Perhaps this is another faulty assumption. That a mythical warrior who is capable of wrestling a T-Rex should be limited by what is realistically achiveable by people IRL.
(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?
This is something that really bothers me. IMHO, if a player manages to have a high enough CMB to surpass the Storm Giant's size bonus and huge Str modifier to its CMD, she derserves the chance to trip the Storm Giant!
Second, Fighters having "few" skill points is both part of their thematic nature and their mechanical one (either way: gaining feats, proficiency stuff, and weapon/armor perfection instead of skill points or spells).
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.
Gaining feats, proficiencies, weapon/armor training do not make the fighter better that the other fighting classes. The other martials have their own class features, strong class features i would say.
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?
Tacticslion wrote:
But as has been pointed out, it's not difficult to get Fighters with a decent skill loadout. A 13 INT human fighter with a favored class bonus nets five skills right off the bat (note: 13 is a prerequisite for quite a number of some of the "best" fighter feats out there, anyway).
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.
Tacticslion wrote:
If you're curious, here are all the fighter feats. That's... a ton. There are twenty in "A" alone. I have no idea what you mean about fighters not having that many options.
Based on a quick over-view, there are sixteen that are fighter-exclusive. That's a really nice number.
I will admit that some few of them require prerequisites that fighter's can't make. But that's the minority.
Fighters have option, they have few fighter only options though.
But I am not really worried about fighter combat prowess.
Tacticslion wrote:
Anyway, while you're welcome to your opinion (after all it's your opinion), I'm letting you know that your opinion isn't based on a solid foundation: the fighter skill design process follows a pretty consistent design system that works with most classes across the board (with noted exceptions). Not all classes adhere to the design, true, but enough do that it's not an accident of design. It functions pretty well.
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'm curious if you like the class: why? It provides no essential flavor compared to any other class, and they're reasonably (not perfectly) balanced toward the other classes.
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.
Tacticslion wrote:
The point of my statement is that the fighter class is, as someone else noted, built around a specific style: fighting.
Yes, but everyone fights. Barbarians fight as good or even better that fighter and they have more skill points.
Tacticslion wrote:
There are games, however, that don't require much fighting at all and engaging too much could be detrimental to the game. In those cases, fighters are sub-optimal (as are Barbarians, incidentally) while highly skilled classes (including the bard and rogue) tend to shine, even though the latter is generally considered weak
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)
Tacticslion wrote:
To respond to your other point: feats come out a lot. A lot. I mean, I don't if you've looked at the d20pfsrd feat list lately, but it's really difficult to sort through.
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.
Tacticslion wrote:
Also, I never said that fighters were "unbeatable" at fighting - just that they were very good at it. Adding additional skill points won't help with that.
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.
Tacticslion wrote:
And the Fighter doesn't just fight. But that's what he does most of the time and what he does best, and he does it very well already.
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).
why the fighter is the only one that just fight and nothing more?
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.
A special commentary about instant enemy spell; a spell like that just became a must for every 10 level ranger, and taht is is terribly bad design IMHO.
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.
=== Special ===
Fearless
Fleet of foot
keen senses
Weapon traiing 2 (axes, bows)
Armor training 2
Bravery 3
=== Gear ===
+2 Belt of Str (4 K)
+2 Full plate mail (5,5 K)
+3 Cloak of resistance (8 K)
+2 Greataxe (8 K)
Gloves of dueling (15 K)
Ring of protection +1 (2 K)
Amulet of natural armor +1 (2 K)
Pale green prism Ioun stone [attack] (4 K)
Pale green prism Ioun stone [Saves] (4 K)
+1 adaptative Shortbow (3 K)
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
good, surely this class have to have only 2+int skill per level cause he is good a fighting.
"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 ...".
Hps: 14 % higher than average
Ac: Roguhly average
SAves: As recomended by the table.
Primary ability DC: 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).
Not if they have fun. Even if a class is sub-optimal (and monk is no longer so bad) or requires system mastery (and monk is not as bad as Wizard in that regard), folks can still have fun playing it. Despite all the wailing about the rogue, it’s still on of the most popular classes in PF. And, the rogue can definitely contribute to a group, even if a hyper-optimized bard or ranger might do a little better. Is it really “better” if the player has fun playing a rogue and just plain doesn’t want to play a bard? D&D is a Game. Games should be fun.
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.
such as killing a line of 20 kappas by throwing your sword like a boomerang or taking on a CR 5 boss with merely the sword that came back to you after being boomeranged to kill 20 CR 1/2 Kappas.
It is not my intention to sound rude, but It seems like you do not understand the concept of CR.
a CR 3 foe should generally be quickly disposed of by a single 3rd level character. a CR5 foe would be like a miniboss to a lone level 3 PC.
If you encounter a pair of Ogre Magi (a "challenging" encounter, merely APL+1, each with 95 hp each plus regeneration), moving up and hitting them will deal around 22.5 points of damage on a non-crit. You have dealt about 22.5/190 total HP for the enemy encounter. But since enemies aren't just HP bubbles the ogres move away from you in flight (one takes a withdraw action into the air and heals 5 hp from regeneration). And so on and so forth.
Why is an ogre mage doing basically nothing in a round bad for the group?
Don't discourage, we actually got real numbers to look at. Wrong numbers, but baby steps!
but but but, In a group of 4 character vs two monster, one monster doing nothing is like a gift.
such as killing a line of 20 kappas by throwing your sword like a boomerang or taking on a CR 5 boss with merely the sword that came back to you after being boomeranged to kill 20 CR 1/2 Kappas.
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.
If you encounter a pair of Ogre Magi (a "challenging" encounter, merely APL+1, each with 95 hp each plus regeneration), moving up and hitting them will deal around 22.5 points of damage on a non-crit. You have dealt about 22.5/190 total HP for the enemy encounter. But since enemies aren't just HP bubbles the ogres move away from you in flight (one takes a withdraw action into the air and heals 5 hp from regeneration). And so on and so forth.
Why is an ogre mage doing basically nothing in a round bad for the group?
this is a sample of some of the stuff a fighter or other noncaster SHOULD be doing at 3rd level but for some reason can't. demonstrated by Karasu the Synthesist.
And for those who seem to think citing raw = meaniebadwrongface, it's not rocket science.
PRD-Magic Items wrote:
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community.
Is X < Y where X is the value of the item and Y is the community GP limit? If yes = 75% chance of availability.
Let's try this out. We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp). We test the % and have a 75% chance of finding this item. If we get unlucky and there isn't one, we test to see if there are any with fewer charges and test % again. So we might not get the 33 charge one, but likely we'll be able to find one within a few charges of it.
If you do the math for all the low level spells in the game and all the possible amount of charges, you will find that that poor village is in fact a really wealthy place.
I can not speak for other people styles, but ast least when I am DMging if I describe it as normal village It would not be filled with dozens partial wands.
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.
The math:
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 ...
For now I let them take the Lore Warden archetype and add Int to damage rolls starting at 3rd level.
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.
Not really... Characters don't get 1.5x Int for two-handling weapons. They also don't get extra skill points (it's 4 per level just like very other Fighter) because the extra focus on Int already covers that.
But you may be right. I couldn't playtest this because no one bothered to make a Lore Warden... :(
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.
At 10th level, he adds Bashing Finish and Greater Shield Focus to the list."
Afther that you ca multiclass fighter or sta as a ranger, all depends of our personal preference.
For now I let them take the Lore Warden archetype and add Int to damage rolls starting at 3rd level.
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.
I wonder what do you add to the fighter in exchange of Armor mastery, as you gave Armor mastery IV to everyone...
- +2 skill points per level
- Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the player's choice as class skills
- Good Reflex saves (Fighter are physical paragons, after all)
- Bravery scales a bit faster and applies to all Charm and Compulsion effects as well.
- Weapon Training is the same for all weapon groups (all of them end at +5, instead of one at +5, +4, +3, +2, +1)
- At 1st level they can take IUS or EWP instead of getting proficiency with Tower Shields.
- Weapon Mastery and Armor Mastery come 1 level earlier.
- Full attack as a standard action at 20th level.
- Martial Versatility/Mastery at 10th level. (Yup, I actually had that already added.. Someone suggested it in one of the dozen past Fighter threads, I just liked it and added to my games)
They also benefit more from a few other rules, such as scaling feats(like TWF and Improved Trip) and removed/reduced prerequisites for a bunch of them (like maneuver feats not requiring Combat Expertise or Int13)
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)?
A little of topic, but you said you eliminate ACP in your games? therefore you are basically giving medium and heavy armor proficiency to everyone. How do you handle that in your games?
ACP/speed reduction are only removed if you're proficient with said armor.
ASF and Max Dex bonus to AC are still in place, and you can still be slowed down if you're overloaded. (Although I usually don't bother to keep track of encumbrance unless your Str is 12 or lower or if you try to carry something obviously heavy.)
Fighters are buffed enough that they don't feel cheated. I've always seen the boost to max Dex bonus to AC as the main benefit or Armor Training, anyway, and my players seem to agree.
I wonder what do you add to the fighter in exchange of Armor mastery, as you gave Armor mastery IV to everyone...
A little of topic, but you said you eliminate ACP in your games? therefore you are basically giving medium and heavy armor proficiency to everyone. How do you handle that in your games?
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?
A big assumption, a particurarly annoying one for me, is that fighter should only fight cause if you give fighter some non combat utility then rangers and rogue would suck.
I would love to agree, I really would, but I continually see absolutely worthless archetypes, prestige classes that don't do much of anything and have absurd prereqs, and don't do much to fix the problems they have. In fact I've seen several things that feel more like a malcontented "your doing it wrong" rather than help fix things.
I would like to disagree but everytime I see the crossbowman archetype I can not help myself but think "WTF?"
INT, WIS, and CHA were all considered "secondary" at best, and while I didn't really want a negative in any of them, the character definitely needed to by sort of ugly (like an old prize fighter), but I didn't want him to be so ugly that he would have lots of problems dealing with people.
I have no problem with dumping his CHA to 8, but I don't know whether to put the 2 points into INT for more Skills, or into WIS for a better Perceptipon bonus. The fact that he has a definite Craft component to his back story, I am leaning towards INT for the Skills, but I can also make a good case for the WIS.
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.
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.
