Fighters are balanced, but are they... boring?

Back during the Alpha/Beta testing, I had suggested that the feats granted by Fighter levels (or at least some of them) be variable. So the Fighter could change what feats he had by "practicing" over a short period of time, allowing him to adjust better to situations.
This is especially great for weapon focusing, so if he finds a better weapon or realizes he needs a different weapon option, he can focus on that new one.
Sort of like a class defined, quicker retraining option.
This would help with the "Static" issue with the Fighter's primary class bonuses.

What about the fact that Fighters can drop unwanted/unused feats and get new ones in their place every four levels?

I get that this is probably not a fast enough option for what you're envisioning, but surely it helps?

Would it be better if they could retrain feats at a faster rate?

Giving the Fighter the Weapon Aptitude ability from the Warblade would be a good start.

Kaisoku wrote:

Back during the Alpha/Beta testing, I had suggested that the feats granted by Fighter levels (or at least some of them) be variable. So the Fighter could change what feats he had by "practicing" over a short period of time, allowing him to adjust better to situations.
This is especially great for weapon focusing, so if he finds a better weapon or realizes he needs a different weapon option, he can focus on that new one.
Sort of like a class defined, quicker retraining option.
This would help with the "Static" issue with the Fighter's primary class bonuses.

What about the fact that Fighters can drop unwanted/unused feats and get new ones in their place every four levels?

I get that this is probably not a fast enough option for what you're envisioning, but surely it helps?

Would it be better if they could retrain feats at a faster rate?

A wizard can decide to switch from combat spells to utility spells.. or fire based spells to cold based spells.. or blasting spells to summoning or lockdown spells.

I'd like to see a Fighter be able to do something similar with some of his feats.

So if the group finds out they will be heading into a place with a lot of flying creatures, he can decide to alter a few of his feats to focus on Ranged combat.
Or if they are going to be facing Large+ creatures, he might focus on Reach combat.
Or if they find an artifact or a special weapon is found that would be highly useful for the only warrior in the group, he could change his weapon focusing feats to this new weapon type.

If he can do this with a few hours of retraining during downtime, similar to a Wizard memorizing a different set of spells, then it would allow him to gain a bit of versatility.

Sure, feats aren't really designed with this kind of swapping in mind, however this is the Fighter's main feature. Giving him greater flexibility in his combat feats would be appropriate to the class, and give him some of the versatility that spellcasters get.

*Note that Barbarians were given a set of new abilities based around his Rage (class defining feature), giving him a bit more versatility.
As far as I can see, between skills, points, and spells, pretty much every core class except the Fighter has some kind of ability that gives them versatility.

A wizard can decide to switch from combat spells to utility spells.. or fire based spells to cold based spells.. or blasting spells to summoning or lockdown spells.

All with a night's rest.

They don't even need that. You can leave spell slots open when you prepare spells in the morning and fill them in later in the day. I usually leave at least a few of my lower-level spell slots open every day when I play a spellcaster; that way, if you come across a situation that one of your utility spells can help solve, you can have access to that utility spell, while if you run out of combat spells and still have those slots open you can prep combat spells there. It's like being a poor man's sorcerer, though you do have to spend a minimum of 15 minutes prepping spells.

Yeah, I was thinking worst case scenario for the wizard, he can make a full change from one day to the next.

That's a nice mechanic that could fit well with the Fighter too. Leave a feat slot or two open, so he can swap in the appropriate feat with a few minutes of training once he knows what he'll face.

Yeah, I was thinking worst case scenario for the wizard, he can make a full change from one day to the next.

That's a nice mechanic that could fit well with the Fighter too. Leave a feat slot or two open, so he can swap in the appropriate feat with a few minutes of training once he knows what he'll face.

If all you're worried about is mechanics it is mechanically feasable... as a game rule. But not as a rule for a feat when a feat represents a considerable body of knowledge / talent / training. Given what feats are I'd say it's not reasonable to say a few minutes of training would be sufficient to learn a feat. It's not a spell, in short.

The idea was presented in the Alpha/Beta threads along these lines:

The Fighter is technically training in a whole bunch of feats at once. He's training in reach weapons, ranged weapons, tripping, even exotic weapons.

The "swappable feats" would simply be feats that indicate he's trained that little bit extra to temporarily be "good enough to warrant the feat bonus" in that field.
He'd technically have to train every day to maintain these feats, because otherwise he falls back to "general knowledge" again, not enough to warrant the feat bonus.

It's sort of taking how we explain people "suddenly" getting a feat in something they might not have every really tried doing before in gameplay (such as tripping). We explain it that he's always been training in the downtime in the past with a lot of different feat options, and actually gaining the feats simply means he's finally hit that level of training to get the benefit.

A fighter, who's main schtick is combat feats, could apply that reasoning to make some of his feats swappable.

Perhaps rather than changing which feats the fighter used on an ad hoc basis, you could have some concept of "fighting style".

When in fighting style-A he gets a bunch of resist damage, extra hit point, be-a-tank kind of feats. When in fighting style-B he has the more damage dealing, move around the battlefield kind. That way he effectively gets to choose two builds which may ameliorate the feeling of boredom. (Presumably access to this would cost a feat or two of its own to ensure the purely focussed, specialised tanks or hitters were better than you at "what they do").

That might give you a way to "switch feats" that makes sense - plus also forcing him to trade something away if he wanted to take advantage of a more advantageous set of feats for some given situation. Not perfect, of course - since it would be hard to argue (from anything other than a balance perspective) why he couldnt switch fighting styles from round-to-round.

Perhaps rather than changing which feats the fighter used on an ad hoc basis, you could have some concept of "fighting style".

When in fighting style-A he gets a bunch of resist damage, extra hit point, be-a-tank kind of feats. When in fighting style-B he has the more damage dealing, move around the battlefield kind. That way he effectively gets to choose two builds which may ameliorate the feeling of boredom. (Presumably access to this would cost a feat or two of its own to ensure the purely focussed, specialised tanks or hitters were better than you at "what they do").

That might give you a way to "switch feats" that makes sense - plus also forcing him to trade something away if he wanted to take advantage of a more advantageous set of feats for some given situation. Not perfect, of course - since it would be hard to argue (from anything other than a balance perspective) why he couldnt switch fighting styles from round-to-round.

Heh. You just described a Warblade ;)

The idea was presented in the Alpha/Beta threads along these lines:

The Fighter is technically training in a whole bunch of feats at once. He's training in reach weapons, ranged weapons, tripping, even exotic weapons.

The "swappable feats" would simply be feats that indicate he's trained that little bit extra to temporarily be "good enough to warrant the feat bonus" in that field.
He'd technically have to train every day to maintain these feats, because otherwise he falls back to "general knowledge" again, not enough to warrant the feat bonus.

It's sort of taking how we explain people "suddenly" getting a feat in something they might not have every really tried doing before in gameplay (such as tripping). We explain it that he's always been training in the downtime in the past with a lot of different feat options, and actually gaining the feats simply means he's finally hit that level of training to get the benefit.

A fighter, who's main schtick is combat feats, could apply that reasoning to make some of his feats swappable.

It's your game, but I notice the idea didn't make it out of the Alpha / Beta to the final (unless they're saving it for the upcoming Advanced Players Guide). For me feats are like multi-classing -- I require my players to start showing an interest prior to taking the feat / class / skill / etc. It gives me advance notice on the direction they're taking, allows me to vet material before it makes it into my game and gives a reason why this new ability / class / skill suddenly appears. It harks back to the old AD&D rule requiring training before you could actually level up. Yes, I'm an antique. I still tend to think of 1st edition AD&D as that "newfangled way of doing things" much less 3.5 / 3.p :)

Having said that, retraining a feat occasionally, over time, seems reasonable. I just don't see it happening over night.

I completely disagree. That has everything to do with 'playstyle' and not the class. I have seen many examples of how an 'optimizer' will spend ages getting their character just right, only to enter combat with something as bland as 'I attack'. To me, that is no more acceptable than the DM rolling some dice behind a screen later on in that fight and then just looking up at the player and saying, 'you die'. A little bit of the flavor-burden IS on the players.

The fighter does not need special powers to make it more interesting. It's a fighter. It is the baseline melee class. If lacking wacky widgets makes it boring then play a different class.

It's your game, but I notice the idea didn't make it out of the Alpha / Beta to the final (unless they're saving it for the upcoming Advanced Players Guide). For me feats are like multi-classing -- I require my players to start showing an interest prior to taking the feat / class / skill / etc. It gives me advance notice on the direction they're taking, allows me to vet material before it makes it into my game and gives a reason why this new ability / class / skill suddenly appears. It harks back to the old AD&D rule requiring training before you could actually level up. Yes, I'm an antique. I still tend to think of 1st edition AD&D as that "newfangled way of doing things" much less 3.5 / 3.p :)

Having said that, retraining a feat occasionally, over time, seems reasonable. I just don't see it happening over night.

Ouch. Well, to be fair, a lot of ideas weren't used from the Alpha/Beta threads. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that the developers decided to go a different direction.

And the way 3e rules tend to work, the "general training" and "ret-coning downtime" fits better than adding in additional training requirements.
Like you said yourself, your method is antiquated (i'm not trying to be insulting, it was your verbiage).

*
Note that I don't ret-con everything when I DM. I still tend to give experience only when the party gets a chance to get rest (err, and not "resting while in the dungeon" either). So no leveling mid-dungeon in my games.

But suddenly picking up a feat or class/prestige class, I do allow. A lot of my own gametime is spent "in the moment". I'm enjoying the adventure or encounters, roleplaying or figuring out the puzzle, etc. I really only spend my game time deciding how I want to level after I level.
Sure I try to have a gameplan, but sometimes circumstances change, and in-game factors can influence my decisions.
Just because I as a player didn't spend all my time thinking about what to do when I level, doesn't mean my character wasn't thinking ahead and training for something.

I completely disagree. That has everything to do with 'playstyle' and not the class. I have seen many examples of how an 'optimizer' will spend ages getting their character just right, only to enter combat with something as bland as 'I attack'. To me, that is no more acceptable than the DM rolling some dice behind a screen later on in that fight and then just looking up at the player and saying, 'you die'. A little bit of the flavor-burden IS on the players.

The fighter does not need special powers to make it more interesting. It's a fighter. It is the baseline melee class. If lacking wacky widgets makes it boring then play a different class.

This is where I think some of us arguing about the value of the Fighter deviate from the Original Post.

I agree with what you say. However, Sothmektri, how do you feel about how versatile the Fighter class is (as opposed to how boring it is)?

It's a fighter. It is the baseline melee class. If lacking wacky widgets makes it boring then play a different class.

Ooo, ooo, can I play this game too?

It's a rogue. It is the baseline skill class. If lacking wacky widgets makes it boring then play a different class. ... Oh, wait, it doesn't lack "wacky widgets".

OK, let me try again!

It's a wizard. It is the baseline arcane class. If lacking wacky widgets makes it boring then play a different class ... damnit, they don't lack "wacky widgets" either!

OK, OK, one last try!

It's a cleric. It is the baseline divine class. If lacking wacky widgets makes it boring then play a different class ... shucks, nope, clerics have "wacky widgets" too.

Oh well, I guess I (and the fighter) lose.

/sarcasm

To be direct, why should the fighter be the only class in the entire game that lacks "wacky widgets" aka interesting class abilities?

Ouch. Well, to be fair, a lot of ideas weren't used from the Alpha/Beta threads. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that the developers decided to go a different direction.

No pain intended :) Agreed. The idea doesn't suit me doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

And the way 3e rules tend to work, the "general training" and "ret-coning downtime" fits better than adding in additional training requirements.

Like you said yourself, your method is antiquated (i'm not trying to be insulting, it was your verbiage).

Note that I don't ret-con everything when I DM. I still tend to give experience only when the party gets a chance to get rest (err, and not "resting while in the dungeon" either). So no leveling mid-dungeon in my games.

Each game differs. My PCs like to rp their downtime. It's been a source of numerous adventures and ideas as well. It's amazing where a simple bar fight can take you. My PCs have to wait until they are out to level up as well.

But suddenly picking up a feat or class/prestige class, I do allow. A lot of my own gametime is spent "in the moment". I'm enjoying the adventure or encounters, roleplaying or figuring out the puzzle, etc. I really only spend my game time deciding how I want to level after I level.

Sure I try to have a gameplan, but sometimes circumstances change, and in-game factors can influence my decisions.
Just because I as a player didn't spend all my time thinking about what to do when I level, doesn't mean my character...

Entirely true. As a DM I see the downtime as an opportunity for side adventures, individual player or group, as well as a chance to set up future events / posibilities. Some of my players most memorable adventures have come as a result.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Not roleplaying the training for the future character bonuses doesn't mean we don't roleplay downtime. It's usually spent talking about other things (tactics for the current adventure, buying/crafting new equipment, etc).

To put it simply.. I wouldn't require a Fighter player to waste actions trying to trip before he got the Improved Trip feat (esp back in 3e, when it provoked an AoO), just to show he was attempting to learn it.

.

Something else. Unearthed Arcana gave a nice rule for ret-coning magic item crafting with Craft Points. It uses the same exact reasoning as I was mentioning, that it's assumed the character was working on this stuff during the downtime, and the craft points are spent to denote the "finalization" of the crafting.
This was given specifically as a rule for alleviating excessive downtime that could get in the way of timelines for some games.

While Unearthed Arcana isn't core rules, and rather a suggestion for new rules ideas, it is still an Official rule from the creators of 3e.

Ooo, ooo, can I play this game too?

'Too'? You can play it yourself, I guess. Miss a naptime or something? Seriously. Anyway:

To be direct, why should the fighter be the only class in the entire game that lacks "wacky widgets" aka interesting class abilities?

and

I agree with what you say. However, Sothmektri, how do you feel about how versatile the Fighter class is (as opposed to how boring it is)?

A feat at every level. Quantifying 'boring' isn't exactly 1+1=2, but imo there is a broad range of variation in that class provided by that one feature and what you can do with it. If you can make anything from Zorro to Lancelot to Kull, imo, it isn't boring or lacking in versatility.

edit: I wil concede one thing about it that I view as a flaw, and that's saving up bonus abilities for 19th and 20th level, for any class. Considering how few games overall go that far you might as well not even have them. Better yet add something more useful lower down the advancement chain, and de-power whatever happens at 20th.

It's sort of taking how we explain people "suddenly" getting a feat in something they might not have every really tried doing before in gameplay (such as tripping). We explain it that he's always been training in the downtime in the past with a lot of different feat options, and actually gaining the feats simply means he's finally hit that level of training to get the benefit.

You could also explain it as 'observing in the uptime', as opposed to training in the downtime. A lot of the combat feats, to me, are less of a 'discipline' than something one might have seen done, or had done to them, or thought about doing and then tried one day.

Played one at 8th level in a one shot viking theamed game set in Linnoram, and it was the bomb!! I had a blast!! I DM alot, so playing is luxury. I tried out lots of new feats and really enjoyed them. From a DM perspective my only comment is Vital Strike. Having used it only in this campaign I would say it is a no-brainer feat to take, and maybe should be limited to fighter only or +8 insteand of +6 BAB IMHO.

Played one at 8th level in a one shot viking theamed game set in Linnoram

Here's hoping we see an AP in that setting sometime.

I was just discussing the skills thing with a friend after a 3.5 game Saturday. We are playing a core only 25 pt buy 3.5 game so stat points are very limited, monsters have max HP. He had said that the fighter can get more options via skills. I responded with yes, but only if they want to dump STR, DEX, or CON to get them. It seems to me if the fighter is the "soldier" they should get bonuses to certain skills for being who they are, survival, perception, swim, climb, "use rope.. I know it doesing exist in pathfinder", etc. I really don't like how the skill point system works. It seems like wizards should get a bonus to concentration because they do it all the time, not because they chose to put points there instead of in craft alchemy. Maybe that's something for version 3.9

I kind of have to agree with the OP here...

A good roleplayer can have fun with the fighter class, but at its core the fighter is a boring class...

I was disapointed by the low skill points per level, they should have gave them 4+Int... it just feels like the fighter was ment to be the big dumb guy with the sword.

I had some hopes that the PRG would expland the fighter a bit, maybe giving them some cool manuvers that only they can master (other then get feat X and Y). Arcana Evolved did this very well... I wish PF would have followed suit.

@Grasshopper

Which is why in my home games, fighters have 4+int skill points per level insted of 2.... ask your GM, it didint unbalance my game at all.

I think that is a decent fix in pathfinder games where it's not 2 points for cross-class skills. It doesn't help the half-orc bruiser too much, but it may help the human combat expertise fighter quite a bit, which makes a lot of sense. I would do the same thing for clerics, sorcerers, and paladins. Wizards seem ok due to already high intelligence.

@Grasshopper

Which is why in my home games, fighters have 4+int skill points per level insted of 2.... ask your GM, it didint unbalance my game at all.

Quote:

Fighters are balanced, but are they... boring?

It's all in how you play them.

I agree. Because most feats are essentially at-will Extraordinary abilities a good selection of feats can create a character who is consistently entertaining all day.

Dunno about you guys but I love playing my Human Fighter/Rogue. First and foremost I'm a fighter, so 9/10 times I'm charging in with a blood chilling cry on my lips and swords spinning. I'm a bit more subtle when the fights draw out. Really, it's all about the flavor man. I describe pretty much everything I do in combat. I never just say "I hit". That's duller than...dull. I visualize and help to tell the story, and make my fighter more than just a dude in armor swinging sticks, but a heroic larger than life figure. THAT'S fun.

Which is why in my home games, fighters have 4+int skill points per level insted of 2.... ask your GM, it didint unbalance my game at all.

Yeah, just houseruled that in right now. Good idea.

WOW!
Didn't realise the can of worms I was opening when I started this.

We've been playing PF pretty solidly since finally making the switch from 3.5. There seems to be some confusion here.
Again- I stated that in both 3.5 and in PF (so far) we have found the fighter to be balanced.

Moslty this means when well built they are VERY survivable and VERY good at what they do- Fight.

The- 'boring', statement was probably over the top and is hard to quantify. I was mainly drawing parallels between a easy to understand, yet very customisable class (fighter) to other classes which have unique class feature to help achieve thier role.

The best comparison I feel is TOB. Now when this came out most people said OMG overpowered and while as a GM I allowed it, I did feel it was slighlty better than it should have been. TOB,PHB2 were probably the worst offenders for higher powered base classes, brought out as a splat book.

That, I feel, is no longer an issue. In our games I allow ALL 3.5 splats and feats that have not been specifically updated. Any new PF material replaces the old.

Now. As such, TOB is allowed and in my mind requires no 'conversion', rather is was overpowered and now PF have upped the base classes and they stack up well.

We Run a fighter, warblade and crusader as part of our gaming group.
We are finding they stack up pretty evenly. The Warblade (greatsword damage dealer build) out damages the fighter (just) and the crusader (gusarme reach tripper build) is better at lockdown (just) but the fighter fills both roles simultaneously (Flail and Shield- TWF, shieldbash, shieldslam, Imp Trip, Bullrush trees with vital strike trees.)

A fighter handles his role mechanically as well as any PF or 3.5 class we've had in our sessions. The comment 'boring' was mostly highlighting the (maybe this is too strong a word) 'blandness' of the class. Probably due to a percieved lack of fluff abiities (it doesn't really need more crunch)

That was all I meant.
As a former soldier- I can tell you armies (while not strictly the way all PF fighters would gain their skills) do specialize thier troops- you start off as a grunt then gain a specialty be it sniping, signals, recon or heavy weapons.

Fighters could have maybe had to pick a Training background (similar to taking a school specialisation), This could add certain fluff/cruch bonuses.

EG Scout- after basic you were selected for a scout platoon or perhaps had a ranger as one of your instructers.

At level 1 you gain a 10ft bonus to your speed as long as you wear light or medium armour. Stealth is a class skill for you.

Dervish- your emphasised mobility and flurrying strikes over strength.

At level 1 you treat Scimitars as a light weapon and add 1d6 damage bonus to any attack you make after moving at least 10ft. This bonus increases to 2d6 at level 10.

Keen Sniper. - you have an eyefor spotting hidden targets and seeing through camoflage.

At level 1 you subtract 10% form any targets miss chance due to concealment. At level 10 this ability lets you subtract 20%. You recieve a bonus to perception checks to pinpoint invisible targets equal to 1/2 you fighter level.

Just a couple of ideas.

Fighters could have maybe had to pick a Training background (similar to taking a school specialisation), This could add certain fluff/cruch bonuses.

EG Scout- after basic you were selected for a scout platoon or perhaps had a ranger as one of your instructers.

Dervish- your emphasised mobility and flurrying strikes over strength.

Keen Sniper. - you have an eyefor spotting hidden targets and seeing through camoflage.

Just a couple of ideas.

I think that those would be better as feats rather than a "school" specialisation. This would allow someone who wanted to, to select more of them, showcasing their multi-disciplinary abilities/learning.

Fighters could have maybe had to pick a Training background (similar to taking a school specialisation), This could add certain fluff/cruch bonuses.

Given that fighters are balanced, adding in additional abilities could potentially unbalance them. The scout you suggest sounds like a no-brainer choice since extra movement is so powerful :)

I think perhaps for the less accomplished roleplayers, an article on how to create fluff that matches feat selection, and visa versa would be more relevent.

Fighters start play with two to three feats, your Weapon Focus (Great Sword), Power Attack, and Step Up feats could equate to:

"Bob the human was part of an elite squad in the WhoKnowsWhere army, that would break away from the main formation to flank enemy units, and crush them. They specialized in great weapons to kill quickly, and such was their ferocity that once they'd got into range, few could escape."

There are the optional traits in Pathfinder (check your downloads if you've not seen them yet) which can increase the class skill list. You can create new traits for different backgrounds based on those. Since all characters would be able to get traits, there would be less potential for the fighter to become unbalanced in comparison.

Nunspa wrote:

Which is why in my home games, fighters have 4+int skill points per level insted of 2.... ask your GM, it didint unbalance my game at all.

Yeah, just houseruled that in right now. Good idea.

You are very welcome :)

*SNIP*

A fighter handles his role mechanically as well as any PF or 3.5 class we've had in our sessions. The comment 'boring' was mostly highlighting the (maybe this is too strong a word) 'blandness' of the class. Probably due to a percieved lack of fluff abiities (it doesn't really need more crunch)

*SNIP*

The thing about a fighter, is that how they come across in game is all how you describe them. They do not really need "fluff" abilities added to the class, as any ability you might add can mostly be replicated by a feat anyway. At 5th level a fighter gains a level of "specialization" in his weapon training. What you choose tends to shape how he fights. Instead of saying you are a "fighter", try describing them by the type of fighting style they employ.

For example...

I have a 4th human archer that I just created for a game. He is a master bowyer has dabbled in enough alchemy to make durable arrows that he can use over and over. His training allows him to wear a breastplate without it hindering his movement. He is focused and specialized in the use of a Composite Short Bow and skilled at firing at point blank range with deadly aim. His shots are very precise and his companions have little worry about him hitting them as he fires past them into melee. He has been known to fire fairly rapidly at a rate of one arrow every three seconds. All told he is a skilled craftsman and deadly archer.

Mechanically...

I lucked out and got two 16's and modified one to an 18 for his dex with a 16 in str.

He picked up Weapon Focus (Short Bow), Weapons Specialization (Short Bow), Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, and Precise Shot.

I maxed his ranks in Craft (Alchemy) and Craft (Bows). Which allow him to make Durable Arrows from the Elves of Golarion supplement as well make masterwork bows and arrows.

When within 30 ft. of his target he can use Rapid Shot to fire off two arrows at +7 for (1d6 +10) each before modifying for any magic on his arrows.

If I wanted to, I could work with my DM to develop even more "fluff" by giving the feats new names... or selecting specific NPC instructors that I learned from.

Indeed; one can always rename a feat or skill, so long as it uses the same rules. I seem to recall the example in 3e core being that a monk might call her "move silently" skill "rice paper walk". Nothing changes mechanically, but it adds a little fluff to the character should such be wanting.

Indeed; one can always rename a feat or skill, so long as it uses the same rules. I seem to recall the example in 3e core being that a monk might call her "move silently" skill "rice paper walk". Nothing changes mechanically, but it adds a little fluff to the character should such be wanting.

I remember that. I also remember thinking that "rice paper walk" might have had influence from a certain tv series.

It actually might be fun to choose several feats that work well together, and then name them after a "style" of fighting. Or perhaps even name feat trees as combat or fighting styles.

For example... fighting with Power Attack, Cleave, and a two-handed slashing weapon might be considering using "scything style".

Kaisoku wrote:

Sothmektri, how do you feel about how versatile the Fighter class is? *Snipped*

A feat at every level. Quantifying 'boring' isn't exactly 1+1=2, but imo there is a broad range of variation in that class provided by that one feature and what you can do with it. If you can make anything from Zorro to Lancelot to Kull, imo, it isn't boring or lacking in versatility.

There are two levels of versatility though. I'm not talking about what can be made with the class, but rather what that class can do in-game once you've created him.

To compare to the Wizard...

For the Wizard, between specialization and feat choices, they can be many different types of Arcane caster types. Maybe he's a Necromancer that's focused on boosting his creations, or maybe a Abjurist that focuses on item crafting, etc.

For the Fighter, like you've said, he can be Archer to Zorro.

However, the Wizard can choose a spell selection that changes his capabilities, from combat to utility to travel to protection.

While the Fighter can... well. Here's the problem.

It's the in-game versatility that the Fighter seems to lack. This is what can make playing them "boring"... "I choose to attack again."

While the Fighter can... well. Here's the problem.

It's the in-game versatility that the Fighter seems to lack. This is what can make playing them "boring"... "I choose to attack again."

"I choose to - attack, bull rush, overrun, charge, get in the way, follow, ready an action, use a (net, caltrop, acid flask, alchemist fire, etc..), trip, disarm, sunder, feint, grapple, etc."

Granted, a barbarian can also do that, but with proper feats, the fighter can realy shine in combat using a lot of combat maneuvers You can easily take quick draw, step up, stand still, catch-off-guard, movement feats and other non-dammage non proficiency feats without having to sacrifice combat-style.

The "just attack" routine, as I see it, is not a class problem, it's a player style problem...

I see what you mean there, but that depends entirely on the player. Each individual fighter has a different preferred method of fighting, from standing their and pulverising a foe with full attack through moving along the battlefield using spring attack all the way to sitting on the back of a horse and doing quadruple lance damage on a charge. Ideally, any given fighter build should be able to work well in two types of combat (in my case, I went for mounted combat and scimitar/shield and will use ride by attack rather than spirited charge) but should also be able to adapt to other situations (I'll probably give him improved unarmed, improved grapple, combat expertise, improved disarm and a few archery feats).

If a fighter is only using full attack, then of course things are going to get boring. The reason fighters get so many feats is so that they can use the various combat manoeuvres.

Sothmektri wrote:

Kaisoku wrote:

Sothmektri, how do you feel about how versatile the Fighter class is? *Snipped*

A feat at every level. Quantifying 'boring' isn't exactly 1+1=2, but imo there is a broad range of variation in that class provided by that one feature and what you can do with it. If you can make anything from Zorro to Lancelot to Kull, imo, it isn't boring or lacking in versatility.

There are two levels of versatility though. I'm not talking about what can be made with the class, but rather what that class can do in-game once you've created him.

To compare to the Wizard...

For the Wizard, between specialization and feat choices, they can be many different types of Arcane caster types. Maybe he's a Necromancer that's focused on boosting his creations, or maybe a Abjurist that focuses on item crafting, etc.

For the Fighter, like you've said, he can be Archer to Zorro.

However, the Wizard can choose a spell selection that changes his capabilities, from combat to utility to travel to protection.

While the Fighter can... well. Here's the problem.

It's the in-game versatility that the Fighter seems to lack. This is what can make playing them "boring"... "I choose to attack again."

Options outside combat also include what crafts or or skills you have.

I set my fighter up as a Bowyer with skill in alchemy. I can make just about alchemical items. That in itself gives me lots of "variety". I also gave my Archer knowledge in engineering. Outside of combat this makes him an architect... who can look at a building and say... if you destroy this and this the building will fall.

"I choose to - attack, bull rush, overrun, charge, get in the way, follow, ready an action, use a (net, caltrop, acid flask, alchemist fire, etc..), trip, disarm, sunder, feint, grapple, etc."

Granted, a barbarian can also do that, but with proper feats, the fighter can realy shine in combat using a lot of combat maneuvers You can easily take quick draw, step up, stand still, catch-off-guard, movement feats and other non-dammage non proficiency feats without having to sacrifice combat-style.

The "just attack" routine, as I see it, is not a class problem, it's a player style problem...

Ah, but we aren't talking about what can just anyone do in combat, we are talking about the versatility of the class features.

The simple fact is that the Fighter gets to choose his class feature once, whereas most others get either a larger spread of options, or rechoosable every day.

Having rechoosable feats would go a long way to help the fighter remain versatile.

You get to replace a bonus feat every four levels, and there are some rather useful fighter only feats. That said, fighters don't have much that other classes don't have access to. They're just able to take advantage of more of it.

I'm getting what Kaisoku's saying, but I've been running through a few fighter builds in my head and on paper, and from my perspective, the "added versatility" just doesn't seem necessary to me. If I want a fighter that's really really really really good at hitting things with his favorite weapon, I can accomplish that (starting at really low levels), and if I want a fighter who can hit hard in melee and do some combo maneuvers and contribute well to ranged attacking AND fix the kitchen sink, I can do that too. And again, at surprisingly low levels.

And at high levels... wow. I did a 20th level build, got honestly a little bit silly and thought, "Okay, let's try to do something Xena-esque. Human fighter, has to be very good with a bastard sword, but also be good at thrown weapons, unarmed combat, and should also be able to beat someone up with a fish if she really feels like it. She should be able to do some cool maneuvers, fight on a horse, be hard to escape, catch arrows, have a terrifying war cry, AND be good at embroidery (she has many skills)." Aaaand.... I did it. There were even non class skills I could max out (Acrobatics) in addition to the fighter skills she should have, and I "wasted" two feats on "flavor" feats like "Athletic" and "Self-Sufficient." It, exactly as I did it, was not what I'd call an "optimized" build (but with optimized tweaking it really would probably do most of that and hurt even more). But at the same time, she could do it all, and didn't suffer with her favorite form of attack (broadsword), especially with weapon training/mastery (wooo, bypass DR with an ordinary weapon? Awesome). She could have retrained some of her feats if she'd wanted to at some point, and had DR while wearing her skimpy leather cuirass (and if she'd wanted, trade that cuirass for full plate and still move 30' with relatively little loss of grace).

Now yeah, it took 20 levels to accomplish that, but that... seems fair for 20 levels. The point is, in case it got lost, is you can make a fighter good at a little bit of everything, adaptable and flexible, as they stand. If you can't, I'd say the problem would be in the particular build than the class itself. But then, I'm overall feeling more confident in the class after seeing that I can build Xena in 20 fighter levels. Xena kills gods.

(Aside: I think an actual, more accurate Xena would be a level Fighter 20/Monk 10, but that's beside the point, and Pathfinder doesn't have any official epic guidelines yet).

Fighters ARE versatile. Very much so. I think seeing them more and more in play and in different builds will prove that. And making them ever-changable I think could actually be detrimental to their lack of flavor... if a fighter is just whatever he wants to be any minute, it's that much harder to put a face on that. Furthermore, the ability to rapid retrain just seems... I don't know, too magical, which isn't what (IMO of course) the fighter is all about.

On a different matter, on the subject of semantics, I have to wonder if some would see Fighters as more "interesting" if all the Fighter-only feats in the feats section were moved to the Fighter class description and labeled "Fighter Talents." After all, most of the Rogue Talents are really "Rogue-Only Feats"--they're just in the Rogue section so they look "more special" there. Not that I think the book should really be redesigned, but I wonder if the fighter abilities end up looking diluted because they're in two different places. Dunno, just a thought.

Ah, but we aren't talking about what can just anyone do in combat, we are talking about the versatility of the class features.

The simple fact is that the Fighter gets to choose his class feature once, whereas most others get either a larger spread of options, or rechoosable every day.

Having rechoosable feats would go a long way to help the fighter remain versatile.

I agree with the rechoosable feats. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but letting the fighter have Weapon Aptitude class feature of the Warblade would be ideal. Hell, I think the fighter should be the only one to have that.

Fighters are a stone groove.

Ive run a game where 3 Players were all playing Fighters, each with a different "feel". One was a mounted combat specialist, one was an archer, and one was a front-line fighter who could both hold the line and dish it out.

We all had a fantastic time!

Im currently playing a Half Elven Fighter 4/Rogue 1 who acts as a "commando", sneaking around in Field Plate! Its fantastic :D

Ive always loved Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins. Pathfinder has made them all even better!

*snipped* The point is, in case it got lost, is you can make a fighter good at a little bit of everything, adaptable and flexible, as they stand.

I'd just like to reiterate that I have no problem with the Fighter's versatility in build options, or being able to build a fighter that can be "decent" at many different fields.

My point was that it seems like most other classes have at least one class feature that allows them to choose a different option after a very short period of time (a day's rest for example) to adapt to a new situation.

The problem I've seen is that a Fighter that strives to be "decent" at everything, isn't using 75% of his class feature at any given moment, whereas a spellcaster can spend a day (or less, depending) to alter and then use near 100% of his class feature.

Considering things tend to be balanced with a Fighter focusing on at least one style of combat, being at only 25-50% of your "potential" in any given situation makes for a somewhat underpowered class feature.

I'd almost say it's like the Sorcerer vs Wizard argument when it comes to spells, only the Fighter doesn't even have the option to modify or supplant things with stuff like metamagic or scrolls.

I must disagree that fighters are boring. If you are always doing the same thing in combat, why?

I built a 3.0 fighter that was a master of the two-bladed sword AND his mighty composite longbow. I was not better than the ranger at archery, or better at dealing damage than the souped-up monk, but I never, ever, had to wait to do something. And that was then?

What can a fighter do? What anyone else can't! What Rangers can TWF and fire bows with the efficiency of the Fighter? What Barb has every CM feat in the book and STILL can do more damage with his chosen weapon? Can the Pally ever hope to match the Fighter AC without smite?

If you diversify, you will find yourself disarming BBEG's, Great Cleaving mobs of mooks, firing the hvy crossbow with VS and Penetrating Shot, all while having a better AC and doing more damage on average than anyone else trying to do the same.

The more and more I read this thread the more I start to realize that the magic system may be the issue.

I always hated the "cast and forget" D&D style magic system; I have been playing with adopting a skill based magic system, something like the Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

But onto the fighter...

I have been playing around with building a new fighter class; we are talking a total redesign here.

How do you feel about a fighter class with "maneuvers", almost spell like powers but melee based. Something like 4e powers, But not as sucky..

This fighter class would gain feats (not as many) and a number or maneuvers per level. Now, I don’t know if the class will allow swapping of maneuvers (which just seems strange to me, why would you forget how to "Lighting Disarm"?) Of course some of the higher level maneuvers can be magical in nature (maybe calling them Rituals?), thus allowing for swapping in with concentration. But I don’t know yet...

Now such a fighter would feel and play more like Cloud from FF fame then the classic fighter type

Here I go again… Designing off the top of my head

I really dislike blurring the line between fighters and casters. Yes, casters are flashy, but unless you are all clerics or druids, SOMEONE has to do the fighting. And fighters have a host of combat maneuvers that they do better than anyone else, potentially.

If the argument is caster vs fighter, I find casters (even 20th level ones) more vulnerable to unanticipated situations than non-casters, and there is no reason to add that liability to the non-casters.

If the argument is fighters vs other combat classes, see my previous post.

The more and more I read this thread the more I start to realize that the magic system may be the issue.

I always hated the "cast and forget" D&D style magic system; I have been playing with adopting a skill based magic system, something like the Warhammer Fantasy RPG.

I have such a system:

I know this is a tangent, however the main discussion seems to have died down, so...

That skilled magic system sounds interesting. I have one question through:

Is it balanced between Wizards and Sorcerers that the Wizard will basically get between 3-4 chances at failing on a particular spell level before he's unable to cast at that level, while the Sorcerer gets only one chance of failure and then that spell level is kaput?
Is this to balance the ability they have to cast any spell they know? Because I thought that was part of the spell list balance (Wizards can know more spells overall, but have to memorize, vs knowing a fixed amount but cast without memorization).

It feels like there should be some difference to compensate for the fail once factor (like maybe DC increase by +1 per cast instead of +2 for sorcerers).

I'm thinking of a Wizard that leaves a slot open so he can memorize a spell he finds out he'll need later (with 15 minutes prep). He could have failed a couple times at that spell level, but still be able to cast that variable spell as long as he had the prep time.

Have you had a chance to see the differences between Sorcerers and Wizards in play with this skilled magic system?

I think the fighter rocks! But then again I love feats and the fighter gets a feat every level! That is just tooo swweeettt! The armor & weapon training is a nice touch. I just wish they would make an unarmored fighter feat tree so that you wouldn't hae to be so magic item dependent.

What does not seem to have been mentioned here:

The fighter is much, much better at their schtick than anybody else is at theirs.

A two-weapon fighting shield-user has an AC that borders on ridiculous while getting the highest DPR of any class.

If you want a class that does -damage-, to -everything-, -all the time-, and is as unkillable via physical attacks as is humanly possible in this game, you want to take a fighter.

Fighters are a class created for players who want to brawl, swing swords, hit things, and end up climbing over the mounting corpses of their enemies. Pathfinder does a good job of making sure that they do this way better than anybody else (something not true in 3.5).

If you want to solve problems/do combats in strange and different ways, you should be playing a caster. That's what they do in 3.x. Asking for fighters to have a caster's versatility instead of just being combat monsters was more of a change than PF was willing to take on.