Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Fighter epiphany 2: Electric Boogaloo!


Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

This post will straddle the border of fighter discussion vs. feat discussion, as many of our threads have, but a thought occurred to me earlier about the idea of a fighter getting more out of his feats, not just more feats.

In part this could be fighters get to have feats scale in effect (say, Weapon Focus gives +1/4 levels instead of just a flat +1 when a fighter takes it), and in part it might be a combination of the two, wherein fighters have class-exclusive feats that up-scale regular feats.

I was put in mind of the old-school Improved Trip and how I thought it was broken vs. other "Improved ... " feats. They all gave +4 and no AoO, but IT went a step further and gave you a free follow-up attack on top of it. It was out of balance, but remembering it made me go "hmmmm... maybe that is exactly the kind of scaling we need for the fighter."

So try this on for size:

All of the CMB feats basically do the same thing in PF - let you make the CMB without an AoO and give you a +2 bonus to attack/defend vs. that maneuver. Either as a fighter class ability, or probably better as a fighter-only feat, all of the "Improved [CMB maneuver]" feats could have a followup, one that gives a +4 bonus to attack/defend the maneuver AND let you get a free follow-up attack if you succeed at the maneuver.

This frees the fighter from the choice of "attack to damage" or "attack to nerf," at least to an extent.

So you'd have feats where you make your maneuver as an attack (trip, disarm, sunder):

Improved Disarm
Pre: Int 13, CombExp
Benefit: No AoO when performing a disarm. In addition you get +2 to CMB to disarm and avoid being disarmed.

Greater Disarm
Pre: Int 15, CombExp, Ipv Disarm, fighter level 6th
Benefit: You get +2 to CMB to disarm and avoid being disarmed (stacks with IpvDis). In addition, if you succeed in a disarm attack you may follow up with a normal attack against the creature you disarmed at the same attack bonus as the attack used to disarm.

or, for maneuvers that take a standard action rather than an attack (bull rush, grapple, overrun)

Improved Bull Rush
Pre: Str 13, PA
Benefit: No AoO when performing a bull rush. In addition you get +2 to CMB to bull rush and avoid being bull rushed.

Greater Bull Rush
Pre: Str 15, IBR, PA, fighter level 6th
Benefit: You get +2 to CMB to bull rush and avoid being bull rushed (stacks w/IBR). In addition, if you succeed in a bull rush you may follow up with an attack at your highest BAB against the creature you bull rushed.

(as an aside, for grappling this basically emulates the "constrict" monster ability to follow up a grapple check with damage equal to a hit, so you might stipulate that Greater Grapple overlaps/does not stack with constrict)

In fact, you could even add a third level of feat that helped you beat lower-level countermeasures and/or allowed you an extra attack:

Superior Disarm
Pre: Int 17, CombExp, Greater Disarm, Ipv Disarm, fighter level 12th
Benefit: You get +2 to CMB to disarm and avoid being disarmed (stacks) and can make AoOs against creatures tht attempt to disarm you, even if they have IpvDis [maybe exception: unless their CMB for bull rush is higher than yours]. On your turn, you can make a disarm attack as a swift action at your highest BAB. This is in addition to your normal attacks but does not stack with extra attacks granted by haste or similar effects.

Greater Bull Rush
Pre: Str 17, IBR, PA, fighter level 12th
Benefit: You get +2 to CMB to bull rush and avoid being bull rushed (stacks) and can make AoOs against creatures that attempt to bull rush you even if they have IpvBR [maybe exception: unless their CMB for bull rush is higher than yours]. In addition, if you succeed in a bull rush you may follow up with a full attack action against the creature you bull rushed, even if you have moved more than 5 feet.

Thoughts?


I like this better than feat swapping.

Not sure about fighter-only though. If it were just a combat feat, the fighter would be most likely to end up with it... but why not let the other martial classes in on the party?

Qadira

becaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuse, the Fighter needs the bump. and an IDENTITY. The other Martial classes can pine for what the Fighter has for once

(i prefer feat swapping AND Fighter only bump to combat feats. If you want to be good at tactical combat PLAY THE FIGHTER, not directed at you Toy robot.)

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

toyrobots wrote:

I like this better than feat swapping.

Not sure about fighter-only though. If it were just a combat feat, the fighter would be most likely to end up with it... but why not let the other martial classes in on the party?

I wouldn't be averse to making these feats just have BAB prereqs (i.e., +6/+12). Most casters would still never take them so it allows a separation between the martial masher and the CoDzilla masher, and a non-fighter martial character would have the feats to afford to take ONE of these 3-feat paths, but only a fighter would have enough free feats to legitimately do more than one.

I don't mind making them fighter-specific either though, so that he gets to be the supreme master of AoOs (from another thread) and CMBs as his class identity. There is certainly a value in that as well.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

becaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuse, the Fighter needs the bump. and an IDENTITY. The other Martial classes can pine for what the Fighter has for once

(i prefer feat swapping AND Fighter only bump to combat feats. If you want to be good at tactical combat PLAY THE FIGHTER, not directed at you Toy robot.)

Multi-qualifiers,

Ex - Feat PQ: 5th level fighter or +7BAB.

It puts it in the hands of Fighters earlier, and allows access to other Martial types who may want to dip into some of the Fighters abilities- they just don't get it as early on as the core fighter does.

I don't like the idea of creating really cool bow style feats/attacks focused on rangers and then block it out from fighters, barbarians and paladins. Let the ranger get the first pick at a lower level (or your focus class), but allow for exceptional non-standard versions of other classes access to the feats. Do the same for all the martial classes.

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Auxmaulous wrote:
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

becaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuse, the Fighter needs the bump. and an IDENTITY. The other Martial classes can pine for what the Fighter has for once

(i prefer feat swapping AND Fighter only bump to combat feats. If you want to be good at tactical combat PLAY THE FIGHTER, not directed at you Toy robot.)

Multi-qualifiers,

Ex - Feat PQ: 5th level fighter or +7BAB.

It puts it in the hands of Fighters earlier, and allows access to other Martial types who may want to dip into some of the Fighters abilities- they just don't get it as early on as the core fighter does.

I don't like the idea of creating really cool bow style feats/attacks focused on rangers and then block it out from fighters, barbarians and paladins. Let the ranger get the first pick at a lower level (or your focus class), but allow for exceptional non-standard versions of other classes access to the feats. Do the same for all the martial classes.

Ah, not a bad idea. I like it. Wpn Spec, frinstance, would be Ftr 4th or BAB +6. I think that's simple enough to work easily.


Jason,

Love the idea. One thing -- I'd consider making monks have easier access as well; their new Combat Maneuver Training implies that that's supposed to be their "schtick" in Pathfinder, so it would make sense for them to get these feats ASAP.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:
Ah, not a bad idea. I like it. Wpn Spec, frinstance, would be Ftr 4th or BAB +6. I think that's simple enough to work easily.

And as you said earlier with Fighters getting way more feats he will be either more diverse or specialized (as he chooses) earlier on in his career yet dual qualifier system allows other martial classes a chance to dip into a skill set which in reality they shouldn't be denied from. The Fighter just does it better, easier (feat cost in relation his feat total) and faster.

Giving scaling abilities to feats (which again can trigger based on both the fighter level and BAB) would let fighter do some cool tricks as he levels up, and again would allow some other martial classes those features also - at a higher level. Being tied to BAB, some bonus feat features would really place it off limits for most caster types.

The only workaround is maybe getting the rogue in on the deal......but I thing rogue talents are good compensation for that class. Maybe just more of them.

Qadira

....so we give out any copyright that Fighter has to weapon Spec? Bad Idea, it may be a good idea if we want no fighters

Idea:Fighters should get a REALLY good ability at 10th level to promote multiclassing up to 10th. instead of Rangers getting 4 levels of Fighter to get weapon Spec Longbow, or by these rules, ignoring the Fighter altogether, and be a good as the bland class could ever be with the same weapon


More cool ideas from Mr. Nelson. (and others...)

I like these a lot. I also think they shouldn't be limited just to fighters, since I like the concept of giving more options to characters instead of taking them away...but I also think it's a great idea to give fighters the benefit of taking them early with the prequisite ideas given above.


toyrobots wrote:

I like this better than feat swapping.

Not sure about fighter-only though. If it were just a combat feat, the fighter would be most likely to end up with it... but why not let the other martial classes in on the party?

Think of the party as one in which you are asked to bring a dish to pass. The other martial classes have a "dish to pass" (rage, favored enemy, etc.), but the fighter? So, I like the OP's suggestion of making them fighter only feats.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
....so we give out any copyright that Fighter has to weapon Spec? Bad Idea, it may be a good idea if we want no fighters

How is it a bad idea if we tie combat stuff...to the core combat class?

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
Idea:Fighters should get a REALLY good ability at 10th level to promote multiclassing up to 10th. instead of Rangers getting 4 levels of Fighter to get weapon Spec Longbow, or by these rules, ignoring the Fighter altogether, and be a good as the bland class could ever be with the same weapon

Based on what Jason suggested it wouldn't mean that a ranger needs 4 levels of fighter to get weapon spec, just that he would get it at level 6, i.e. BAB +6.

And he won't be as good (well on the flipside bows could be built around Dex PQs and or ranger level) because by the time he has the ability the Fighter is already heading towards the next scale feature for the feat. So other classes will always be behind -with some possible exceptions where it can be flipped...again giving Rangers the focus when it comes to bows and/or light weapons while every other martial class takes the BAB based path. Then we can have some interesting Martial classes - with the Fighter still doing it the best.

Just throwing ideas out here guys.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Some great feat ideas

I like the feats, the ability to CMB & attack is great... I'm not even sure it should take 2 feats to do though. Maybe a capstone feat that allows the fighter to follow with a full attack or another combat maneuver? So you could Bullrush and Disarm in the same turn?

One comment on Improved Disarm. If fighter feats are going to have prereqs of INT 15 then the fighter needs to be able to get more use out of his INT. Either more nice INT based feats, or maybe some skill tricks, or possibly an INT to damage feat. Combat Expertise is a rip off for exactly this reason and requiring an even higher INT is a recipe for an unused feat. Obviously if your group uses more generous abilities (20 point buy or 4d6 + rerolls) then the INT prereq is less demanding but for the typical elite array or 15 point buy a 15 INT requirement is just ridiculous for a fighter.

Please, lets name it Bullrush Expert and Bullrush Mastery so the feats are grouped together logically though (or just group them together in the book). It's really a PITA to have to chase all over the book to figure out how 1 trick works. They do it in the spells section for this exact reason, why not feats also?


Ok, in light of the fighter should benefit the most from these feats but others should have access to how about a 2 fold strategy, the above mentioned Fighters get them earlier plus giving the fighter a slightly better benefit from the feat. For example:

.
.

Greater Disarm
Pre: Int 15, Ipv Disarm, and either fighter level 6th or BAB +8
Benefit: In addition, if you succeed in a disarm attack you may follow up with a normal attack against the creature you disarmed at the same attack bonus as the attack used to disarm.

Fighter Combat Feat Bonus: Fighters who take this feat get an additional +2 to CMB to disarm and avoid being disarmed (stacks with IpvDis).

As Jason B is inclined to say:

Thoughts?

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Hey there all,

First off, I highly appreciate the title of this thread.

Second, these are exactly some of the ideas that I have for feats, however I think that in some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves, as opposed to being an entirely new feat (although that heavily depends on the feat itself).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
Some great feat ideas

I like the feats, the ability to CMB & attack is great... I'm not even sure it should take 2 feats to do though. Maybe a capstone feat that allows the fighter to follow with a full attack or another combat maneuver? So you could Bullrush and Disarm in the same turn?

One comment on Improved Disarm. If fighter feats are going to have prereqs of INT 15 then the fighter needs to be able to get more use out of his INT. Either more nice INT based feats, or maybe some skill tricks, or possibly an INT to damage feat. Combat Expertise is a rip off for exactly this reason and requiring an even higher INT is a recipe for an unused feat. Obviously if your group uses more generous abilities (20 point buy or 4d6 + rerolls) then the INT prereq is less demanding but for the typical elite array or 15 point buy a 15 INT requirement is just ridiculous for a fighter.

You know, I went back and forth on that. I think I was modeling it on the TWF tree, but ultimately the question is... why? Yes, on a certain level spellcasters have to have a minimum stat to use their class abilities. Don't have 19 INT? Can't cast 9th level spells, no matter what level wizard you are.

That works fine IF it's your prime stat. I don't think people are going to fight too hard against STR requirements for a brute fighter or DEX requirements for a quick/ranged/TWF fighter. It's the stat you're going to have high anyway, so it's really only a limit if you get zapped with something that dings your prime stat.

Requiring class abilities to function off of ancillary stats, though, that's where the whole thing gets dicey. I don't mind requiring a basic minimum stat to use the more clever tactical feats - 13 for CombExp is fine with me.

But I think on second thought I would dump the escalating stat requirements for the second and third-order feats.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Please, lets name it Bullrush Expert and Bullrush Mastery so the feats are grouped together logically though (or just group them together in the book). It's really a PITA to have to chase all over the book to figure out how 1 trick works. They do it in the spells section for this exact reason, why not feats also?

Absolutely agree. This is a must-have for the feats discussion.

Disarm, Improved
Disarm, Greater
Disarm, Superior

Weapon Focus
Weapon Focus, Greater

et

cetera

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

First off, I highly appreciate the title of this thread.

To the 80s, may they never die! :)

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Second, these are exactly some of the ideas that I have for feats, however I think that in some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves, as opposed to being an entirely new feat (although that heavily depends on the feat itself).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Making feats do more = all good in my book. I proposed them as a feat sequence for building purposes in the traditional 3.5 model, but I would be happy as a clam to see them built into the feats from the get-go and not require a bunch of slots.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves

Do you plan to have the feats do more for everyone or just for Fighters? Possibly add an extra paragraph at the bottom of the feats covering the extra benefits for Fighters?

Cheers

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:


You know, I went back and forth on that. I think I was modeling it on the TWF tree, but ultimately the question is... why?

<snip>

Requiring class abilities to function off of ancillary stats, though, that's where the whole thing gets dicey. I don't mind requiring a basic minimum stat to use the more clever tactical feats - 13 for CombExp is fine with me.

I think, as the feat class, another thing fighters should get is the ability to either ignore stat requirements on feats (take Combat expertise with an int of 8 because you're a fighter, by golly! It's what you've trained for!), or as a function of level they get to lower the stat requirements for feats. A 3rd level fighter can ignore 1 point on stat requirements for feats, taking Combat Expertise at 3rd level with a 12 int, while a 9th level fighter can ignore 3 points of stat requirements, taking Combat Expertise with an intelligence of 10. And that 6th level fighter with 14 strength that takes 2 points of strength damage can still use his Power Attack based feats.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps Subscriber
Honorable Rogue wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves

Do you plan to have the feats do more for everyone or just for Fighters? Possibly add an extra paragraph at the bottom of the feats covering the extra benefits for Fighters?

Cheers

IMO I think all combat feats should do more....think about combat feats compared to open ended metamagic feats which cost the same. The characters that will use them with more frequency will be Fighters or martial characters. It would be nice to have fighters advance on a scaled track faster than others who would just use BAB. Rangers Barbs and pallys would be a little behind and casters who pick up the feats will probably only use them for their initial bonus/ability they provide.

The reason why I stress scaleable for martial feats is many, but again...think of weapon focus Scimitar vs. Widen spell. The former is a fixed static bonus while the latter is mutable/scaleable (at a cost in slot) ability which can apply to most any spell. Even eliminating variables this is not a fairly priced model.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Scaling feats

I don't mind the idea of feats scaling. However, I don't believe that returning to the "fighter must specialize" way of feat writing is a good idea. Before inventing a bunch of new bull rush and such feats, I suggest you playtest the CMB rules a bit more and check out how hardcore they currently are.

Really! I'm not sure if you've ever seen a fighter disarm everyone in a fight or sunder all the crazy giant magic weapons the enemy bosses are swinging around, but the current rules are actually really powerful already without forcing fighters to hyperspecialize into "the bull rush guy" etc


Now this is the kind of ideas I can get behind.

Jason Nelson - Excellent example of how the work on the feats chapter is going to be where we really make the fighter shine. Fighters got extra feats instead of cool abilities, let's build on that foundation. Those progressive stat requirements really only work when they line up with the intended class's primary stats. They really should be used sparingly.

Auxmaulous - I like the multi-qualifiers. Cuts the dipping and acknowledges that the other martial classes grew out of fighters. Feats in general should do more, and fighters should get more out of combat feats than others.

Jason Bulmahn - These little hints that the feat section is going to be where we get real mileage on the fighter are much appreciated. I hope you've cleared your schedule and allowed for some overtime those weeks, because I have a feeling your are going to be very busy when feats come into focus.

Calm yourself Sneaksy, if we do this right everyone gets ice cream, but Fighters get theirs with sprinkles on top. We're just holding back till it's time to sort out the feats. Believe me when I say that if Fighters don't get their due then, there will be a revisit to the class features. Fighters are hard to work on because balancing keeping them as a flexible generalist is difficult when they are being compared to specialists. It's a case where the design strength of flexibility works against them.

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Alphonse Joly wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
Scaling feats

I don't mind the idea of feats scaling. However, I don't believe that returning to the "fighter must specialize" way of feat writing is a good idea. Before inventing a bunch of new bull rush and such feats, I suggest you playtest the CMB rules a bit more and check out how hardcore they currently are.

Really! I'm not sure if you've ever seen a fighter disarm everyone in a fight or sunder all the crazy giant magic weapons the enemy bosses are swinging around, but the current rules are actually really powerful already without forcing fighters to hyperspecialize into "the bull rush guy" etc

I have looked into it, and it is infinitely easier now than it used to be, especially for BR/grap based on the reduced size modifiers. Once upon a time, there was almost no point in trying a lot of maneuvers. PF opens the door to using them and actually having them be a good option.

My contention is more that it is not just okay but desirable for fighters (and to a lesser extent other fighting-types) to be not just good but completely kick-arse at combat maneuvers as they get into double-digit levels, much as casters get to be with their spells. A high-level fighter should be able to disarm a guy AND slice and dice him, or bull rush him and then stick his sword in the guy's festering gob.

Just a notion...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:
This post will straddle the border of fighter discussion vs. feat discussion, as many of our threads have, but a thought occurred to me earlier about the idea of a fighter getting more out of his feats, not just more feats. [...]

General notes

Good ideas. However, please do consider the following:
1. Feats are scarce. The more feats you introduce, the less used they are going to be.
2. Feat chains are huge investments by themselves.
3. Adding Fighter feats with non-Fighter abilities as requirements makes the feats much less attractive.
4. The standard feat benefit increment for skill checks is +4, not +2.
5. Feat prerequisites generally refer to skill or ability scores or other non-class specific features scaling with levels or presence of certain class features. Referring to actual class level locks feat to certain class, and subsequently, the feat becomes actually a class feature available at certain level instead of a feat.

Potential issue

Finally, there is a potential issue here. You have assumed the following resolution steps:
1. Perform CMB based manoeuver (CMB + d20 vs CMB + 15).
2. If successful, follow up with effect and gain free normal attack.

You should specify what is this "normal attack" to you. To me, for example, normal attack is an attack I can use to perform another manoeuver - Improved Disarm, then Improved Trip, then... Or, better, Bullrush the guy beyond the horizon at the rate of 5 feet per iteration.
However, if by normal attack you mean - do attack roll and damage roll - you should state this explicitly.

Standard procedure for 3.5 follows Improved Grab routine, which is:
1. Perform Attack roll.
2. If successful, follow up with damage roll and gain free CMB based manoeuver attempt.

The problem with using Improved Grab approach is that for higher level fighters you would get lots of additional overhead due to additional CMBing.

My suggestion (CMB is, after all, very similar to harder version of Attack roll):
1. Perform CMB based manoeuver (CMB + d20 vs CMB + 15).
2. If successful, follow up with effect and deal damage as per normal attack.

Feat optimization

To shorten your feat descriptions, here is my proposal.

Improved Use of Combat Manoeuver
Prerequisites: BAB 6+.
Benefit: Choose a combat manoeuver. Gain +4 to CMB to execute or resist this manoeuver. You do not incur Attacks of Opportunity when you use this manoeuver.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to different manoeuver.

Greater Use of Combat Manoeuver
Prerequisites: BAB 11+, Improved Use of Combat Manoeuver.
Benefit: Choose a combat manoeuver you have Improved Use of. Each time you use this manoeuver successfully, you may also deal damage with wielded weapon.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to different manoeuver.

Superior Use of Combat Manoeuver
Prerequisites: BAB 16+, Greater Use of Combat Manoeuver.
Benefit: Choose a combat manoeuver you have Greater Use of. Each time you use this manoeuver successfully, you are considered to have scored a threat against opponent (confirm threat before you deal damage with wielded weapon).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to different manoeuver.

Regards,
Ruemere

Cheliax

Nice ideas, Jason... I posted similar thoughts on Alpha threads about how benefits/bonuses from Feats could "scale up" with your level. My original idea was that each Combat Feat would work as they do in 3E/Alpha (e.g. 'Dodge' would give you +1 to AC), but 'improved/greater' versions would add a bonus that scales up with your level (e.g. 'Improved Dodge' would give +1 to your AC per 5 levels, and stack with the +1 bonus from 'Dodge').

This sort of system would have to be playtested thoroughly, because I'm not sure how balanced it would be...

As we know, the Combat Feats in Beta are sort of a compromise between 3E and this sort of system; you usually upgrade the bonus when you get 10 ranks in an appropriate skill. I like it, but I'm not sure if it is as "dynamic" as a system that would "reward" you every now and then with an upgrading bonus as you level up (I think too many Feats in 3E were too "static" and you tended to forget and even regret burning a Feat to get +1 to X or +2 to Y). In any case, I think it would make Feats more "special" and make them feel worth taking, instead of wishing you could retrain the feats you picked at low levels.

I even suggested a "three-tiered" system, which would have "Basic", "Improved" and "Greater" level variations of each Combat Feat -- the only difference was that Improved level Feats only granted you a reroll once per day (because I thought that having to spend three Feats to "maximize" the benefits would disencourage powergaming somewhat). In retrospect, I think spending three Feats to get that +5 to AC/Saving Throw/Attacks at 20th level may be too much?


This is an interesting turn for the fighters... with feats like this I can see the elimination of the Full Round Attack - 5' Step rounds and lots of CMB/ attack routines. I think this is good but it's impossible to predict without having a significant amount of playtest.

This also devalues haste to some extent as well since the fighter will not be using a full attack action.

Combat maneuvers also don't have as great an impact on large/ huge quadrupeds with massive strength though.

ruemere wrote:

My suggestion (CMB is, after all, very similar to harder version of Attack roll):

1. Perform CMB based manoeuver (CMB + d20 vs CMB + 15).
2. If successful, follow up with effect and deal damage as per normal attack.

I'm not sure I agree with an auto-hit after the CMB. There are creatures with high ACs and low CMBs and vice-versa. Giving a fighter a single second attack roll per round is not that big a deal compared to the 2-3+ attacks per round the fighter would get will full attack.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

First off, I highly appreciate the title of this thread.

Second, these are exactly some of the ideas that I have for feats, however I think that in some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves, as opposed to being an entirely new feat (although that heavily depends on the feat itself).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Wow! I was just about to suggest that if become a second stage of the same feat, like Dodge and Skill Focus.

Anyhow, my other idea was: Should we really allow an attack after a successful Maneuver, thereby adding a roll? Or should we just treat the CMB as an attack roll too? That might be interesting.

Osirion

Here's the only problem I have with the "scaling fighter feats" concept - it rewards multiclass dipping.

Say you have a 6th level human barbarian (4 feats, let's say Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun). You take 1 level of fighter, and suddently get a huge benefit out of those feats.

Not a difficult problem to head off - just have a fighter level prerequisite for the "extras" on those feats.


Jal Dorak wrote:

Here's the only problem I have with the "scaling fighter feats" concept - it rewards multiclass dipping.

Say you have a 6th level human barbarian (4 feats, let's say Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun). You take 1 level of fighter, and suddently get a huge benefit out of those feats.

Not a difficult problem to head off - just have a fighter level prerequisite for the "extras" on those feats.

That's a good point, you could say "If you have at least XX levels of fighter you gain benefit YY".

You could in fact make the fighter portion of the feat the only portion that scales that way.

Osirion

Dennis, changed Avatars did we? Is that one of the latest batch?

Back on track, I agree, it's nothing too far removed from what Jason has already done with Dodge and the skill rank enhancement.


Jal Dorak wrote:


Dennis, changed Avatars did we? Is that one of the latest batch?

Back on track, I agree, it's nothing too far removed from what Jason has already done with Dodge and the skill rank enhancement.

Avatar is one of the new batch and suits my alias better.

I think your point is a good one and should definitely be considered when putting the feats together.

One thing to consider though. Jason tossed around the idea previously that Weapon Training might affect CMB. If it does then the fighter is automatically better at almost all maneuvers in any case. Perhaps for the purposes of feats that use CMB giving fighters an added bonus would be overkill.

It's tough to think about this stuff while there are so many issues that are gray right now. This is a good example of why we're probably better waiting until the class is tacked down before talking about feats much.


Jason Nelson wrote:


Greater Disarm
Pre: Int 15, CombExp, Ipv Disarm, fighter level 6th

If a feat has a prereq of INT 15 or 17, then you might as well put a sign on the feat saying "No fighters need apply." INT is, at best, in 3rd or 4th place in the ability score hierarchy, behind STR, CON, and either DEX (a 12 to get the +1 to AC with Full Plate) or WIS (for will saves and guard duty). Heck, the paladin and ranger's got INT as it's 5th most important stat, so they'll rarely get those feats either. And the Barbarian has INT in maybe last or second to last priority. The monk has INT as its dump stat. Which leaves... the rogue as the only melee build class that might have an ability score jacked that high.

With that kind of ability prereq, you're basically making Rogue feats.

IMHO, feats with scaling ability score requirements are a bad idea.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

First off, I highly appreciate the title of this thread.

Second, these are exactly some of the ideas that I have for feats, however I think that in some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves, as opposed to being an entirely new feat (although that heavily depends on the feat itself).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank god.

The TWF and TWD trees were house-ruled so fast in our 3.5 campaign... Feat-intensive AND ability-intensive? No, thank you. One feat that scales is much better.

After all, do you make there be higher INT scores for Craft Staff than there are for Craft Wand? Or higher wisdom scores for Quicken Spell than for Silent Spell? No. Then why make it that much harder for the melee classes?


Jal Dorak wrote:

Here's the only problem I have with the "scaling fighter feats" concept - it rewards multiclass dipping.

Say you have a 6th level human barbarian (4 feats, let's say Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun). You take 1 level of fighter, and suddently get a huge benefit out of those feats.

Not a difficult problem to head off - just have a fighter level prerequisite for the "extras" on those feats.

Isn't the better solution just to make the scaling based off fighter levels?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dennis da Ogre wrote:

This is an interesting turn for the fighters... with feats like this I can see the elimination of the Full Round Attack - 5' Step rounds and lots of CMB/ attack routines. I think this is good but it's impossible to predict without having a significant amount of playtest.

This also devalues haste to some extent as well since the fighter will not be using a full attack action.

Combat maneuvers also don't have as great an impact on large/ huge quadrupeds with massive strength though.

Also, against scores of opponents, iterative attacks will still be useful.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
ruemere wrote:

My suggestion (CMB is, after all, very similar to harder version of Attack roll):

1. Perform CMB based manoeuver (CMB + d20 vs CMB + 15).
2. If successful, follow up with effect and deal damage as per normal attack.
I'm not sure I agree with an auto-hit after the CMB. There are creatures with high ACs and low CMBs and vice-versa. Giving a fighter a single second attack roll per round is not that big a deal compared to the 2-3+ attacks per round the fighter would get will full attack.

If you are afraid of Fighters having it too easy, you may want to rule that CMB resisting party may use, instead of 15 + CMB, their own Armor Class total.

The reason for autohit - fewer rolls equals improved game. And, against most CMB targets, you are likely to expect CMB to be higher than ordinary armor class.

Regards,
Ruemere

Osirion

Dennis da Ogre wrote:


One thing to consider though. Jason tossed around the idea previously that Weapon Training might affect CMB. If it does then the fighter is automatically better at almost all maneuvers in any case. Perhaps for the purposes of feats that use CMB giving fighters an added bonus would be overkill.

That is how my group decided to playtest (along with Weapon Focus and magic item bonus), and we found it made the fighter much more capably, especially against non-fighters. If anything it was a bit too powerful, which probably means it is about right - this is something new after all.


roguerouge wrote:
If a feat has a prereq of INT 15 or 17, then you might as well put a sign on the feat saying "No fighters need apply." INT is, at best, in 3rd or 4th place in the ability score hierarchy, behind STR, CON, and either DEX (a 12 to get the +1 to AC with Full Plate) or WIS (for will saves and guard duty).

I would love to see some feats/ combinations which would enable a high INT fighter. Perhaps some sort of feat to add INT to damage? I'm not sure. Alas... as the system is currently fighter==dumb. INT falls behind wisdom in importance because WIS at least boosts the fighters low Will save :)


ruemere wrote:

If you are afraid of Fighters having it too easy, you may want to rule that CMB resisting party may use, instead of 15 + CMB, their own Armor Class total.

The reason for autohit - fewer rolls equals improved game. And, against most CMB targets, you are likely to expect CMB to be higher than ordinary armor class.

I'm still not sold. It's a different roll, there are different modifiers on the roll and there is a different target (Weapon Attack Bonus Versus AC).

Here's a roll reducing thought. When you roll for cleave or great cleave you make one attack roll, one damage roll and it applies to all targeted creatures whose AC you beat.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

roguerouge wrote:
Isn't the better solution just to make the scaling based off fighter levels?

I could certainly see every combat feat adding something starting with "For every four fighter class levels you have..."


Epic Meepo wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
Isn't the better solution just to make the scaling based off fighter levels?
I could certainly see every combat feat adding something starting with "For every four fighter class levels you have..."

How about just "Fighters can add their Weapons Training Bonus to this roll". Or Jason has talked about adding the Weapon Training bonus to CMB which would make an additional bonus a bit of overkill.


Following the basic precedent provided by the various skill feats, one could perhaps make feats scale along the lines of:

At +1 BAB the feat provides "X" bonuses/benefits.
At +10 BAB, the feat provides "2X" bonuses/benefits.
At +15 BAB the feats provides "2X+Y" bonuses.

This is just off-the-top of my head, but it would seem to help the basic idea of growing the fighter upwards without necessarily forcing more feats and growing outwards.

Andoran

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Here's a roll reducing thought. When you roll for cleave or great cleave you make one attack roll, one damage roll and it applies to all targeted creatures whose AC you beat.

i think i like this. sometimes you fizzle, but, man, what a story to tell if you roll the nat 20...


A change I've made to the Fighter class in my campaigns coincides with much of what is presented here in regard to scalable feats for the fighter. It involves the weapon specialization feat chain:

1) First off, I got rid of Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization.
2) The Weapon Focus feat stays as is in 3.5 for all classes but the fighter.
3) When a fighter chooses this feat it applies to a weapon group (I've used the weapon groups in Unearthed Arcana).
4) Upon attaining 4th level, the fighter gains +2 on damage rolls. Upon attaining 8th level, the fighter's bonus to hit from this feat rises to +2. At 12th level, the bonus to damage increases to +4. At 16th level, the bonus to hit increases to +3. At 20th level, the bonus to damage increases to +6. (Obviously, the +3/+6 were add-ons for my part, which just continue the natural progression and has also helped somewhat replace the need for Weapon Mastery in the PHB II which we use).

This restructuring of the entire feat tree into one feat (for the fighter only), has essentially given the fighter class it's class feature (and has a side effect of freeing up feats for the class to diversify). The beauty of doing this myself and my players realize, is that you don't have to take the feat at all if you don't want to, you can stay focused and choose the feat once, or you can choose the feat multiple times to gain mastery over a variety of weapons. This latter choice in my experience doesn't make the fighter any more powerful (except in the case of a 2-weapon fighter who uses 2 different types of weapons); it just helps make him more diverse.

Bringing it a step further, it would be great if the fighter had several feats in the Pathfinder rulebook that followed this principle. That way, the fighter class (and the fighter class only), can in essence pick and choose his "class features."

Also, in regards to the Weapon Focus feat tree, I prefer this approach to Weapon Training, in fact I would like to see something like this replace Weapon Training. It allows the player to choose how many weapons he wishes to specialize in. Weapon Training, to me seems arbitrary (and forces a bit of "sameness" on all fighters) and I can't see my players getting much benefit from any weapons other than the 1st one they choose.

I also don't like the fact that Weapon Training currently stacks with the Weapon Focus tree. +7/+9 to hit & damage? Talk about leaving the other melee classes in the dust! As a DM, it is frustrating enough that there is a disparity in 90% of all combats where the fighter hits with regularity, and the cleric can't hit at all. Now there may be a disparity between the fighter and the other martial classes too? The existing disparity between certain martial classes is already apparent (fighter vs. paladin for example). Weapon Training + Weapon focus exacerbates the problem.

Osirion

My opinion would be to go with the Improved/Greater/Superior tree for all the CMB options. Put a BAB requirement on the Greater feats so that other martial characters can be good at it. But then make the Superior feats FIGHTER ONLY to help with their identity crisis.

Certainly a cleaner fix than feat-swapping for fighters, but I would be okay with some variation on that too.

Qadira RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I like these feats and I agree that the monk should also find combat maneuver enhancing feats available. If there were to be feats limited to fighters, I could see them in other places but not here. So, yes to the feats. No, to the exclusivity. A prerequisite BAB should be enough.

Osirion

Tarren Dei wrote:
I like these feats and I agree that the monk should also find combat maneuver enhancing feats available. If there were to be feats limited to fighters, I could see them in other places but not here. So, yes to the feats. No, to the exclusivity. A prerequisite BAB should be enough.

Well, from the opposie view, monks typically have a list of feats they may take without prerequisites. If we really want monks to have some of these, just put them on that list. I knopw it's more work, but it is a possibility.


While its the thought that counts, I'm not convinced these go far enough. Certainly not enough to warrant a second feat.

Jason (Buhlman)'s thought to make them extensions of the basic feat is a good one. I'm not convinced its enough.

Part of the problem I have with the current CMB feats is not only did the bonus from them get reduced to +2 (from +4), but the difficulty of performing the maneuvers in general got increased (15+appropriate defense vs. expected 10.5+appropriate defense). And its not like the offense got markedly better relative to the monsters. I don't know about the rest of you, but I want fighters wrestling fire giants to the ground and tripping monstrous scorpions. That's heroic. If anything, the fighter's chances got much much worse with the CMB rules. 10+x is like a d20 being rolled against you, which is what it should be - why is the defender getting an automatic 5 point advantage?

The other part of the problem is that fighters only have 6 more feats than a wizard. Six! Compared to some 30 spell slots/day, that's not much. Combat feats have to be really awesome to put the fighter anywhere near the same ballpark. I wrote some sample TWFing feats in another thread - that's seriously a minimum standard for just how awesome feats have to be.


I like the idea of a scalable Weapon Focus/Specialisation multi-feat. Stacking it with Weapon Training might be a little overkill though; I don't know.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder RPG Prerelease Discussion / Design Forums / Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger / Fighter epiphany 2: Electric Boogaloo! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.