Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

A basic structure exists for formation combat, which is awesome. However, this is something that can be taken even further. For instance, there is nothing that simulates the advantage of reach weapons (polearms and great weapons) and short weapons once you reach the line or shield wall. Therefore, I propose the following:

Formation Ideas
As it stands now:

“Formations allow groups to rank their members from front to back. Members further back in the formation are less likely to be attacked, but members in the back rank are also less able to attack hand to hand.”

This sounds like the percentage chance of being targeted by a hostile mob is lower the further you are back in the formation and possibly negative modifiers to the attack rating for melee if you are in the back rank. How about this:

“Formations allow groups to rank their members from front to back. Members further back are not only less likely to be attacked but they also receive a bonus to armor class that increases the further they are from the front line. However, the further back you are the harder it is for you to strike hostile opponents in turn with melee attacks. The bonus armor class stacks with all other existing categories.”

Front Rank – Attack Rating normal, engagement percentage normal, AC normal
Middle Rank – Attack Rating -2, engagement percentage lower, AC +2. Attacking an opponent from or within the middle rank with weapons larger than light in category will negate the -2 to attack rating.
Back Rank – Attack Rating -4, engagement rating lowest, AC +4. Attacking an opponent from or within the back rank with reach weapons such as polearms and great blades will negate all negative attack modifiers due to weapon length and position.

Missile weapons and distance spells are unaffected by position within the rank structure. However, touched based spells would be.

Feat: Hold the Line
Prerequisites: Fighter Level 10, Expertise Feat, Equipped Shield
Syntax: combatmode +/- hold

First, this toggle feat enables the character to increase the likelihood that they will be targeted by hostiles encountered within an area.
Second, a small amount of damage absorption is gained while active.

In 3.5 this feat is something else entirely, but since we don’t have charge here it’s a moot point. However, the name is still very appropriate for the suggested use.

Feat: Reach Weapon Mastery
(Diametrically Opposed Counter to Focused Close Quarters Fighting)
Prerequisites: Level 20, Expertise Feat

This feat enables the combatant to maximize the effectiveness of polearms and great weapons whenever the character is wielding one from either category.

First, when wielding a reach weapon the expertise feat provides even more protection (an extra point of AC).

Second, any opponent attacking the character with non-reach weapons will trigger an attack of opportunity.

Third, the “reach weapon combat” bonus is granted. This allows the combatant to keep some semblance of range and position over foes wielding light weapons, negating the bonus gained thru the Close Quarters Mastery feat.

Feat: Close Quarters Mastery
(Diametrically Opposed Counter to Reach Weapons Mastery)
Prerequisites: Level 20, Expertise Feat

This feat enables the combatant to maximize the effectiveness of light weapons, rapiers and whips in close quarters fighting, reducing the efficiency of their opponent’s defensive capabilities.

First, when wielding a light weapon, rapier or whip the character increases the benefit from the expertise feat (an extra point of ac).

Second, the bonus attack of opportunity gained from the feat, “Reach Weapon Mastery” is negated, regardless of weapon size.

Third, the “close quarters mastery” bonus is granted. Any attackers on the front rank wielding weapons larger than light will suffer a -2 to attack and defense, as the close quarters fighter sticks close and penetrates their guard.

Skill: Entangle
Prerequisites: Large Chain, Whip or Net Weapon
Syntax: Entangle <target> Pull <target>

This skill enables the Entangle command while a large chain, whip or net weapon is being wielded by sacrificing all other attacks during the round. Upon a successful attack a reflex roll is given. If it fails the target receives the entangle affliction until a reflex save is successful, which is given each round. While entangled the target may not flee, change formation position and suffers from a -4 to ac and attack rolls.

Entangled targets can also be pulled one category closer to the front if not already there by the attacker. In the case of mounted targets a bonus is given toward the likeliness of being dismounted. Pull attempts can be used subsequently without delay for as long as the opponent remains entangled.

There is a recovery period between subsequent entangle attempts. Increased skill levels will affect the chance of the strike connecting and the difficulty of the reflex save to resist it.

Skill: Overstrike
Prerequisites: Wielding a chain weapon
Syntax: Overstrike <target>

Chain weapons are incredibly dangerous due to the fact that if wielded properly they can bypass an opponent’s shield and parrying weapon. While wielding a chain weapon the character with this feat can utilize the Overstrike command, sacrificing full attack actions to deliver a strike unaffected by shield work, parry and shield armor class. Dodge and other forms of ac will function as normal. There is a recovery period between subsequent overstrike attempts. Higher skill levels increase the likeliness of the strike landing.

Skill: Hook
Prerequisites: Wielding a polearm weapon
Syntax: Hook <target>

While wielding a polearm the character can sacrifice all other attacks for the round to initiate a hook command by overstriking and jerking backward. A reflex save is given and if it fails the strike will bypass shield work, parry and negate shield armor class. Against mounted targets the strike will receive a bonus toward dismounting the rider. There is a recovery period between subsequent hook attempts. Increased skill levels will affect the chance of the strike connecting, the difficulty of the reflex save to resist it and increase the likelihood of dismounting a rider.

Skill: Brace
Prerequisites: Wielding a polearm weapon
Syntax: brace <target>
By sacrificing all other attacks during the round the character can perform the brace command against a mounted opponent. Upon a successful hit a reflex save is given. If it fails the polearm will automatically deliver a critical hit. There is a recovery period between subsequent brace attempts. Increased skill levels will affect the chance of the strike connecting and the difficulty of the reflex save to resist it.

While I think some of the things here are interesting, and I don't wish to be discouraging, this being a MUD means that there's already the inherent issue of distance; That is, it's always assumed that (for example) a wizard and fighter are standing directly in front of each other trading blows, which means that fighters constantly receive their full attack. I don't have -quite- as much experience with the FORMATIONS system as I would like, but it would seem to me that utilizing this command is the only way to come close to emulating distance(as best it can), and coding in reach weapons to negate the already difficult to use formation system is not something I would look forward to.

(An aside, the MUD favourite - great blades, or greatswords - are not a reach weapon in SRD.)

Of course logically I understand the difficulties of suggesting coding in full distance-supporting code, and I'm not even sure if it could be done were there more desire for it. However, take for instance the way things stand - I can think of a relatively recent instance in which I went up against a fighter as a wizard. I was flying, he was on foot. However, all it took was him typing 'murder (character)', and regardless of how much sense it made in-universe, I was now directly in front of him being sliced apart.

The above only to say that while I disagree with the proposals regarding formations and reach weapons, I can't offer a viable alternative at this time.

Feat: Hold the Line
Prerequisites: Fighter Level 10, Expertise Feat, Equipped Shield
Syntax: combatmode +/- hold

First, this toggle feat enables the character to increase the likelihood that they will be targeted by hostiles encountered within an area.
Second, a small amount of damage absorption is gained while active.

In 3.5 this feat is something else entirely, but since we don’t have charge here it’s a moot point. However, the name is still very appropriate for the suggested use.

I can't tell you how much I enjoy the idea of this feat. As I implied above, the formation system is already difficult to use effectively; you could call it outright ineffective, as regardless of your formation, aggressive mobiles will attack whoever they wish(I think it has something to do with whoever walked into the room last?).

This would help -immensely-, but to sabotage my own desires, why not introduce a proposal for the 'Charge' skill? I'm not familiar with how this works in tabletop, but limit it to a room away - Maybe limit it from being used in the overworld map, due to the vast distances between rooms - and it sounds like good fun to me.

Feat: Reach Weapon Mastery
Feat: Close Quarters Mastery

I think your heart's in the right place with these two, but their introduction would essentially make them 'required' feats. That is, any fighter hoping to be as successful as their peers would be -required- to take one of these feats just to cancel out their effects when other fighters take them and fight against them.

Even worse is when you consider balance vs. other classes, even melee classes that aren't fighter. You could open the feats up to all melee classes, but none of the others have nearly as many feats to waste as fighters to. An attack of opportunity is taken at full BAB, and getting one every round for what is essentially nothing is huge for a melee class already much stronger than it should be.

Skill: Entangle
Prerequisites: Large Chain, Whip or Net Weapon
Syntax: Entangle <target> Pull <target>

This skill enables the Entangle command while a large chain, whip or net weapon is being wielded by sacrificing all other attacks during the round. Upon a successful attack a reflex roll is given. If it fails the target receives the entangle affliction until a reflex save is successful, which is given each round. While entangled the target may not flee, change formation position and suffers from a -4 to ac and attack rolls.

Entangled targets can also be pulled one category closer to the front if not already there by the attacker. In the case of mounted targets a bonus is given toward the likeliness of being dismounted. Pull attempts can be used subsequently without delay for as long as the opponent remains entangled.

There is a recovery period between subsequent entangle attempts. Increased skill levels will affect the chance of the strike connecting and the difficulty of the reflex save to resist it.

Actually, this one sounds pretty nice. I would add the following: Accompany this with a 'release' command or similar to let the target go, prevent the bound character from making their full attack (one attack per round does sound nice), and also prevent the chain-wielding attacker from making attacks with this weapon while binding a target. This could mean for dual wielders, you could main-hand a whip and off-hand a dagger, and shiv people while they're bound. It would also mean that punch and kick just became more useful!

For the last three, I can't decide how I feel about them enough to formulate a worthwhile response, aside from that they do all sound interesting and flavourful.

Althasizor, thanks. You brought up some good points and made me think a bit more about some of the things I mentioned. However, I do have a rebuttal. Please do not take my comments as being hostile. I'm simply explaining where my head was at when creating this post.

While I think some of the things here are interesting, and I don't wish to be discouraging, this being a MUD means that there's already the inherent issue of distance; That is, it's always assumed that (for example) a wizard and fighter are standing directly in front of each other trading blows, which means that fighters constantly receive their full attack. I don't have -quite- as much experience with the FORMATIONS system as I would like, but it would seem to me that utilizing this command is the only way to come close to emulating distance(as best it can), and coding in reach weapons to negate the already difficult to use formation system is not something I would look forward to.

What is it that confuses you, the numbers required to reach the middle and back ranks? I find the formation system rather simple but obviously not as effective or substantial as it could be. In a nutshell, the further back you are the less likely you are supposed to be targeted by mobs. This is all it is supposed to do at the current time. It is also something that can be very quickly changed almost without thought with the use of the in-game alias commands.

The command is formation <front><middle><back>. I would also agree that at present it doesn't seem like it does much regardless of where you are positioned. Nevertheless, I use the following aliases to set my position when the group is large enough to support the options:

alias ff formation front (the alias command ff will put you at the front rank, which the default position)
alias fm formation mid (the alias command fm would put you in the middle rank)
alias fb formation back (the alias command fb will put you in the back rank)

Fairly simple and something that can be done of the fly, so to speak.

Based on something that I read in past posts I got the impression that the distance factor was taken away from flight because it was being used to bypass obstacles/content. You can also imagine how imbalanced it would be to see a wizard hovering 100 ft above a battle field each and every time hurling down spell after spell and being untouchable. A wizard and a fighter (or anyone else for that matter) would go toe to toe when there is no formation to hide behind and combat would be as it usually is. Yet another advantage to having a group when you can. I have yet to see two hostile pc groups go up against each other so I cannot speak about what happens then and it seems as if mobs do not currently benefit from formation either.

(An aside, the MUD favourite - great blades, or greatswords - are not a reach weapon in SRD.)

There are many things in FK that don't adhere to SRD by any means, yet they exist because the powers that be felt they fit the setting.

Greatswords were used to engage at the front to cut the striking heads off devastatingly effective pikes in line combat, and had a very long blade. It makes sense to include them in this example as something that size should have an advantage to striking someone with a much smaller weapon that is forced to close the distance.

This would help -immensely-, but to sabotage my own desires, why not introduce a proposal for the 'Charge' skill? I'm not familiar with how this works in tabletop, but limit it to a room away - Maybe limit it from being used in the overworld map, due to the vast distances between rooms - and it sounds like good fun to me.

The charge ability according to SRD is basically a means to close the gap on an attacker by increasing your speed so you can deliver a single attack. Many of the things mentioned in the description would not fit, and it seems like a great risk to essentially get a +2 to hit, sacrificing all other attacks in the process. In table top it has its uses. Here? A +2 to strike, -2 ac and a bonus to damage on a delay timer would be something to see. The mounted version could perhaps do all the above and increase the damage even more.

I think your heart's in the right place with these two, but their introduction would essentially make them 'required' feats. That is, any fighter hoping to be as successful as their peers would be -required- to take one of these feats just to cancel out their effects when other fighters take them and fight against them.

Even worse is when you consider balance vs. other classes, even melee classes that aren't fighter. You could open the feats up to all melee classes, but none of the others have nearly as many feats to waste as fighters to. An attack of opportunity is taken at full BAB, and getting one every round for what is essentially nothing is huge for a melee class already much stronger than it should be.

If we could get a better formation system and reach weapons in place I would have no problem seeing them open to everyone. I went back a few years to read past comments before making suggestions. In almost every case it came down to what ifs during PVP. (Grins) Is this what level 50's do at end game, hack each other and plot world domination? You may be seeing something that I don't mid level. My days consist of PVE and some role play. Quite frankly I could care less about pvp for reasons stated in earlier posts. There are other platforms out there made and balanced with and for pvp. That isn't why I'm here. However I do understand quite well the need for balance and how an extra attack may be a bit much. The thing I tried to simulate was first strike capability with reach and large weaponry and the usefulness of ranks and the protection they provide. What if the AOO was replaced by a bonus to initiative instead for each feat in addition to the formation adjustments?

When you say the fighter is stronger than it should be, I can't help but wonder why you feel this way. The SRD versions of these classes are the culmination of decades of game balance and testing for table top play, but FK isn't full SRD nor is it table top. However, other than an extra attack I would say that of all the classes they come the closest to the table top version. You spoke of balance and also mentioned an encounter of mage vs. fighter. Yet I hear of and see mages tanking, regardless of the presence of a fighter. This and the fact that the spells that allow them to do so may as well be permanent, due to the long duration and ability to immediately sit down, meditate and refresh them.

Mages don't seem to be lacking in power or usefulness to the group in any regard. Nothing mentioned is going to topple them from the current status. Most of the things I suggested would make the fighter more effective as protector and front line fighter and offers more options to defend and or attack the positions of a formation. If anything, it would allow you as a mage more protection while within a group. Of course, if you are solo as described in the example encounter the fight would proceed as normal with the only change possibly being one of initiative.

As to melee combat: In a straight, toe to toe, weapons only fight you should absolutely be at a disadvantage against a fighter at or near your character level. Melee is what they were meant to do. Nothing else. Other classes have spells or abilities to rely upon that enable them to fulfil different roles in a group situation. Otherwise why play a fighter? The extra feats simply enable the class to perhaps utilize multiple styles that they can switch in and out of at a moments notice. In that regard it is functioning as originally intended.

Lastly, I was also under the impression that this was not a game that centered on competitive pvp, but rather fostered a cooperative, group dynamic where pvp was allowed under restrictions. Yet most of the objections to new suggestions seem to elude back to PVP concerns. It seems to me that it should be the other way around.

Heya! No problem with healthy discussion, if I can return:

What is it that confuses you, the numbers required to reach the middle and back ranks? I find the formation system rather simple but obviously not as effective or substantial as it could be. In a nutshell, the further back you are the less likely you are supposed to be targeted by mobs. This is all it is supposed to do at the current time. It is also something that can be very quickly changed almost without thought with the use of the in-game alias commands.

The command is formation <front><middle><back>. I would also agree that at present it doesn't seem like it does much regardless of where you are positioned. Nevertheless, I use the following aliases to set my position when the group is large enough to support the options:

You essentially covered it. The difficulty I referred to in regard to the FORMATION system of commands was not spawned from confusion, but general 'wonky-ness'. If you can collect enough people to utilize the back formation, you're still very likely to be attacked first by an aggressive mobile when you walk from one room to the other. Also, being attacked in this way seems to move you back up to the front of the formation regardless. I enjoy the idea of it of course, and for roleplay purposes, 'wizards in the back' is a good rule. For practical purposes though, I've had difficulty with using formations effectively. Still a very nice thought though!

Based on something that I read in past posts I got the impression that the distance factor was taken away from flight because it was being used to bypass obstacles/content. You can also imagine how imbalanced it would be to see a wizard hovering 100 ft above a battle field each and every time hurling down spell after spell and being untouchable. A wizard and a fighter (or anyone else for that matter) would go toe to toe when there is no formation to hide behind and combat would be as it usually is. Yet another advantage to having a group when you can. I have yet to see two hostile pc groups go up against each other so I cannot speak about what happens then and it seems as if mobs do not currently benefit from formation either.

While I understand the concern for this, the way that it used to work was that you could not attack them - Unless you were in combat with them. This meant that a grounded opponent couldn't -initiate- a fight with a flying wizard, but could fight them if it came to it. Still an issue for overcoming obstacles and the like... But on the other hand, if my character is capable of flying overhead and metaphorically or literally dropping thumbtacks on a fighter's head, why -shouldn't- code support this? It seems to me that there are more than enough ways to get around this, if it was really such a problem(flying mounts, a whole host of ranged weapons, not challenging the guy who can open gates and summon devils to drop thumbtacks on your head).

There are many things in FK that don't adhere to SRD by any means, yet they exist because the powers that be felt they fit the setting.

Greatswords were used to engage at the front to cut the striking heads off devastatingly effective pikes in line combat, and had a very long blade. It makes sense to include them in this example as something that size should have an advantage to striking someone with a much smaller weapon that is forced to close the distance.

While the greatsword -was- quite long compared to other conventional swords, I don't think it would be enough to warrant a range increment in SRD rules. I saw an interesting video a while ago(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiD3cI3RqJU) that talked about large two-handed swords, and how they would have been used to break into pike formations. Neither of the styles proposed in the video refer to swinging it around like an exceptionally large longsword; Breaking into the pike formation using that upward figure-of-eight movement keeps the blade relatively close to the body and easily controlled, while the proposed fighting 'like a short spear' also limits the length of the blade. Of course these were not for sure the methods used in battle, it does give an idea of the viability of swinging in a wider arc while maintaining control and power of the blade.

The charge ability according to SRD is basically a means to close the gap on an attacker by increasing your speed so you can deliver a single attack. Many of the things mentioned in the description would not fit, and it seems like a great risk to essentially get a +2 to hit, sacrificing all other attacks in the process. In table top it has its uses. Here? A +2 to strike, -2 ac and a bonus to damage on a delay timer would be something to see. The mounted version could perhaps do all the above and increase the damage even more.

This was my fault for being unclear - Let's say there's two rooms. You're in the room to the west, and there's a monster in the room to the east. A Charge skill might work something like 'charge [direction] <target>', allowing you to rush from your room into theirs to initiate combat. Were I the monster, it would certainly grab -my- attention!

If we could get a better formation system and reach weapons in place I would have no problem seeing them open to everyone. I went back a few years to read past comments before making suggestions. In almost every case it came down to what ifs during PVP. (Grins) Is this what level 50's do at end game, hack each other and plot world domination? You may be seeing something that I don't mid level. My days consist of PVE and some role play. Quite frankly I could care less about pvp for reasons stated in earlier posts. There are other platforms out there made and balanced with and for pvp. That isn't why I'm here. However I do understand quite well the need for balance and how an extra attack may be a bit much. The thing I tried to simulate was first strike capability with reach and large weaponry and the usefulness of ranks and the protection they provide. What if the AOO was replaced by a bonus to initiative instead for each feat in addition to the formation adjustments?

The trouble with seeing them open to everyone is again that feats do not run like water for other classes, though. This wouldn't usually be a problem, but this doesn't just affect melee characters; There's no reason a wizard or bard would ever want to waste a feat on either of those two feats, as well as whatever weapon proficiency they need, but they would need to if they don't want to eat a -sixth- attack per round from fighters. By SRD, fighters should only receive four attacks to begin with yet they have five in FK, and this sixth would be given at full BAB - This strikes me as complete overkill. These are very powerful feats even if they are, technically speaking, available to everyone.

The reason that much of the discussion seems to be based around balance for PVP is because a decent portion of the community does enjoy fighting against each other. The roleplay can be immensely rewarding when you take to conflict between player characters. Also, player classes are often used for mobiles, so there's still some concern for balance there - albeit greatly alleviated in many cases.

However, even when you assume that everyone is on the same side, nobody wants to feel useless in the party. As of this moment in FK, I have difficulty thinking of any class that would fit "useless in a party", everyone seems to have their place and the RP from that has been very rewarding as well. I tend to enjoy the player group vs. environment RP more than PVP myself. Even so, class vs. class balance must be maintained even if it is not for everyone.

I do understand your point about reach weapons, but I also think that there's a lot of other work that would need to be done before that was completely fair. By SRD rules, when someone attempts to move through your increased threatened range, you should get an attack of opportunity. I suppose for FK, that would mean just on the first round. But if the assumption is that they were not already 5 feet from you, then it should only be possible to make one attack on the first round as well(to simulate the action taken to move within range).

When you say the fighter is stronger than it should be, I can't help but wonder why you feel this way. The SRD versions of these classes are the culmination of decades of game balance and testing for table top play, but FK isn't full SRD nor is it table top. However, other than an extra attack I would say that of all the classes they come the closest to the table top version. You spoke of balance and also mentioned an encounter of mage vs. fighter. Yet I hear of and see mages tanking, regardless of the presence of a fighter. This and the fact that the spells that allow them to do so may as well be permanent, due to the long duration and ability to immediately sit down, meditate and refresh them.

The thing is, that what you're referring to - mages tanking - is not something that can happen in the higher levels of play without significant risk. In addition, going back to that dread PVP scenario, it completely falls apart. Fighters are able to tear through wizards like they're made out of paper. To increase the longevity of the game and fights, 20 levels are stretched out over 50 and this means hit dice are dramatically higher. This greatly favours fighters who roll a d10, over classes like wizards who roll a d4.

The result of this is that while spells deal roughly the same as they do in SRD(I think?), their overall effectiveness is greatly reduced. A high level evocation spell that deals 120 damage is much more scary when you only have 214 HP to begin with. Fighters also more or less match SRD except for when they are better in FK, whereas spellcasters in FK do not have quite as many truly horrifying spells as they do in SRD; though this is hardly worth mentioning as in many cases this is for the better, and we do have a -huge- number of spells available to us in FK as it is.

Short of spamming save-or-die spells and hoping one of them lands(which is no fun, IMO!), these and several other factors that are lost on my sleep deprived mind add up to the power scale tipping heavily in favour of fighters in FK compared to their counterparts in SRD.

As to melee combat: In a straight, toe to toe, weapons only fight you should absolutely be at a disadvantage against a fighter at or near your character level. Melee is what they were meant to do. Nothing else. Other classes have spells or abilities to rely upon that enable them to fulfill different roles in a group situation. Otherwise why play a fighter? The extra feats simply enable the class to perhaps utilize multiple styles that they can switch in and out of at a moments notice. In that regard it is functioning as originally intended.

I see rather little reason for my wizard to ever elect to be in melee range with a fighter who, as you say, is master of that domain. As a player who also plays/has played melee-based characters, I'll admit that for a class capable of raining down meteors and stopping time, I don't find myself cowering before even powerful wizards, and have noted the same behaviour from the majority of the player base.

That's not a tangent I want to get off on here(seeing as I already accidentally did and will not edit this post), I just mean that this cuts both ways. In the same way that fighters should be the bar-none dominating force in a toe-to-toe, weapons only fight, when you introduce characters who are literally masters of the arcane arts, a fighter -should- be massively overwhelmed. But it's rather simple here for a fighter to simply race a wizard's HP down, because they're guaranteed to be in their best position; In your face, with no worry about movement to disrupt their continual full attacks.

(Sorry to keep using the wizard example, it's just what I'm most familiar with.)

All that aside though, an initiative bonus wouldn't seem so awful. It would still be very useful, and worth taking. I might also consider a weapon skill requirement for the feats; expert with a 'reach' weapon to qualify for the proposed Ranged Weapon Mastery feat for example.

By the way, I know how some of the above might sound but none of it is meant as a complaint about the game or somehow a personal attack on any player - I rather like the way things function currently! I only mean to state what I've noted.

The thing is, that what you're referring to - mages tanking - is not something that can happen in the higher levels of play without significant risk. In addition, going back to that dread PVP scenario, it completely falls apart. Fighters are able to tear through wizards like they're made out of paper. To increase the longevity of the game and fights, 20 levels are stretched out over 50 and this means hit dice are dramatically higher. This greatly favours fighters who roll a d10, over classes like wizards who roll a d4.

(Nods) Now I see. Part of the problem is that I'm reading a combination of old posts made years ago and relatively current and that I am not in the later stages of play. Based on comments made and what I have seen I got the impression that mage vs. fighter near the same level is the fighter catching an arsewhoopin due to the fact that they cannot bring nearly as many things to bear as the mage. It's surprising for me to hear you contradict this.

So, what you are telling me is that near end game a true group dependent dynamic exists, with the fighter needing the wards from the wizard, heals from the cleric and the mage needing a high hit point buffer between them and the enemy? At low to mid level the group makeup can be fairly malleable to compensate for lack of a healer, fighter or mage. In almost every instance the presence of a fighter is nice but by no means necessary as long as you have a priest or wizard in the mix.

While the greatsword -was- quite long compared to other conventional swords, I don't think it would be enough to warrant a range increment in SRD rules. I saw an interesting video a while ago(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiD3cI3RqJU) that talked about large two-handed swords, and how they would have been used to break into pike formations. Neither of the styles proposed in the video refer to swinging it around like an exceptionally large longsword; Breaking into the pike formation using that upward figure-of-eight movement keeps the blade relatively close to the body and easily controlled, while the proposed fighting 'like a short spear' also limits the length of the blade. Of course these were not for sure the methods used in battle, it does give an idea of the viability of swinging in a wider arc while maintaining control and power of the blade.

I see your point. They would definitely fall into the medium (2nd rank) category, and since there is never going to be a weapon break that aspect is moot.

This was my fault for being unclear - Let's say there's two rooms. You're in the room to the west, and there's a monster in the room to the east. A Charge skill might work something like 'charge [direction] <target>', allowing you to rush from your room into theirs to initiate combat. Were I the monster, it would certainly grab -my- attention

Interesting way to start a melee and the fighter would definitely get all the attention upon entering the room, with a damaging opener. It would also keep the rest of the group intact while you initiate the move.