(If I am not rembebering wrong the rules) you are right, a warrior could grapple the T-Rex, maybe even pin it...what would have been the reason to to restric the trip maneuver?
yeah to move a swing a sword twice is absurd, but to move and realize the very complex movement and gesticulations to cast a spells is just fine, :p
I do not see any thematic reason and much less a mechanical one. And this are my reasons
Mechanical one: This argument is like "fighters fight so well that they do not need more". But it is not true.
So there is no reason for fighters to suffer in the skill department.
Thematic: This one is even more puzling to me. I can not see any reason for so few skill points. A fighter have to be smarter than average just to swim, climb and ride?
And a human ranger would still have more skill points ad now more hit points too.
Do not get me wrong, I Usally do that. You can see it in the build thread
I even was writing a fighter guide where I take pains to emphasize how important are skill for fighters and the methods to maximize the skill points as a fighter.
But it is unfair for fighters to have to investso much to have just decent skills. The other martials have more ussefulness out of combat and have to sacrifize nothing about their combat prowess.
Fighters have option, they have few fighter only options though.
But I am not really worried about fighter combat prowess.
I disagree. I even would say that there is no solid reason for fighters to have less skill points than barbarians, not mechanically nor thematically**.
(** Unless fighters have to be dumber for some flavor reasons)
Again, do not get me wrong, As i said I thin figthers are mostly fine, I think pathfinder as a system is mostly fine. That does not meants the systems have its flaws, like in this case IMHO.
If I criticize is not for trolling or something, I think the system is better if fighters have more skills.
I think something is wrong when the solution to the problem is "play another class"
AS I said I think fighters are mostly fine. The only thing that bugs me is the few skill points per level.
Paizo do not have nor want to change that of course, that does not means that decision is right.
I think that a mundane class with no out of combat class features should not have less than 4 skill per level. That is bad design IMHO.
Happily that is a problem with an easy solution, so it is not really a big problem for me.
I really like the concept of the completely mundane warrior. I like to have a lot of feat, I like to have constant bonus to hit (in contrast to classes that "nova"). And I like the level of customization the class have.
Yes, but everyone fights. Barbarians fight as good or even better that fighter and they have more skill points.
I am fine with fighters not being great at skills, I do not think that fighter with 4+in skill per level would outskill roguer nor rangers (particulary because those classes have a much beter class skills)
Yes feats comes a lot. But few feats are as strong as class features. for example beast totem give a much bigger bonus than dodge.
And there are too few fighter only feats, like 10 or 15 maybe? there are like 40 barbarian rage powers.
I do not want fighters to be better at fighting. I think the class is pretty much fine. I do want to have more out of combat options because is totally absurd that the most mundane class in the game have so few mundane methods to overcome the challenges that appear in a typical adventure.
The same can be said to paladins, rangers and barbarians. Not to mention alchemist, inquisitor and the Magus. They all fight and fight well.
In my homegames I give 4+int skill to the fighter. Still no rogue have complained about it.
And if you're doing a solo and/or social-heavy game, why are you bothering with fighter in the first place? The only reason I could see is "flavor" or "feat addiction" and you don't really need that many feats and, as a fan of house-ruling and home-brewing, I'd highly recommend getting yourself some fresh paint and reflavoring something with more skill points, like the ranger.
Because I like the class?
I do not understant your statement, fighter are fine cause in those campaings you can always play a ranger?
veryone in pathfinder fights. And almost everyone fight well (the only exeption is the monk and to a sighly less degree the rogue).
I was not speaking about the transition from 3e to PF I was speaking about what happened in pathfinder.
In the core rule book I think fighter have no problem compared to the other martials. Ranger are much weaker in melee, barbarian do a lot of damage but have low AC and most barbarian´s rage powers at not that strong.
But with every new book fighters stay more or less the same. Those books only added a couple of fighter only feats, and only the gloves of dueling and the sash of the war champion are (almost) fighters only items
Meanwhile the barbarian gained pounce, a big bonus to natural armor, spell sunder, witch hunter and several other cool and/ or powerful rage powers, not to mention that archetype with really high DR. The furious and corageous weapons are crazy and barbarians have others "barbarians" only items.
Rangers gained more combat styles that make them shine in melee (the two handed style and the sword and board style with the crazy shield mastery at level 6), they gained boon companion, archetypes to make the rogue totaly obsolete, a lot o spells that they automatically know.
So a barbarian using all the books would be much better than a core barbarian, the same for rangers. Fighters remained mostly the same. And still those classes have mor skill points casue... fighter are unbeatable at fighting? I do not think so.
A halfling that only care about fights and being bad ass.
Halfling fighter 10
=== Stats ===
Str 16 (18),Dex 16,con 14,Int 12,Wis 12, Cha 9
=== Defense ===
AC: 28 (+12 armor, +3 dex, +1 def, +1 nat, +1 size)
CMD: 27 (33 against Disarm and sunder, 37 Against trip and grapple)
=== Saves ===
+5 Aganst fear effects.
=== Attacks ===
Or against large or larger enemies
+2 Greataxe : +24/+16 (1d10 +27 20/x3)
=== Feats and talents===
=== Skills ===
=== Special ===
=== Gear ===
Sadly in the develompment of PF from the beggining to this day were more or least like this.
In the CRB The Devs created the fighter and they saw the class combat abilites were
"Lets give the barbarian and rangers more skill points cause they are not that good at fighting." (?)
and then the dark days came where the DEVs thought "lets give barbarian and rangers powerful combat abilities, lets give them overpowered spells and rage powers and absurd magic items. And lets the fighter stay as they already are cause ...".
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Lets compare it to the monster creation table.
Hps: 14 % higher than average
The physical damage seems to be on part with the table.
The hellfire breath is a pretty nasty abilitywith a high DC (DC 20), and if the target fail his saving trhow it becomes easier to the sant point devil to make the target panicked with its bay ability (or even phantasmal killer).
I think the mosnter CR is more or less apropiated, It could be argued that it is CR 9 but I do not see how it can be CR 10.
mmm, the monk case and the rogue case are diferent, at least in my experience.
When I see a beginner building a rogue they normally want to be fast, stealthy and dexterous. They normally gravitate to high dex, and good int and cha. Then they usually took weapon finesse and TWF, and that is enugt to do just fine in most groups. They ended with a character like they envisioned it.
sadly, I have seen the opossite for monks. Once there was a guy that as building his first monk. He wanted his monk to be like kwai chang caine or soemthing. He do not dump int or cha cause his monk ws not stupid or socially incompetent. He have is 16, dex 14 and str 12, and he take weapon finesse.
I told him "you will not hit anything with those numbers, and if you hit yould litle damage. You need more strehng and/or dex and less wis".
he answered something like "dude, a monk is not a bodybuilder".
Lets say we all have a lot of fun in the roleplay aspect of the game (one of my favorite game) but when combat started he had not much fun when I (a sorcerer) and the the other player (A bard) outdamaged him.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
No, that is not the definition of CR.
but but but, In a group of 4 character vs two monster, one monster doing nothing is like a gift.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
It is not my intention to sound rude, but It seems like you do not understand the concept of CR.
EDIT: But it really does not matter, I always have beena big fan of anime (since I was 6 year old) but I am really glad D&D/PF is not as you envisioned it.
Surely there are other RPG to suit your style.
Why is an ogre mage doing basically nothing in a round bad for the group?
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Well, I thanks the Devs for no agreeing with you.
Ok, I am sick in my house and I have nothing else better to do so I did the math. With this method a good stimate is that a given village will have in average 631125 gp in partial wands.
Lets take the magic missile example. a wand of 33 chrges cost 33*15, but the character could ask for a wand of 32 charges, or 31 ...
so just for magic missile we have
1+2+3+...33 could seems like a lot of work, but thanks to someone called Gauss is really easy to calculate
So, only for the magic missile wands the village could have 8415 gp.
I do not know exctly how many 1st level spell are in the game, but lets say there are 100.
So with all the 1st level the village have 841500 gp in max wealth. But there is only 75% chances to find a given item so the final number is
The math is only for first level spells, but I belive if you include all posible wands and scrolls the number could easily go higher than 100000 gp.
I meant, normal Lore warded do not suffer in the DPR deparment, I feel there is not need to change that.
If you want to take this route ythe best choise is the sword and shield style so you can take shield master at level 6. It make a big diference to have that feat at such early level.
"Weapon and Shield
If the Ranger selects weapon and shield style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat:
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam and Two-Weapon Fighting.
At 6th level, he adds Saving Shield and Shield Master to the list.
Afther that you ca multiclass fighter or sta as a ranger, all depends of our personal preference.
mmm, lore warden´s DPR is the same than a vanilla fighter.(or even higher at 13th level), consider to add the int mod to something else, like AC or will save.
May I suggest that armor mastery stack with adamantine armor and something in exchange for Heavy armor proficinecy (in case the player want a ight armored duelist type)?
It is armor training not armor mastery.
Apostle of Gygax wrote:
THis post is pretty conclusive. Whypeople continued arguing afther this?
1)Why there are so few fighter only feats in the game (particularl high level ones)?
It seems like paladins, barbarians and ranger get nicer and nicer things with every new book (powerful paladins and ranger spells and powerful rage powers) but fighter do not.
2) is there any plan for a new base class?
3)Is there a chance for "martials" of the inner sea?
4) is there any chance for a fighter archetype that get a decent mount?
5) of the book you have done, which is yor favorite?
I would like to disagree but everytime I see the crossbowman archetype I can not help myself but think "WTF?"
Arni Carni wrote:
As a darwf you would have a decent enough will save (via glor of old and steel soul) So I would suggest to take more skill points.
Technically No. You can only use free action on your turn.
Group A wrote:
My group of players is having problems figuring out how the spell haste will effect players with two weapon fighting can anyone give me some ideas? The spell description from 4th to 5th printing changes so what is the best way to deal with this problem?
It does not matter how many weapon are you wielding. Haste only give you one extra attack.