Specialize in and at level 7 their second weapon goes up to a +2, and so on. Another thing I did was rewrite Combat Dominance to be more useful no matter what type of creature and HD level they are fighting. Just with mine they have to fight 3 or more at a single time in order to trigger it.

Another thing I am thinking of adding is an official "Cleave" ability. Still contemplating that one, though. I am also thinking of speeding up the multiple attacks per round thing because the way the Trolls have it is far too slow for me. Most campaigns won't even see a Fighter achieve two attacks per round as it is in the books.

[Relaxo]

What are your thoughts of allowing style specializations instead of weapon? For Example

Weapon and Shield: +1 to hit, damage, and AC when using a shield
Two-handed Weapon: +1 to hit +2 to damage
Archery: +2 to hit, +1 damage
Two Weapon: +1 to hit with each weapon, +1 AC

That sounds pretty slick.
since this would stack with their already-best to hit progression, I might shift their attack bonus to match the other warriors, that is, level -1 instead of = level. but probably not... they're supposed to kick all ass all the time.

[zombiehands]

I do several things that allow a fighter to be more of a "Fighter", ie weapons and combat master. First off I allow them to select and additional specialization in a NEW weapon every 3 levels. In addition to improving that initial specialization to +2 every 4 levels. So at Level 3 they pick up a new Specialization, and at level 4 their original specialization goes p to +2. Then at level 6 they get to select a new weapon to Specialize in and at level 7 their second weapon goes up to a +2, and so on. Another thing I did was rewrite Combat Dominance to be more useful no matter what type of creature and HD level they are fighting. Just with mine they have to fight 3 or more at a single time in order to trigger it.

Another thing I am thinking of adding is an official "Cleave" ability. Still contemplating that one, though. I am also thinking of speeding up the multiple attacks per round thing because the way the Trolls have it is far too slow for me. Most campaigns won't even see a Fighter achieve two attacks per round as it is in the books.

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities. In C&C I tend to see the fighter as base class and Barbarian, Knights, Rangers, and Paladins as subclasses. The subclasses each have some limitation but additional abilities. The additional abilities tend to make them more powerful than fighter, at least in certain situations. The fighter generally comes in second best in most situations. So in the wilderness you want to be Ranger but the fighter is a fairly good option since he has high ac and damage. A barbarian will out shine a fighter while fighting weaker foes. The paladin in the dungeon. I would like the knight to be the best in a one on one fight ie. more like a knight in literature rather than a commander.

I ran a game where everyone could "cleave" and it ended up helping the fighter the most.

[Lurker]

I was wondering what would break if the fighters weapon specialization ability just gave him +1 to hit and damage with weapons (yes all of them)?

I always hated 2e weapon specialization since it made fighter choose just one weapon and sort of forced the DM to allow finding that specific type of weapon. I fondly recall my 1e fighter (pre UA) switch weapons to hit heavy armor foes and using the best weapon they found.

What are your thoughts of allowing style specializations instead of weapon? For Example

Weapon and Shield: +1 to hit, damage, and AC when using a shield
Two-handed Weapon: +1 to hit +2 to damage
Archery: +2 to hit, +1 damage
Two Weapon: +1 to hit with each weapon, +1 AC

That is something like I have been thinking. Also adding finesse (using your dex bonus as your hit/damage instead of strength - to open up to a more swashbuckler type of character.

I also am looking at ways to improve the CD ability allowing them to raise it to more than just 1 hd foes as they progress.

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities. In C&C I tend to see the fighter as base class and Barbarian, Knights, Rangers, and Paladins as subclasses. The subclasses each have some limitation but additional abilities. The additional abilities tend to make them more powerful than fighter, at least in certain situations. The fighter generally comes in second best in most situations. So in the wilderness you want to be Ranger but the fighter is a fairly good option since he has high ac and damage. ...

I'm with you on that. The fighter is not the best in every situation, but he is good in all situations. The ranger that is great in the woods should be lost in the sauce in a city, the knight is terror on the battle field, but in a goblin cave where his armor and long weapons are only in the way. A fighter on the other hand is good in all of those.

.... I am also thinking of speeding up the multiple attacks per round thing because the way the Trolls have it is far too slow for me. Most campaigns won't even see a Fighter achieve two attacks per round as it is in the books.

Rgr that, I'm not sure how quickly to add 3/2 the 2/1 attacks but I don't like the way it is now.

[Rigon]

Here are the changes I made to the fighter.

Extra Attacks: : Most classes gain additional melee/ranged attacks each round as they advance in level. Whenever a character’s BtH is evenly divided by 6, you gain an extra attack.
-fighters gain extra attacks at levels 6, 12, & 18 (4 attacks max barring cleave and combat dominance)
-rangers, barbarians, berserkers, paladins, and cavaliers gain extra attacks at levels 7 & 13 (3 attacks max)
-clerics, druids, thieves, assassins, and bards gain an extra attack at level 12 (2 attacks max)
-wizards and sorcerers never gain an extra attack

Fighter: As the PHB, with the following changes/additions:
Weapon Specialization: At first level, the fighter selects one weapon to become an expert with. The fighter gains a +1 to hit and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 every 6 levels thereafter (+2 at 7th, +3 at 13th, etc) to a total bonus of +5. Furthermore, a fighter can add his to hit bonus from specialization to his BtH for determining eligibility for extra attacks, but only with the specialized weapon. (Extra attacks with specialized weapon at levels 5, 10, & 15)
Cleave: Beginning at 2nd level, if the fighter slays his opponent, he may make an immediate attack against another nearby (within 5 ft) opponent.
Combat Dominance: Whenever a new attack is gained, increase the HD of the creature affected by 1. So at 8th level, the fighter can use combat dominance on all 2 HD or less creatures, etc. It also works in conjunction with the fighters extra attacks.

And I've been talking with members of my online group to maybe allow weapon group selection for fighters to specialize with instead of just a single weapon.

R-

[serleran]

I have toyed with allowing a fighter to either increase his number of attacks, the damage dealt (increased dice), or chance to hit but I have not yet playtested this as no one plays a fighter (or, they play fighter-somethings). I do allow a fighter to choose to be unarmed specialists and they get the monk attack progression for unarmed combat (using the normal BtH), though and that seems to work OK.

[Treebore]

I do several things that allow a fighter to be more of a "Fighter", ie weapons and combat master. First off I allow them to select and additional specialization in a NEW weapon every 3 levels. In addition to improving that initial specialization to +2 every 4 levels. So at Level 3 they pick up a new Specialization, and at level 4 their original specialization goes p to +2. Then at level 6 they get to select a new weapon to Specialize in and at level 7 their second weapon goes up to a +2, and so on. Another thing I did was rewrite Combat Dominance to be more useful no matter what type of creature and HD level they are fighting. Just with mine they have to fight 3 or more at a single time in order to trigger it.

Another thing I am thinking of adding is an official "Cleave" ability. Still contemplating that one, though. I am also thinking of speeding up the multiple attacks per round thing because the way the Trolls have it is far too slow for me. Most campaigns won't even see a Fighter achieve two attacks per round as it is in the books.

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities. In C&C I tend to see the fighter as base class and Barbarian, Knights, Rangers, and Paladins as subclasses. The subclasses each have some limitation but additional abilities. The additional abilities tend to make them more powerful than fighter, at least in certain situations. The fighter generally comes in second best in most situations. So in the wilderness you want to be Ranger but the fighter is a fairly good option since he has high ac and damage. A barbarian will out shine a fighter while fighting weaker foes. The paladin in the dungeon. I would like the knight to be the best in a one on one fight ie. more like a knight in literature rather than a commander.

I ran a game where everyone could "cleave" and it ended up helping the fighter the most.

Not really. The only one who came close were the UA classes, but fighters progressed in attacks per round faster, their to hit went up faster, in addition to their specialization bonus to hit and damage. So the intent was to make them the "combat master", which is even a clearer intent if you go back to the 3 little brown books of OD&D and even chainmail. So even AD&D was a victim of "power creep" in its own ways when they made the new classes official.

So I have decided rather than keep the fighter the second class combat guy that it has been since 1E AD&D, especially after UA was released, I'm fixing it.

[Go0gleplex]

I like that Style specialization idea, though I think I'd tweak it around a little bit. Maybe work that in to function in conjunction with the actual weapon specialization and multiple attacks. Definitely gives me some food for thought. When I have a moment to myself to think.

[zombiehands]

I do several things that allow a fighter to be more of a "Fighter", ie weapons and combat master. First off I allow them to select and additional specialization in a NEW weapon every 3 levels. In addition to improving that initial specialization to +2 every 4 levels. So at Level 3 they pick up a new Specialization, and at level 4 their original specialization goes p to +2. Then at level 6 they get to select a new weapon to Specialize in and at level 7 their second weapon goes up to a +2, and so on. Another thing I did was rewrite Combat Dominance to be more useful no matter what type of creature and HD level they are fighting. Just with mine they have to fight 3 or more at a single time in order to trigger it.

Another thing I am thinking of adding is an official "Cleave" ability. Still contemplating that one, though. I am also thinking of speeding up the multiple attacks per round thing because the way the Trolls have it is far too slow for me. Most campaigns won't even see a Fighter achieve two attacks per round as it is in the books.

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities. In C&C I tend to see the fighter as base class and Barbarian, Knights, Rangers, and Paladins as subclasses. The subclasses each have some limitation but additional abilities. The additional abilities tend to make them more powerful than fighter, at least in certain situations. The fighter generally comes in second best in most situations. So in the wilderness you want to be Ranger but the fighter is a fairly good option since he has high ac and damage. A barbarian will out shine a fighter while fighting weaker foes. The paladin in the dungeon. I would like the knight to be the best in a one on one fight ie. more like a knight in literature rather than a commander.

I ran a game where everyone could "cleave" and it ended up helping the fighter the most.

Not really. The only one who came close were the UA classes, but fighters progressed in attacks per round faster, their to hit went up faster, in addition to their specialization bonus to hit and damage. So the intent was to make them the "combat master", which is even a clearer intent if you go back to the 3 little brown books of OD&D and even chainmail. So even AD&D was a victim of "power creep" in its own ways when they made the new classes official.

So I have decided rather than keep the fighter the second class combat guy that it has been since 1E AD&D, especially after UA was released, I'm fixing it.

All the the classes used the same attack tables (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin) and the UA Classes (Barbarian and Cavalier) did too. UA classes and weapon specialization were certainly power creep.

I prefer to keep the fighter the guy without restrictions but no benefits either. In C&C Barbarians and Rangers have armor restiriction, Knight and Paladins have Alignment resitrictions, Bards have weapon and armor restrictions.

[Arduin]

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities.

Rangers had lower attacks/round. Also, ONLY fighters got # attacks equal to their level vs. "zero" level opponents. So, in AD&D they were considered better fighters than Rangers & Paladins...

[Treebore]

Well, thats the cool thing about C&C, its all about making it the game we each want it to be, not according to a company or how anyone else is doing it.

[zombiehands]

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities.

Rangers had lower attacks/round. Also, ONLY fighters got # attacks equal to their level vs. "zero" level opponents. So, in AD&D they were considered better fighters than Rangers & Paladins...

Well I disagree with your reading it does say a fighter but rangers and paladins are subclassess of the fighter. There are other places where it says fighters get exceptional strength but clearly the subclasses do as well. I does not alway call it out in fact I think it does call it out when something does not apply. Pretty much always if it applies to fighter in the book it also applies to rangers and paladins. Pretty that is the idea of the subclass.

yes rangers did have gain 3/2 at 8 instead of 7th and 2 at 15th instead of 13th. So he is slightly better then the ranger...

[zombiehands]

Well, thats the cool thing about C&C, its all about making it the game we each want it to be, not according to a company or how anyone else is doing it.

So true. My problem is determining what I want to do with the classes. So many good ideas out there.

[Arduin]

Well I disagree with your reading it does say a fighter but rangers and paladins are subclassess of the fighter. There are other places where it says fighters get exceptional strength but clearly the subclasses do as well.

Has nothing to do with my "reading". It is what the rules are. G.G. also played it that way (not surprisingly as he wrote the rules on it).

[zombiehands]

Well I disagree with your reading it does say a fighter but rangers and paladins are subclassess of the fighter. There are other places where it says fighters get exceptional strength but clearly the subclasses do as well.

Has nothing to do with my "reading". It is what the rules are. G.G. also played it that way (not surprisingly as he wrote the rules on it).

I don't want to get into a big argument here but it is pretty clear that what applies to Fighter also applies to Rangers and Paladins. they are subclass of the fighter. A subclass is define as a division of class. Think logic: All rangers are fighters but not all fighters are rangers. If he meant the Fighter he should have said The Fighter not a fighter.

Here are some other example where fighter is applied to the subclass.

PHB PG 9 PHB "Furthermore, fighters with an 18 strength are entitled to
roll percentile dice in order to generate a random number between 01 and
00 (100)"
PHB PG 12 under constitution "*Bonus applies only to fighters; all other classes may be given a maximum
hit point bonus adjustment for constitution of +2."
DMG PG 122 "(F) = Usable by the fighter class only." this note is next to potion of heroism, invulnerability, gaint strength, girdle of giant strength and along with many other items.

The girdle of giant strength by your logic would be usable by Fighters, Clerics, and Thieves but not Rangers and Paladins.

Saying GG played that way does not mean much of anything either, he had his own house rules including simplified initiative and surprise. Not using weapon vs. armor etc. Also despite the hearsay he did not write the rules alone. Read page 8 of the DMG.

[zombiehands]

I was wondering what would break if the fighters weapon specialization ability just gave him +1 to hit and damage with weapons (yes all of them)?

I always hated 2e weapon specialization since it made fighter choose just one weapon and sort of forced the DM to allow finding that specific type of weapon. I fondly recall my 1e fighter (pre UA) switch weapons to hit heavy armor foes and using the best weapon they found.

What are your thoughts of allowing style specializations instead of weapon? For Example

Weapon and Shield: +1 to hit, damage, and AC when using a shield
Two-handed Weapon: +1 to hit +2 to damage
Archery: +2 to hit, +1 damage
Two Weapon: +1 to hit with each weapon, +1 AC

That is something like I have been thinking. Also adding finesse (using your dex bonus as your hit/damage instead of strength - to open up to a more swashbuckler type of character.

I also am looking at ways to improve the CD ability allowing them to raise it to more than just 1 hd foes as they progress.

I am probably too influenced by AD&D, but I don't really see the fighter as a weapon master or combat master. In AD&D rangers and paladins could do everything that a fighter could do plus their additional abilities. In C&C I tend to see the fighter as base class and Barbarian, Knights, Rangers, and Paladins as subclasses. The subclasses each have some limitation but additional abilities. The additional abilities tend to make them more powerful than fighter, at least in certain situations. The fighter generally comes in second best in most situations. So in the wilderness you want to be Ranger but the fighter is a fairly good option since he has high ac and damage. ...

I'm with you on that. The fighter is not the best in every situation, but he is good in all situations. The ranger that is great in the woods should be lost in the sauce in a city, the knight is terror on the battle field, but in a goblin cave where his armor and long weapons are only in the way. A fighter on the other hand is good in all of those.

.... I am also thinking of speeding up the multiple attacks per round thing because the way the Trolls have it is far too slow for me. Most campaigns won't even see a Fighter achieve two attacks per round as it is in the books.

Rgr that, I'm not sure how quickly to add 3/2 the 2/1 attacks but I don't like the way it is now.

Sorry for the long quote but I don't know how to trim a quote without screwing it up.

The Swashbuckler might be better to use a Barbarian. All the abilities but Ancestral Calling and Deer Stalker kind of work. Barbarians and swashbucklers both do heroic ability checks, whirlwind attacks etc.

[Lurker]

...

Sorry for the long quote but I don't know how to trim a quote without screwing it up.

The Swashbuckler might be better to use a Barbarian. All the abilities but Ancestral Calling and Deer Stalker kind of work. Barbarians and swashbucklers both do heroic ability checks, whirlwind attacks etc.

For trimming a quote I hit the quote button, separate all the various sections in the quotes and delete the ones I don't want.

For the Barb, I never thought about that. I'll have to give it a look. I always focused on the flavor of it, but not the skills and how they could be used out of the box.

[Greyblade]

Honestly, I don't want to houserule too much, so far we are having fun with the rules as they are.

Only things we added were allowing studded leather for rogues/assassins, max HP at 1st level, +2 to hit and damage on charges, and finally a +1 to abilities when we feel the story and characters have progressed to a true turning point in the story.

For us, less is more.

[Snoring Rock]

I don't like adding in house rules either. In AD&D if the opponent was less than 1 HD the fighter got a number of attacks equal to his level. I have given serious thought to allowing this in my C&C games and then giving the fighter an extra attack on anything he has 4 or more HD over. Simple, easy, and not much fear of over-powered fighters.

[tylermo]

I started playing C&C by 05 at least. Can't remember if I was in any of Todd's and Stephen's demos in 04 or 03. Anyway, I only got to play C&C convention games in those days. It was hard enough successfully converting people to Savage Worlds, and somehow I never got my own C&C demo games and campaign off the ground until the later years. Long story short...Until briefly in 07, and later in 2009-the present, I was only a player. I can't really comment on whether or not the fighter's progression is to slow, or if the class is lacking. Players in my A-Series campaign have never complained about it. Of course, we're talking about 1-3rd level characters. However, on the topic of house ruling...I prefer not to. That said, we do max hp at 1st level, roll 4 dice and subtract the lowest one for stats, use most of the extra combat maneuvers from the ckg, and sometimes critical fumbles on a "1". I'm sure there are a few others, in addition to eventually implementing a few things from the ckg...the simplest of the critical hit rules, equipment wear and tear, gold expenditure for wizards, illusionists, and the like, among a few others. Otherwise, keep it simple.

[serleran]

House rules are half the fun of playing a game. That thing that makes it your own. If all I wanted to do was play the way someone else did, I'd be bored beyond measure.

[zombiehands]

House rules are half the fun of playing a game. That thing that makes it your own. If all I wanted to do was play the way someone else did, I'd be bored beyond measure.

+1

[Treebore]

I give serious thought to my house rules too. It helps that I have probably played and ran more C&C campaign games than anyone, so have seen a lot of things come up in game play.

On that note, how much CK and playing experience with C&C do others here have? I've ran a campaign up to 17th level, another to 14th level (my online game that others here have played in), and my current online game is at 9th level (running them through the Slavelords modules right now). I have played in a lot of other games. I play in my oldest sons home game, which is currently 7th level, I have played in a number of on line games ran by Kayolan (x2), Slimykuotoun, Rigon (x2), and nwelte (x2), which have all gone to between 6th and 8th level. I have played in a number of other on line games with other board members, past and present (Buttmonkey and Rhuvein, et al...) that usually ended by 4th level for one reason or another. All of these experiences have contributed to my house rules, and their play testing.

[Omote]

I have been playing C&C since the early days of its development (2004 or 2005?). The first 3 years or so it was hard to get a regular group together as every D&Der was enamored with 3E. I didn't start playing C&C regularly until 2008 or early 2009. Since that time, I have been playing or running one campaign or another. Now I am running 1 full-time and a few part-time campaigns. I play in one full-time campaign currently.

One of my groups is pretty die hard about game mechanics. 3E ruined the lot of them. For this game I play a suped-up C&C campaign that uses many of the rules found in the link in my sig. The other groups play pretty close to the core game, with a few variances here and there.

I do appreciate house rules. I like looking at other players ideas, and have used many of them from this site and others. Some rules work well, others not so much. But the fun of developing rules is seeing how they work out in game, in my opinion.

If there was one single rule that I personally believe is overused and hurts the base C&C game, is the # of attacks that house rules give PCs. I think that extra attacks by PCs is INCREDIBLY powerful in the C&C RAW. I've tinkered with this time and time again, because ultimately, players love rolling dice. The # of attacks always seem to make players feel "more useful" in game. I disagree almost always.

The first trick I used was giving fighters attacks per the 2E rules. Lower level fighters with 3/2 attacks were amazing and usually outshines the other classes by such a margin, that makes certain classes feel useless since so much of C&C can be based on combat. I think wizards can hold there own in this regard, because wizards in C&C are so great (no damage caps, wowee! - love it). Then the CKG came out where a rule states that characters can fire up to 4 shots per round, but with obvious big penalties. Once that players figured out how to best tweek that effect, all players starting using using bows. New characters created were all DEX based with high scores to mitigate the penalties. The sheer fact that bow-guys get to attempt 4 shots per round imbalances the game.

Sorry for the extended explanation, but it's something that I feel particularly strong about, and I see modifications to #APM all the time (hell I even do it).

~O

[zombiehands]

I have been playing C&C since the early days of its development (2004 or 2005?). The first 3 years or so it was hard to get a regular group together as every D&Der was enamored with 3E. I didn't start playing C&C regularly until 2008 or early 2009. Since that time, I have been playing or running one campaign or another. Now I am running 1 full-time and a few part-time campaigns. I play in one full-time campaign currently.

One of my groups is pretty die hard about game mechanics. 3E ruined the lot of them. For this game I play a suped-up C&C campaign that uses many of the rules found in the link in my sig. The other groups play pretty close to the core game, with a few variances here and there.

I do appreciate house rules. I like looking at other players ideas, and have used many of them from this site and others. Some rules work well, others not so much. But the fun of developing rules is seeing how they work out in game, in my opinion.

If there was one single rule that I personally believe is overused and hurts the base C&C game, is the # of attacks that house rules give PCs. I think that extra attacks by PCs is INCREDIBLY powerful in the C&C RAW. I've tinkered with this time and time again, because ultimately, players love rolling dice. The # of attacks always seem to make players feel "more useful" in game. I disagree almost always.

The first trick I used was giving fighters attacks per the 2E rules. Lower level fighters with 3/2 attacks were amazing and usually outshines the other classes by such a margin, that makes certain classes feel useless since so much of C&C can be based on combat. I think wizards can hold there own in this regard, because wizards in C&C are so great (no damage caps, wowee! - love it). Then the CKG came out where a rule states that characters can fire up to 4 shots per round, but with obvious big penalties. Once that players figured out how to best tweek that effect, all players starting using using bows. New characters created were all DEX based with high scores to mitigate the penalties. The sheer fact that bow-guys get to attempt 4 shots per round imbalances the game.

Sorry for the extended explanation, but it's something that I feel particularly strong about, and I see modifications to #APM all the time (hell I even do it).

~O

I agree the 3/2 attacks in 2e did outshine the others except the wizard. Sleep was so (too) good.
I have not played with CKG archery but it does seem out of wack, even though in real life firing 4 arrows in 10 secs is not that unbelievable.
The game I am in (mid level) has very few casters (actually none now) and big fights vs a bunch of low level monsters is so slow the game gets borings.
Every round I find myself wishing I had multiple attacks (or anyone did). The # of attacks rigon proposes seems ok to me.
I want to try something a little different myself. In my upcomming game critical hits will give an extra attack, taking -8 will make a normal hit a critical. This way a mid level warrior type will be able to cut his way through low level foes fasters, but make multiple attacks against high level (high ac) foes not attractive.