Fighter Class Preview

Most the time the martial caster disparity issues people have is not about combat or encounters. Fighters do well in combat, with huge damage.

It is about narrative. A high level wizard can create demiplanes, bind angels, speak to Gods and teleport across the world. The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

we are trying to control where the fighting takes place but hey welcome to dimension door, or teleport at will, or even simply flight. If we spread out the casters get hit, if we bunch up, the casters get hit, if the monster is stupid enough to NOT hit the casters, the casters kill/debuff it, the monsters move enough to avoid full attacks, and rain pain. (Unless they are being played as dumb as rocks, which is ofc what some monsters ARE, but hey) summoned monsters flat out ARE more powerful than even a well built fighter, especially as they can be commanded to dump all the 1/day abilities they have etc into the targets (Hell PLAYING an Erinyes or Azata might be a fun game, especially if a way to scale them up for exp could be developed..hmm interesting little project that idea), and come with the ability to actually move well enough to maintain contact, or the range and versatility to not need to, it's not 'we stand in line' it's 'bunching up is the only way that melee guys gets to do more than double move after a monster that has way better mobility options'. Ranged fighters I admit are in a slightly better place, but then Gunslingers say hi, as do Rangers for being kings of that role (and blaster sorcs giggle while watching things burn/corrode/twitch in strange coloured lightning..but they are twitchy and disturbing)

Most the time the martial caster disparity issues people have is not about combat or encounters. Fighters do well in combat, with huge damage.

It is about narrative. A high level wizard can create demiplanes, bind angels, speak to Gods and teleport across the world. The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

See that I see where you coming from. I think its games the de-emphasize role-playing options and only hard rules options that mostly suffer from that issue, but I can at least see where your coming from.

I have already openly said on several forums that I feel the best fix to that is a more robust skill system... which seems like the direction they went in. I couldn't be happier!

Most the time the martial caster disparity issues people have is not about combat or encounters. Fighters do well in combat, with huge damage.

It is about narrative. A high level wizard can create demiplanes, bind angels, speak to Gods and teleport across the world. The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

Well apparently now at level 14(FOURTEEN) they can use a shield to block an AoE attack, or, not block, but give you a small bonus to saves.

I know that some players need a simple class because they don't want to think when they play, but I'd'd be really happy with a 5e Battle Master suite of maneuvers as their class mechanic.

(Hell PLAYING an Erinyes or Azata might be a fun game, especially if a way to scale them up for exp could be developed..hmm interesting little project that idea) It was done in 3.5 savage species and I believe rite publishing has a pathfinderized version. in the company of angels (or monster type here)

their is a hundred threads out their you can catch that will tell you martial classes are better then summoned monsters (DPR ALONE).

The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

so role playing is not an option, I see. I'd argue that a good Leadership score might give you an army to lead, that the Kingdom building rules will help you forge empires and that you might become a legend if you actually do something legendary so, the options are there if you are looking for them

(Hell PLAYING an Erinyes or Azata might be a fun game, especially if a way to scale them up for exp could be developed..hmm interesting little project that idea) It was done in 3.5 savage species and I believe rite publishing has a pathfinderized version. in the company of angels (or monster type here)

their is a hundred threads out their you can catch that will tell you martial classes are better then summoned monsters (DPR ALONE).

have seen them, they seem to centre on the target being silly enough to stay still and eat full attacks, which if you can engineer it is the closest PF has to a checkmate. But again: Look at the utility and always on abilities summons also come packed with, then the debate gets far less clear. If monster A can teleport to the BBEG, or Orders Wrath him at will, or chain lightning him, or heal the party or all of the above, while also being a half decent beat stick, that's an issue.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

so role playing is not an option, I see. I'd argue that a good Leadership score might give you an army to lead, that the Kingdom building rules will help you forge empires and that you might become a legend if you actually do something legendary so, the options are there if you are looking for them

I think you're trying to start the wrong fight. I agree with you, but the counter-argument is simple. Those require roleplaying, the comparison for a wizard is hard-coded in the rules.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

so role playing is not an option, I see. I'd argue that a good Leadership score might give you an army to lead, that the Kingdom building rules will help you forge empires and that you might become a legend if you actually do something legendary so, the options are there if you are looking for them

But it doesn't do anything. Those armies are not all that useful and a kingdom would give you posterity at best, furthermore these things are not even fighter exclusive options. A caster would generally make for a better King than a fighter.

Martials can be carefully built to be adequate at higher levels (more useful than binding an outsider to pay them in a share of the treasure), but it is very difficult.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but take the RP out of the RPG and all you have left is a G and that's the point where I start thinking about playing Monopoly instead

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, team play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

Our GM has even house-ruled improvements to metamagic, partially because the fighters dominate so with our playstyle, partially to extend the 15 min adventuring day, which we all abhoras a concept.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but take the RP out of the RPG and all you have left is a G and that's the point where I start thinking about playing Monopoly instead

Yes, but the problem is that the G gives a lot more RP to some people than others.

A fighter could go on a lengthy legendary quest for an ancient artifact and create his own demiplane Utopia, the wizard could sleep on it and do the same.

Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

I know you don't want to "lose," but do you know how dispel works? Because it is contrary to what you just said.

This is without talking about said enemy and caster being dead before they can dispel 1 buff, which will not even delay their death by 1 round.

Edit:and also there is a vast difference betwixt viable and optimal, shame on you for your manipulative wording.

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

Greater* Dispel. Generic dispel strips a whole one buff off the stack of one person whereupon the monster is more than likely vaporized immediately after. At least with Greater they stand a chance of moderately inconveniencing one target before getting smeared.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

so role playing is not an option, I see. I'd argue that a good Leadership score might give you an army to lead, that the Kingdom building rules will help you forge empires and that you might become a legend if you actually do something legendary so, the options are there if you are looking for them

That isn't a fighter only thing, and a caster will be better at it, (Admittedly skills may address some of this), but more importantly at least as things stand, casters can afford to take more feats away to use on RP abilities. We only have the crunch side of things currently, and frankly, if that side is not functional, (as it appears not to be currently, or rather to have the same issues as PF1) then while RP is still fun, their are games that do that side better.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

I know you don't want to "lose," but do you know how...

I stand by 'viable'. But yes I did mean greater, sorry mindfart their.

I'm reminded of an old book I read as a kid.

The wizard had just literally saved everyone's lives with his magic, but the danger was still forthcoming. They needed to set up defenses and hold out for the night against the coming threat. He stood up, tall and proud in front of the crowd, and gave a riling speech about working together, surviving the night, and overcoming against all odds. And not a soul was stirred.

The man next to him, his friend in full armor, stood up and said the exact same speech, at which point the crowd cheered and everyone got to work.

"You just said the same thing I did. Why did they cheer for you but barely even yawn for me?"

"Because, my friend, you are not a Knight."

People simply trust those with martial prowess more than they do those with smarts. This is true. It's why firefighters are generally regarded as heroes and well loved, but the same isn't true for the chemist who designed the flame retardant chemicals used to stop the fire, or the engineer who designed the building fire suppression system which hampered the spread of the fire allowing more people to escape, or the architect who built in a comprehensive escape system and fire reduction pathways, or the bureaucrat who wrote requirements for all of those into the law.

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

We have since years ago (most players in the campaign have played RPGs since the mid- or late 1980s) realized that is simply the optimal use of these resources, and it makes the game more fun for everyone else. Relying on each other is what makes it a group effort. In 4E nobody really needed anybody else, and that was part of what made that edition a dreadful bore (yes, we tried it for a full lvl 1-26 campaign.)

If there is a competition in our current campaign, then it is about who can buff the fighters the most, and my Oracle is definitely losing that one to the Mystic Theurge... : ) :)

Greater Dispel at will? Never met those, but we’ve been surprised without our buffs on multiple occasions, and then we’ve brought up the most essential ones ASAP. Enemy casters? Loads of those.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Mats Öhrman wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

so, just to understand that, you're saying your group is not trying to control where the fighting tankes place and keep the monsters away from the squishys but stand in line and wait for the monsters to come to them, because the monsters mobilty is to high? they are not blocking the way, they are not slowing the monster down, they just enter the room and wait? (and then also not get buffed but have to watch how those resources go to a summoned monster that's way beyond their power level)

look, I'm not telling you how to run your encounters, because you do your thing and all power to you, but...this looks really like a problem with the party's tactics than with the mechanics of the game

Heh, *our* fighters usually go into battle buffed by Heroism, Tears to Wine, Blessing of Fervor (+30 move or extra attack), Ward of the Season (+30 move *more*), Air Walk, Bear’s Endurance, Owl’s Wisdom, 2xMagic Vestment (armor and shield), some kind of crit enhancer (varies), some kind of extra energy damage on weapon (varies), Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Stoneskin (I’ve probably forgotten a bunch of buffs). They only have to ask (Telepathic Bond) to be propelled to any place where they desire to be through a friendly Telekinetic Charge and Dimension Door. As you say, *team* play.

Our monsters go for the fighters, because they *are* the biggest threat, and the fighters are in their face almost immediately.

And the fighter players have picked archetypes that trade in stuff for more skill points and various bonuses for high Int, so they do very well in the out-of-combat skill-monkey game our group spend a lot of time on.

PF1, in this campaign currently at lvl14.

and the first monster with Dispel at will, or hostile caster or..breaks that right off them. Building characters that rely on other characters using up vast resources to be viable? No thanks.

We have since years ago (most players in the...

I would argue about 'optimal use of resources' but more power to you, this isn't about 'can the game be fun' I'd say it can be, right up until spare wheel time kicks in (and if people haven't played straight martials, beyond that, as Inquisitors, Magus Warpriests etc are viable all the way), it's 'is the way the game is being played having to change to cover the deficiencies inherent in the design of some classes' to which the answer has to be yes, the fighter is the example before us, but it is true of the rogue as well. Paladins not so much, but it is still their.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The fighter do not have the option to, say, lead armies, forge empires, or become a legend.

so role playing is not an option, I see. I'd argue that a good Leadership score might give you an army to lead, that the Kingdom building rules will help you forge empires and that you might become a legend if you actually do something legendary so, the options are there if you are looking for them

That has nothing to do with being a fighter. It can be done by a rogue, magus, wizard or cleric just as fine. By comparison, a Wizard can gain immortality as a class feature.

The fighter class itself has lacked this kind of narrative options since 3.0. In ADnD 2e at least they got a castle and followers and a title.

My experience with 1e is that intelligent monsters at higher levels normally go after casters if they can get the jump on them. This is because casters are more likely to end the fight in one round than are the fighters. Once the fighters are able to engage, then they can prevent the enemies from continuing to attack the casters.

Obviously this will be different in 2e. I'm not sure how it'll work, but my guess is this: There are no more "save or die" spells. Sure, you can critical fail and then die, but that's not the same. Monsters may still go after casters if they can get the jump on them, but they're no longer the immediate threat they were before. After the first round, the caster will have done some amount of buffing/debuffing, and then the monster will have to decide whether to go after the caster, and stop further debuffing (but still have all the existing debuffs live on), or go after the fighters, who are the ones who are going to kill it more immediately/do more damage. My guess is that if they scaled it right, the fighters will be the heaviest damage dealers and most immediate threats, so the monsters won't *want* to go after the casters.

In other words, I don't think monster tactics will change a whole lot even if the monsters *can* go after the casters. NTM, once the fighters engage, even if they don't have AoOs, the monsters don't necessarily know that, and they may have to waste actions getting to the casters, including things like 5' withdrawing (which is now one whole action).

Sure, the Caster/Martial Disparity is a very real thing. Very real in every RPG I've played since 1974. It will still exist in PF2.0. There is no use anyone claiming it won't.

Nevertheless, PF2.0 will go a long way towards *reducing* the C/MD, by buffing fighters (even with just what we've seen so far, they'll be getting a lot of cool beans) and nerfing spellcasters (through action economy and limited magic).

Personally, I'd really like to see powerful mid and high-level spells take more and more actions, potentially over multiple rounds. That right there would take the C/MD down a few more pegs.

The naysayers who claim that PF2.0 will suck just need to chill. We don't know enough to make that claim, and what we *have* seen so far is very very promising. Like this blog on fighter class preview. Everything in there is potentially very cool indeed - despite several threads claiming it is less than stellar.

I'll admit that I'm a little concerned about some issues like resonance. But I feel confident that once we see the full system at work, many of those fears will be laid to rest. Think positive! Those who love PF1.0 can play it for the next 30 years without running out of new material. And the upcoming playtest, and eventual release of PF2.0 in August 2019 will bring loads of new and exciting gaming opportunities.

It's still early days. I feel very optimistic.

graywulfe wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's a mathematically useful ability, but not one that is obviously powerful without access to more of the system, and maybe not as impressive for a preview as the other feats in the preview. Its contemporary level 14 feat, Determination, is pretty much the last thing in your example: Your fighter training just lets you shrug off a spell or condition entirely.

Iron Heart Surge returns! Take that, Dying! And you too, “subject to gravity”!

UGH SUNLIGHT IS BLINDING ME! GYAAAAAAAAH!!! *explodes sun*

The sun is not a spell or basic condition. One of our big design goals is to precisely define the game terms we use and then use them to mean the same thing each time. It's something that we worked hard to do and something that even now the editors are helping us to improve even further!

Goes to designer/editor chat and looks at the latest batch coming in right now!

Thank you for this. I think a lot of the confusion that came up in 1E came from using terms inconsistently.

I fully agree (I'm looking at you "wielding," but there are certainly others).

As one of my hopes for PF2 and frankly a dealbreaker if it didn't happen... this really warms my heart that a "keyword" system is being created!

My experience with 1e is that intelligent monsters at higher levels normally go after casters if they can get the jump on them. This is because casters are more likely to end the fight in one round than are the fighters. Once the fighters are able to engage, then they can prevent the enemies from continuing to attack the casters.

Obviously this will be different in 2e. I'm not sure how it'll work, but my guess is this: There are no more "save or die" spells. Sure, you can critical fail and then die, but that's not the same. Monsters may still go after casters if they can get the jump on them, but they're no longer the immediate threat they were before. After the first round, the caster will have done some amount of buffing/debuffing, and then the monster will have to decide whether to go after the caster, and stop further debuffing (but still have all the existing debuffs live on), or go after the fighters, who are the ones who are going to kill it more immediately/do more damage. My guess is that if they scaled it right, the fighters will be the heaviest damage dealers and most immediate threats, so the monsters won't *want* to go after the casters.

In other words, I don't think monster tactics will change a whole lot even if the monsters *can* go after the casters. NTM, once the fighters engage, even if they don't have AoOs, the monsters don't necessarily know that, and they may have to waste actions getting to the casters, including things like 5' withdrawing (which is now one whole action).

According to Black Dragon Gamings look at Save or Suck spells, they are still a thing, modified in a way that they seem to think makes them less good, but from what he was saying I am not sure. Resonance sounds like a direct nerf...but need to know more before I get past 'sounds like', as it seems to be Charisma based...we shall see, and it sounds like shields are actions every round.

how is "casters are more powerful than non casters" a fact? everyone is very specialized in what they are doing and what they are doing is simply not the same.

also: how the hell is that a competition? I was under the impression the members of the group were working together not against each others

You do realize that there are caster classes which are very specialized in hitting things right? Its not like the fighter's gimmick of I hit things is unique to the fighter and what the other classes give up in exchange for being "worst" isn't much of a compromise.

Bluenose wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

you are aware this isn't a caster/ martial disparity thread those post have no place here.

It's a thread about the Fighter preview. Saying that the 14th level ability they get isn't impressive is perfectly reasonable. However not having any 14th level caster feats to compare it to does mean it's hard to say whether the Fighter is going to have the amount of usefulness desired by its boosters or its detractors.

Yes but C/MD is a 1st edition PF thing we don't know its a PF2 its being assumed that it is. The arguements being made are useing PF1 which isn't what this thread is for.

The one example of a combat maneuver that I recall from the playtest demos had the attacker rolling a skill check vs. his foe's Reflex DC (which was apparently 10 + Reflex save modifier).

I worry that Fighters won't really have any armor options. Like when you're level X you have to wear armor Y. Will fighters be forced to wear a specific tier of armor to be effective? For example what about a gladiator favoring peicemail though his level should require him to wear full plate? What about fighters from a tropical culture that don't use armor at all?

I’m hoping that instead of saying “A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields).” they will give basic proficiency in some and the resources in class to concentrate on the armor type you want.

Remember that proficiency now comes in different levels. Perhaps by not taking all the armor types to Trained you could instead take Medium Armor and Shield to Master level.

Giving more granularity to proficiency also means you can allow the player to focus their training on a certain style. Cavalier types may go for highest armor while skirmisher types would focus more on the light and medium armors. Rather than needing archetypes to trade things around, you would make the choices as part of the character creation.

So what in the 9 hells happened to this thread...? Such derailing...

Bad new devs:

Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.

I assumed that a zero penalty attack would need a 5 to hit.

I assumed a d12 damage dice with no added damage from STR (I can do this if you think it matters.)

3 straight attacks at a progressive -5 penalty did 20 damage on average per turn.

Your new Power Attack + one normal attack at -5 did 25 damage on average per turn. That's good at least.

Old Power attack (-1 attack, +3 damage) with a progressive -5 on attacks did 27 damage per turn on average. (I assumed the bonus damage would double on a crit.)

If I up the old Power attack penalty and damage(for higher levels), the gap get's HUGE(40+damage per round).

I checked my code repeatedly, and I can't find any errors. I accounted for the +/- 10 critical system and nat 1s and 20s being fails/crits.

If you want me to check specific scenarios, I can do that.

I can also send someone my code (C++) if you want.

Your calculation is incorrect somewhere, I believe. I just did the calculation by raw probabilities and came to the following conclusions.

Assume base 5 to Hit, 15 to Crit.
Assume d12 damage dice.
Assume three actions devoted to attacking.
Assume critical hit doubles dice + static bonuses.

Old PF: -1 Attack, +3 Damage.
New PF: 2 Actions, +1d12.

Old PF Attack List:
-1 Attack: 25% Miss, 50% Hit, 25% Crit = .5*(6.5+3)+.25*(13+6)
-6 Attack: 50% Miss, 45% Hit, 5% Crit = .45*(6.5+3)+.05*(13+6)
-11 Attack:75% Miss, 20% Hit, 5% Crit = .2*(6.5+3)+.05*(13+6)
Net Damage: 17.6

New PF Attack List:
Power Attack: 20% Miss, 50% Hit, 30% Crit = .5*(13)+.3*(26)
-5 Attack: 45% Miss, 45% Hit, 5% Crit = .45*(6.5)+.05*(13)
Net Damage: 17.9

I didn't test to see how it scaled with level, admittedly - though I imagine that is somewhat of an incomplete picture due to not knowing how many static modifiers they intend to have in the entire system.

Your calculation is incorrect somewhere, I believe. I just did the calculation by raw probabilities and came to the following conclusions.

thflame already noted problems with the code that was based on, and rewrote it. The resulting discussion was moved to a new thread.

Asurie wrote:

Your calculation is incorrect somewhere, I believe. I just did the calculation by raw probabilities and came to the following conclusions.

thflame already noted problems with the code that was based on, and rewrote it. The resulting discussion was moved to a new thread.

As I have discovered after posting! I thought I was on the last page and apparently misclicked onto Page 10. Oops. Still, it is always fun to do an analytic calculation with probabilities.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but take the RP out of the RPG and all you have left is a G and that's the point where I start thinking about playing Monopoly instead

Ooo, Monopoly! I get the Scotty Dog!

I would have thought we wouldn't have to rehash the C/MD arguments considering Paizo admitted resolving these concerns was one of their design goals with Pathfinder 2nd Edition in the introductory blog post.

I would have thought we wouldn't have to rehash the C/MD arguments considering Paizo admitted resolving these concerns was one of their design goals with Pathfinder 2nd Edition in the introductory blog post.

So far it looks lackluster at best 'you can expend a third of your actions to use a shield!' which at high level you can use for a small bonus to save in very specific circumstances! This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Rob Godfrey wrote:

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Even if spells have changed slightly, and so far they haven't announced that they have (And have said things will be easily convertible, so old spell lists should presumably still hold, and as we have seen in the Glass Cannon playtest casters doing multiple spells a round) it appears not, then yes, it is of the same level.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would have thought we wouldn't have to rehash the C/MD arguments considering Paizo admitted resolving these concerns was one of their design goals with Pathfinder 2nd Edition in the introductory blog post.

So far it looks lackluster at best 'you can expend a third of your actions to use a shield!' which at high level you can use for a small bonus to save in very specific circumstances! This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Fighter could instead get the ability to shrug off any one(?) spell or condition at that level. I think they just chose an example that wasn't terribly impressive unless you've got the actual book in front of you.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Oh man, people are gonna be mad if one of the things they did was "pare back how powerful full casters are in the late levels" aren't they? I would consider "Wizard is fun and playable at levels 1-5" as a fair tradeoff for "Wizards are not godlike for levels 12-17."

TOZ wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Oh man, people are gonna be mad if one of the things they did was "pare back how powerful full casters are in the late levels" aren't they? I would consider "Wizard is fun and playable at levels 1-5" as a fair tradeoff for "Wizards are not godlike for levels 12-17."

I wouldn't be surprised if we see Wish and Miracle pushed back into the 10th slot.

TOZ wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Oh man, people are gonna be mad if one of the things they did was "pare back how powerful full casters are in the late levels" aren't they? I would consider "Wizard is fun and playable at levels 1-5" as a fair tradeoff for "Wizards are not godlike for levels 12-17."

Man, I expect people to flip out when it gets revealed you can't just instantly end encounters with a wave of color spray/*insert save/lose here* or that you can't chain summon solars.

I would have thought we wouldn't have to rehash the C/MD arguments considering Paizo admitted resolving these concerns was one of their design goals with Pathfinder 2nd Edition in the introductory blog post.

Several things already discussed about the Caster/Martial Disparity haven't changed since the blog posts really only shift the starting point of the Caster/Martial Disparity with the mentions of the proficiencies section that all classes have, and the Fighter entry which has fairly lackluster and niche mechanics that are fairly underwhelming when compared to what spells are normally capable of.

The only way to get people to be satisfied about it is through the development of the spellcaster blog post discussing about spells being gutted and chopped in half.

Until then, the only class a power gamer should concern themselves with is a full spellcaster, just like PF1.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Oh man, people are gonna be mad if one of the things they did was "pare back how powerful full casters are in the late levels" aren't they? I would consider "Wizard is fun and playable at levels 1-5" as a fair tradeoff for "Wizards are not godlike for levels 12-17."

Man, I expect people to flip out when it gets revealed you can't just instantly end encounters with a wave of color spray/*insert save/lose here* or that you can't chain summon solars.

even if that is true (Adn we don't know) it does not change the fact that the released fighter abilities are frankly terrible, either direct nerfs (except in edge cases, power attacks, using a shield at all, or the loss of iterative attacks) or very situational and not very powerful even then.

I think a good portion of the "non casters lack narrative agency" issue is going to be addressed under skills, which we have a very limited picture of at this point. After all, this makes sense since the narrative generally does not move forward during combat (except as "And lo, our heroes defeated the whatever").

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

This is an ability you get at the same level the sorc gets limited wish!

Is it?

Oh man, people are gonna be mad if one of the things they did was "pare back how powerful full casters are in the late levels" aren't they? I would consider "Wizard is fun and playable at levels 1-5" as a fair tradeoff for "Wizards are not godlike for levels 12-17."

Man, I expect people to flip out when it gets revealed you can't just instantly end encounters with a wave of color spray/*insert save/lose here* or that you can't chain summon solars.

even if that is true (Adn we don't know) it does not change the fact that the released fighter abilities are frankly terrible, either direct nerfs (except in edge cases, power attacks, using a shield at all, or the loss of iterative attacks) or very situational and not very powerful even then.

Different eds, different math. Saying something is nerfed in comparison to PF1 is entirely worthless since the system itself and its underlying mechanics have changed. Paizo could have certainly done better with the Fighter preview to wow us ("With Master Perception you can see invisible people or look across the horizon to see that Saruman is taking the Hobbits to Isengard!") but without any context (in the form of other class previews or the playtest in general) nothing can be dismissed out of hand unless you're looking for excuses to be salty.

I'm reminded of an old book I read as a kid.

The wizard had just literally saved everyone's lives with his magic, but the danger was still forthcoming. They needed to set up defenses and hold out for the night against the coming threat. He stood up, tall and proud in front of the crowd, and gave a riling speech about working together, surviving the night, and overcoming against all odds. And not a soul was stirred.

The man next to him, his friend in full armor, stood up and said the exact same speech, at which point the crowd cheered and everyone got to work.

"You just said the same thing I did. Why did they cheer for you but barely even yawn for me?"

"Because, my friend, you are not a Knight."

People simply trust those with martial prowess more than they do those with smarts. This is true. It's why firefighters are generally regarded as heroes and well loved, but the same isn't true for the chemist who designed the flame retardant chemicals used to stop the fire, or the engineer who designed the building fire suppression system which hampered the spread of the fire allowing more people to escape, or the architect who built in a comprehensive escape system and fire reduction pathways, or the bureaucrat who wrote requirements for all of those into the law.

Her Majesty's Wizard. But it doesn't prove the point you think, because the metaphysics of that world give special powers and authority to those who hold official feudal or clerical positions.

THINGS I LIKE:

I like the general tone of the post and of the fighter concept. I like your goals for the fighter and I'm glad you're giving it some flexibility.

I'm glad that Power Attack is getting a change, and several of the other feats mentioned also sound pretty interesting.

I like the idea that not everyone gets Attacks of Opportunity, but fighters all do. Not only will fighters stand out, but the battlefield won't be so static.

THINGS I DON'T LIKE:

I'm still hating that raising your shield costs an action. Having used one for years, I can verify that it doesn't really need much thought or time.

Like practically everyone else, I think that the bonus to reflex saves from a shield MUST come at a much lower level. 6th seems reasonable to me.

THINGS I'M CURIOUS ABOUT:
I really want to see how archery works out. I want fighters to be the best archers -and- I want archery to be toned way the heck down so that it's not the nuclear weapon of the battlefield.

I'm curious how long it will take for new classes to take everything the fighter does and do it better. PLEASE don't do this. I'm looking at you, slayer.

A shield should give some sort of AC bonus without using an action. (It is essentially protection via large area of cover.) It makes sense that using an action would give you stronger or additional benefits.

If I recall correctly, I think the action benefit was a reduction of damage taken. So in that regard an Passive AC bonus like before seems logical.

I say this also as one with years of experience using shields. Mostly bucklers (non-strapped to my arm). Bucklers though I would assume, from a real life perspective, might be more active Action dependent then a round or kite shield.

Folks,

This is not the thread to talk about wizards and spellcasting. I understand you want to talk about that comparison, and it's only natural to base that discussion off what you know... but that is a severely limited approach. You have a sliver of the fighter build and almost nothing on our changes to spells and spellcasters.

If you insist on discussing this further, feel free to start a new thread. Keep this focused on the fighter please.

Hey Jason! I got a question for ya!

The ability in the blog about ranged options and firing more arrows - will that apply to other ranged weapons like slings and crowwbows and throwing knives?

Also, will individual weapons be differentiated by how they can be used based on mastering them? For example, the crossbow is a simple weapon and easy to learn, but difficult to load and quickly fire. As you go up in ranks for crossbows, will is improve rate of fire and damage?

Meanwhile, the bow is a better weapon than the crossbow, but requires a lot of training to use and be effective. So will it be a weaker weapon early on, but grow in power as training increases? Or will it be flat stronger than the crossbow and sling from the beginning?

Thanks!

I saw some folks who were rather unimpressed with Sudden Reversal. I wasn't sure what to make of it myself, so I figured I'd do the math. TL;DR is (for what I consider a reasonable enough guess on AC), when you're flanked the feat gives you +27% DPR.

All right, here's my assumption. The situation of being flanked is not rare- attack bonuses are hugely valuable because they increase crit chance, and flanking positioning is easy because Fighters seem to be one of the few classes to impede movement.

We'll take the situation where you have two mooks flanking you. It's not boss fight time, so we'll have your primary attack hit on 6. We'll assume your damage is one unit to make the math easier. I'm also assuming that you can use the feat twice in the same round.

DPR without Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) = 1.85

DPR with Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25 for crit) + (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.5 * (0.5 + 0.05 for crit) + 0.75 * (0.25 + 0.05 for crit) = 2.35

So, when flanked, you do 0.5 of a hit more every turn. That's a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.

Out of curiosity, let's try an agile weapon. Our one unit of damage will be lower, but we'll have a higher multiple of that.

DPR without Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25) + (0.55 + 0.05) + (0.35 + 0.05) = 2

DPR with Sudden Reversal: (0.75 + 0.25) + (0.55 + 0.05) + (0.35 + 0.05) + 0.45 * (0.55 + 0.05) + 0.65 * (0.35 + 0.05) = 2.53

Looks like the math works out pretty similarly. You do a hair over half a hit more, and it still rounds to a 27% increase in DPR when flanked.