| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same reason rogues are the only ones with 8+int skills per level. Skills are not suppose to be what a fighter needs. Clerics have 2+int per level and no one complains. Clerics fill their role and have a strong core mechanic.That's because full casting is extremely powerful. Having only 2 skill points sucks for every class (except Wizard and Witches), but when you get an overpowered class feature, that's not much of a problem...
Those of us against a 4 + int skill/lvl fighter want his core mechanics fixed, not just slapping on more skill points and saves and abilities until its no longer a fighter anymore.How exactly does getting +2 skill points and better saves makes a Fighter not a Fighter anymore? I'd say it makes them better Fighters. It brings them closer to becoming the elite warrior they're supposed to be.
Aye!! *raises mug* Fighters have to be doing *something* outside of Fighting, and 4+ skill points makes him viable. Of course, his primary concern is *fighting* ( hence the class ), but in those non-combat situations let him hold his own. . .
The same reason rogues are the only ones with 8+int skills per level. Skills are not suppose to be what a fighter needs. Clerics have 2+int per level and no one complains. Clerics fill their role and have a strong core mechanic.That's because full casting is extremely powerful. Having only 2 skill points sucks for every class (except Wizard and Witches), but when you get an overpowered class feature, that's not much of a problem...
Those of us against a 4 + int skill/lvl fighter want his core mechanics fixed, not just slapping on more skill points and saves and abilities until its no longer a fighter anymore.How exactly does getting +2 skill points and better saves makes a Fighter not a Fighter anymore? I'd say it makes them better Fighters. It brings them closer to becoming the elite warrior they're supposed to be.
FEATS SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH THAT HE DOESN'T NEED SUCH THINGS.
Fighter are not the well rounded class. Neither is wizard, rogue, or cleric.
They are specialized classes and should be good because of their specializations.
If being a fighter sucks so much compared to full casting than the core mechanic of the fighter is not working properly.
Fighter bonus feats plus other class abilities need to equal full casting.
The fighter class should make one better at fighting. The class should not help you make yourself better in out-of-combat situations. The class should make you so good at fighting that you can invest more into out-of-combat activities.
So they can suck at a huge part of the game because there is another part where they don't suck? Getting 4 skill points wouldn't make Fighter incredibly awesome at non-combat situations, it would make them good enough to be able to focus on their main role without being nearly useless at everything else. Skills are not even that powerful, but getting 2 more of them would be a good start.
Bard is a great example. Bards are so good at what they do that you can spend all of your feats on combat and still be a great bard. The bard class doesn't help you shoot things with a bow, but allows you to invest in the feats needed to shoot one.
Bard get lots of things to make them better in combat. Bardic Performance, spells, lots of skills and 2 good saves don't make them specifically better at archery, no, those class features makes Bards better combatants overall, including archery.
True enough, and the Fighter should be *quite* good at Fighting, but alas, there are other aspects to Pathfinder...
At the very least, there should be a trait and/or feat to give him 4+ if his current skill points stay as it is in the PCR ( Pathfinder Core Rulebook ). They shouldn't, just saying give him more skills .. ..
I'm fine with saying the fighter should be the one who can single man plow through any terrain and clear a path for his teammates to get through.
Climb the cliff first, drop the rope for everyone else. Swim across the water and hit the switch to drop the bridge. Jump over the gap to get to the door and find a way to get everyone else safely across.
Any argument that ends with someone else being able to do it and do it better just fuels my retort of "that's a problem with your play style, not with the fighter class."
Any argument that ends with someone else being able to do it and do it better just fuels my retort of "that's a problem with your play style, not with the fighter class."
The issue is more that someone else can do it, do it better and still does other stuff that a fighter cant.
Sure, if Fighters got something to actually contribute out of combat, I'd complain about they having only 2 skill points...
Well, actually, I probably would, because 2 skill points is just not enough, IMO...
But adding skill points is a easy fix. Not a complete fix, since they still have other problems, but a good start.
Now, most of Fighters' problems are problems shared by all other martial classes as well. But more often than not, Fighters are the ones most affected by such problems.
I'm fine with saying the fighter should be the one who can single man plow through any terrain and clear a path for his teammates to get through.
Climb the cliff first, drop the rope for everyone else. Swim across the water and hit the switch to drop the bridge. Jump over the gap to get to the door and find a way to get everyone else safely across.Any argument that ends with someone else being able to do it and do it better just fuels my retort of "that's a problem with your play style, not with the fighter class."
OK then. Lets simplify this:
Im going too ask you too list the Fighters Merits In game (As in not "Its simpler too run").
What makes the fighter worth playing over any other class?
It doesn't do that much damage
It doesn't have many choices as what it can do in combat.
Its not the best protected.
It doesn't have many skills
Its main class features are much weaker then every other classes class features.
So what is its merit? Why does it not need a boost (Boosting one class is easier then de-buffing 10 others).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any argument that ends with someone else being able to do it and do it better just fuels my retort of "that's a problem with your play style, not with the fighter class."
So basically, any argument that states the facts is invalid to you?
I think we're done here.
I'm fine with saying the fighter should be the one who can single man plow through any terrain and clear a path for his teammates to get through.
Climb the cliff first, drop the rope for everyone else. Swim across the water and hit the switch to drop the bridge. Jump over the gap to get to the door and find a way to get everyone else safely across.Any argument that ends with someone else being able to do it and do it better just fuels my retort of "that's a problem with your play style, not with the fighter class."
OK then. Lets simplify this:
Im going too ask you too list the Fighters Merits In game (As in not "Its simpler too run").
What makes the fighter worth playing over any other class?
It doesn't do that much damage
It doesn't have many choices as what it can do in combat.
Its not the best protected.
It doesn't have many skills
Its main class features are much weaker then every other classes class features.
So what is its merit? Why does it not need a boost (Boosting one class is easier then de-buffing 10 others).
Fighters can achieve the best AC in the game with armor, as well as the absolute most consistent damage because they lack any consumable daily resource. 15 minute work days do not exist to the fighter.
The fighter who specialized can do more in combat than anyone else. Just because he doesn't get pounce like a barbarian, or smite like a paladin doesn't make him suck in combat, because again, he has no resources to burn through.Again with the skills, what do you want this guy to even do? We want more skills!!!! Why? WE DON"T KNOW BUT WE WANT THEM!!!!
@Rynjin:
I was referring to magic being an out to anything skill related, since that is the main argument for skills being underpowered in this game anyway.
Sure, if Fighters got something to actually contribute out of combat, I'd complain about they having only 2 skill points...
Well, actually, I probably would, because 2 skill points is just not enough, IMO...
But adding skill points is a easy fix. Not a complete fix, since they still have other problems, but a good start.
Now, most of Fighters' problems are problems shared by all other martial classes as well. But more often than not, Fighters are the ones most affected by such problems.
I made a list but I think feat changes goes a long way. Martial types rely on combat feats and when they suck the classes go down. I think the worst thing about feat taxes is that you're spending a feat slot on something that barely impacts combat for you on the same level where a caster can reverse gravity.
Fighters can achieve the best AC in the game with armor, as well as the absolute most consistent damage because they lack any consumable daily resource. 15 minute work days do not exist to the fighter.
The fighter who specialized can do more in combat than anyone else. Just because he doesn't get pounce like a barbarian, or smite like a paladin doesn't make him suck in combat, because again, he has no resources to burn through.
All of those are a lie.
Lots of other Classes can use heavy armor.
Plenty of other class builds exceed the Fighter, even with no consumables.
Neither of the above make any of the classes better at combat though as pure DPR and pure AC doesn't exist in a vacuum and they are likely too be targeted by different things as well.
But they can still do the above BETTER then the fighter, and then some.
Again with the skills, what do you want this guy to even do? We want more skills!!!! Why? WE DON"T KNOW BUT WE WANT THEM!!!!
What I want Fighters to do with skills... I'd say "Something useful". Because out of combat (and by combat, I mean "combat situations where you can stand still all the time and all threats target AC and nothing else") Fighter are about as useful as a commoner.
I don't want Fighters to be skill monkeys or full-casting gods, but I do want them to be useful out of combat, because that's usually a huge part of game.
@Rynjin:
I was referring to magic being an out to anything skill related, since that is the main argument for skills being underpowered in this game anyway.
Even ignoring that, Barbarians and Rangers get more skills and skill bonuses, and are just as good at combat, if not more so.
That's the main issue. And the answer isn't to nerf those guys, because they're balanced compared to the game as a whole.
Therefore, the answer has to lie with fixing the Fighter.
Lots of other Classes can use heavy armor.
Plenty of other class builds exceed the Fighter, even with no consumables.
Paladin, Cavalier, Magus at level 13. Ummmm, that's a lot of classes. The fighter can move at full speed, and can use +4 more DEX without having to buy mithral or waste a spell on Effortless Armor. Sure the other classes can do that, but the fighter can do it for free. Not to mention he reduces ACP.
Neither of the above make any of the classes better at combat though as pure DPR and pure AC doesn't exist in a vacuum and they are likely too be targeted by different things as well.
But they can still do the above BETTER then the fighter, and then some.
So I guess those feats that allow for more versatility in combat really don't? Does everyone just assume that all fighters just take the vital strike chain? You have no examples of a class doing anything better than the fighter, you are just saying that they do.
Do I have to list every feat chain, combat style, and their merits that may take more than 3 or 4 feats to do effectively? Fighters can do a lot more in combat than just bumping their own numbers.
Paladin, Cavalier, Magus at level 13.
Also Gunslinger (Gun Tank), Crusader Cleric, Armored Hulk Barbarian, Metal Oracle. Pretty sure some other guys too.
The fighter can move at full speed
AKA -10 feet. Whilst I only remember the Metal Oracle Getting essentially exactly the same thing as armor training only as a single part of its class, there are plenty of other classes that also give a +10 Foot bonus.
and can use +4 more DEX
Gun Tank Gunsliger.
without having to buy mithral
AKA one of the cheapest things you can buy.
Sure the other classes can do that, but the fighter can do it for free.
Nope. Other classes can.
So I guess those feats that allow for more versatility in combat really don't?
You mean the ones with huge feat chains? Or the ones that work with Only Unarmed Sktrike?
Does everyone just assume that all fighters just take the vital strike chain?
No, we just assume they take the build that does the most damage in order to keep up with the other classes.
You have no examples of a class doing anything better than the fighter, you are just saying that they do.
Do you want some basic examples?
OK, GunSlingers Dex too damage rolls means that with Maximized average Dexterity, it can get +13 too damage rolls. Without magic weapons or anything else. Then we can start adding on Pistolero, Magic weapons, and all the other good stuff that greatly beats out the fighter. And we can double the amount of attacks made with a Double Barrel pistol. Against Touch AC.
Do I have to list every feat chain, combat style, and their merits that may take more than 3 or 4 feats to do effectively? Fighters can do a lot more in combat than just bumping their own numbers.
Sure. Do it.
I do not understand why people oppose to this. it only would bring the fighter to the same out of combat utility as the barbarian, they still are far from the ranger or any spellcaster.I'm sticking to my position: 4+ int is best for keeping a Fighter viable in those non-combat situations.
Because CAKE! Also, Dev-worship.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the opinions I've seen reflect the idea that the Fighter is supposed to be the Badass Normal. As is though, the Fighter is the PC version of the Warrior, almost equally bland but with higher numbers.
I find it amusing how people often refer to Wizards as being Batman (for their ability to overcome all challenges given prep time), when Batman was supposed to be the Badass Normal among a group including the Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter. The Fighter should be able to capitalize on prep time far better (whereas currently he can't contribute anything, at least not anything class-given. Good ol' consistent fighter). I think the ability to retrain feats regularly would be a good start. Then writing up more cool feats that accomplish magic-level effects.
Then writing up more cool feats that accomplish magic-level effects.
I agree with this a lot, though when this suggestion comes up there always seems to be a lot of shouts using phrases like "weeaboo" and "lulz DBZ." What's wrong with a badass replicating things others use magic for just through sheer awesome? It makes me think of the 3.5 epic skill DCs where you could do things like swim up a waterfall with a high enough swim check or balance on clouds with a 100 balance check... speaking of which being able to do some things like that but at a lower DC would be interesting feats or rogue talents.
Unfortunately, looks like that kinda stuff is locked in "Mythic Only" territory ATM, since even a "Brave Jump!" is only possible in Mythic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of people will oppose to fifhters being able to jump one hundred feets or having mirror images. However, the reasonig behind tgat is about game style.
FIghters could replicate some spells in power, without using spell-like stuff.
For example:
power sword to kill. If tge target hass less than 100hp, instantly dies.
ARrow of death. Tge target rolls for a save. 10hp x level, or 3d8+level if success.
ATtack the eyes: target saves Fort, or is permanently blinded.
DEfensive stance. 50% of the attacks miss.
And so on. None of those are Wuxia style. Just regular sword-swinging and dodging
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the opinions I've seen reflect the idea that the Fighter is supposed to be the Badass Normal. As is though, the Fighter is the PC version of the Warrior, almost equally bland but with higher numbers.
I find it amusing how people often refer to Wizards as being Batman (for their ability to overcome all challenges given prep time), when Batman was supposed to be the Badass Normal among a group including the Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter. The Fighter should be able to capitalize on prep time far better (whereas currently he can't contribute anything, at least not anything class-given. Good ol' consistent fighter). I think the ability to retrain feats regularly would be a good start. Then writing up more cool feats that accomplish magic-level effects.
But Batman isn't.
Batman is a martial artist, ninja, who takes a beatdown from super villians that would crush normal people (even counting his armor, he should be dead), and hurts them physically.Heck, he used to have a gun till they rewrote Batman without one.
Really he is a wizard: just they reflavor everything to look normal.
FIghters could replicate some spells in power, without using spell-like stuff.
Or we could have a list of unique standard action extraordinary abilities with a few swift here and there and a passive style that don't just emulate spells. ToB did a good job of giving the warblade(who had half the fighter's class features and more...) 4+ skill points, unique abilities, and intellect synergy.
Any argument that ends with someone else being able to do it and do it better just fuels my retort of "that's a problem with your play style, not with the fighter class."
There's a lot wrong with this statement. What's the point in talking back if someone is just going to invalidate what you say? Its sort of like "I won't change my opinion but your free to argue with me."
If two skill points is enough for clerics, it should be enough for fighters.
If it isn't enough that is a failing of the fighter's core mechanic. Feats.
The fighter doesn't need more skill points. He needs better feats.
The happy medium that needs to be struck is that mundane classes need more versatility and the spellcasters need to be forced to specialize, essentially the exact opposite of the current situation. Don't make the magic less magical, just make it so that learning that magic means being super focused on a narrow and difficult field. Meanwhile the guys who can't command the universe to adjust to their whims should be learning all kinds of creative and effective ways to work around these issues with the tools they have available.
Either that or abandon classes alltogether and let everyone know a little magic as well as how to swing and axe. Why wouldn't every random nobody in every town at least know a few cantrips?
The happy medium that needs to be struck is that mundane classes need more versatility and the spellcasters need to be forced to specialize, essentially the exact opposite of the current situation. Don't make the magic less magical, just make it so that learning that magic means being super focused on a narrow and difficult field. Meanwhile the guys who can't command the universe to adjust to their whims should be learning all kinds of creative and effective ways to work around these issues with the tools they have available.
Either that or abandon classes alltogether and let everyone know a little magic as well as how to swing and axe. Why wouldn't every random nobody in every town at least know a few cantrips?
NO. Nerfing other people to save the fighter is the kind of "solution" that kills the game.
Fix Fighter Feats.
Don't nerf other people or throw random bonuses at the fighter. Fix the feats.
Regardless of what you try to do, as long as feats suck so will the fighter (unless you have added so many buffs to him that he has long since abandoned the concept of fighter)
There's a lot wrong with this statement. What's the point in talking back if someone is just going to invalidate what you say? Its sort of like "I won't change my opinion but your free to argue with me."
Because it doesn't change what fighters can do. They are still capable of doing things out of combat, the only issue is you have someone else in the party who can do it, and now the fighter feels like he doesn't have a job. That is more of a problem than the fighter not having enough skill points to be able to do "something useful."
There's a lot wrong with this statement. What's the point in talking back if someone is just going to invalidate what you say? Its sort of like "I won't change my opinion but your free to argue with me."Because it doesn't change what fighters can do. They are still capable of doing things out of combat, the only issue is you have someone else in the party who can do it, and now the fighter feels like he doesn't have a job. That is more of a problem than the fighter not having enough skill points to be able to do "something useful."
What if!
The fighter does have enough skill points to be useful, just not as useful as classes that don't focus on fighting.
What if the real problem is that fighter feats sucks. What if great feats of physical accomplishment should have some sort of out-of-combat function, but don't because feats suck.
There's a lot wrong with this statement. What's the point in talking back if someone is just going to invalidate what you say? Its sort of like "I won't change my opinion but your free to argue with me."Because it doesn't change what fighters can do. They are still capable of doing things out of combat, the only issue is you have someone else in the party who can do it, and now the fighter feels like he doesn't have a job. That is more of a problem than the fighter not having enough skill points to be able to do "something useful."
the problem is that is not true they caN do things out of combat. They can, sort of, at level 1. When a rank or two and the ability mod is enough to beat tge weak DC of a level 1 challenge. At 10, that's not true. They lack tge skill points to do things out of combat at the DC ussually seen in those levels.
NO. Nerfing other people to save the fighter is the kind of "solution" that kills the game.
Fix Fighter Feats.
Don't nerf other people or throw random bonuses at the fighter. Fix the feats.
Regardless of what you try to do, as long as feats suck so will the fighter (unless you have added so many buffs to him that he has long since abandoned the concept of fighter)
Well no matter how much you buff the fighter, he will still be an idiot because the wizard is hilariously more powerful than the fighter.
It is incorrect to assume that nerfing something will make the game worse, because I can think of plenty of examples to the opposite, because of the correct designer mindset
As a quick esxample, pathfinder. I find pathfinder a better game than 3.5, because of things like wildshape nerf, polymorph nerfs, divine metamagic nerf, etc. I think the game would be better if we fix or nerf things like Gate, Simulacrum, plannar binding and other absolutelly broken spells that can wreck havoc in any campaign, ruin the economy system or destroy entire realms.
The happy medium that needs to be struck is that mundane classes need more versatility and the spellcasters need to be forced to specialize, essentially the exact opposite of the current situation.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with this.
In fact many spellcasters tend to "specialize" just because in play it's actually hard to be good at everything. Spontaneous casters especially. But the ability to take a diverse array of spells is still useful and not inherently game-breaking (the same spellcasters who "specialize" also tend to make sure they have a range of useful spells.
There are fewer problematic spells & caster abilities than there used to be. A few more need to be addressed, but simply because they're broken or breakable or not properly worded. Not because they need to be fixed so other classes can be fun.
Yes that will probably mean the "Big Three" Casters will continue to have more raw theoretical and potential power. But, again, there's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good. People aren't generally dissatisfied by the "Tier 3 classes" just because "Tier 1 classes" exist (I'm sure there are some); they are dissatisfied with "Tier 4 classes" (and "Tier 5" PC classes), because those classes underperform.
Incremental improvement (which is what PF itself was, an incremental improvement) would be good enough.
Well no matter how much you buff the fighter, he will still be an idiot because the wizard is hilariously more powerful than the fighter.
To put it in the framework of "Tiers," I think most people would be happy enough if Fighter (and other "Tier 4" classes) were revised enough to make it to "Tier 3."
As long as spellcasters can make skill obsolete, can summon fighter replacements as well as 'silver bullet' solutions, can make most of the adventure optional through mobility and information superiority, and are also what the noncasters have to rely on for gear, buffs and healing, what niche does ANYONE have left to fill?
Couple that with the mindset that fighters by definition can't do 'unrealistic' things (in a world full of magic and strange creatures and such, no less) and there simply is no improving the situation. It's impossible to balance two classes when one lives in a box and the other lives in the 4th dimension looking down on all these silly boxes with disdain.
Thus there are only two options: either let fighters have some of those healing/buffing/crafting/utility abilities too no matter how unrealistic it gets, or put the spellcasters in a box like the rest. Anything else is a non-answer.
In fact many spellcasters tend to "specialize" just because in play it's actually hard to be good at everything. Spontaneous casters especially. But the ability to take a diverse array of spells is still useful and not inherently game-breaking (the same spellcasters who "specialize" also tend to make sure they have a range of useful spells.
But aren't spontaneous casters generally considered a step below prepared casters because they lack versatility? And in talking about the usual "range of useful spells", you've just put a spotlight on exactly what I'm talking about... casters can specialize and still cover lots of other bases. Fighters can't do that, and even the mundane classes that can are still able to be replaced with a spell or two.
.
In fact many spellcasters tend to "specialize" just because in play it's actually hard to be good at everything. Spontaneous casters especially. But the ability to take a diverse array of spells is still useful and not inherently game-breaking (the same spellcasters who "specialize" also tend to make sure they have a range of useful spells.
There are fewer problematic spells & caster abilities than there used to be. A few more need to be addressed, but simply because they're broken or breakable or not properly worded. Not because they need to be fixed so other classes can be fun.
I do think specialization could be a way.
Right now, tier 1 have way too broad problem-resolutions. They can literally do anything. That is not tge case in a majority of stories, novels, and myths. In most stories, an enchanter could enchant, a necromancer deals with dead and a pyromancer creates fire. In D&D, the nnecromancer can charm people, the enchanter can fireball minions and the pyromancer can have an army of undead just in case. All of that while they summon things, get protected by impassable barriers, fly, teleport, know the future and make skills obsolete through spider climb and knock
As long as spellcasters can make skill obsolete, can summon fighter replacements as well as 'silver bullet' solutions, can make most of the adventure optional through mobility and information superiority, and are also what the noncasters have to rely on for gear, buffs and healing, what niche does ANYONE have left to fill?
Maybe there needs to be a whole nother thread on fixing casters. I wouldn't mind that (and before anyone says "it has to be discussed in the context of this, so it should be in the fighter thread," no; all it has to be is in the same forum. People are fully capable of reading multiple threads).
Here on the subject of casters the only thing I want to say is my general remarks. I might be interested to see your specific proposals on how to fix casters, in a new thread devoted to fixing casters.
I stick with what I said before: I think that forcing specialization (of the kind I *think* you mean) on casters has too much potential to break things the other way, and "bottom rung on top now" is not at all what I seek. But I'm willing to be shown that it can work and still make for fun, playable casters who *also* aren't overshadowed. In a different thread where that stuff can be discussed in detail (put here, it would have a tendency to hijack the thread).
They might or might not be (there's been debate on that in the "Summoners = CoDzilla" thread), but at worst they are "Tier 2," which is not a bad place to be (unlike Tier 4 or below).
But aren't spontaneous casters generally considered a step below prepared casters because they lack versatility?
I do think specialization could be a way.
That might or might not be the case. I would like to see it discussed in a new thread. I mean that because if there is one broad point I agree with Marthkus on, it's that classes shouldn't be nerfed just to make other classes seem special. Discussing what to do about Casters here in this thread definately leaves that impression.
If Casters need a fix - if "Tier 1" is too powerful in general for the good of the game, that's, IMO, irrespective of whether other classes are underperforming ("Tier 4"), and the fixes that may or may not be needed should be discussed in the context of how easy it is for them to break the game as a whole (irrespective of whether there are any non-tier-1 classes in the party at all).
The fighter does have enough skill points to be useful, just not as useful as classes that don't focus on fighting.
The problem is, every class focuses on fighting. Every other class in the game can at least break even with the fighter's combat utility, while also crushing him in out-of-combat usefulness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it isn't a perfect, high-level-play fix, but in my home games Fighters have the following changes:
- 4 + Int Mod Skill points per level, Perception class skill.
- Fighters gain Combat Style feats like the Ranger, at the same progression as Ranger (2,6,10,14,18; replacing the bonus feat at those levels).
- Fighter Bonus Feat class feature allows fighters to ignore one of a feat's prerequisites when qualifying for a combat feat as a fighter bonus feat (excluding BAB). At 12th level, a fighter can ignore two prerequisites.
- Fighter Bonus Feat class feature allows the Fighter exchange one fighter bonus feat for a new one once per day.
I have been running these changes for nearly a year, and they have been working great.
Combat Style allows Fighters to ignore a good number of prerequisites for feats and allows for a much greater flexibility in ability scores (High STR, low DEX Fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting, for instance).
The Fighter Bonus Feat change allows the Fighter to ignore some feat taxes (Combat Expertise or Improved Unarmed Strike when taking Combat Maneuver feats, for example), allows Fighters to phase out obsolete feats (Cleave for Great Cleave or Vital Strike for Improved Vital Strike, for example), and allows Fighters to be more adaptable to situations with their feats or fighting styles as they adventure.
Say you had Weapon Focus (longsword), but you found an awesome magical bastard sword. Before, you either had to suffer the feat loss and use the bastard sword two-handed, or sack the item for extra gold. Now, you are able to exchange Weapon Focus for Exotic Weapon Prof. (bastard sword) and/or Weapon Focus (bastard sword) over the course of a couple of days instead of a couple of levels.
The thread in which I posted these homebrew changes can be found in my profile.
Of course, these changes don't address the saves issue, mobility issue, and the magic item reliance, but they certainly help a fighter be more of a fighter and to make the class be more unique from other martial classes.
and btw, the idea of giving fighters various social benefits as a class feature is just plain silly. It accomplishes some of what needs fixing, true, but why exactly is the kingdom filled with such awe and respect for a guy who swings a weapon really well when he's standing right next to the lady who can raise the dead and the guy who turns dragons into dust with a gesture, both of whom are almost guaranteed to be much wiser and/or intelligent than the fighter and thus naturally much better suited for leadership? It lacks verisimilitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that 'Fighter gets the best AC' is a complete lie. That honor goes to Barbarians, who can get stacking dodge and nat AC bonuses, while armor exists that allows them a dex bonus to AC as high as the fighter will acheive.
And then they get Superstitious with +7 to all saves vs Magic by 20th, pounce, energy resistance, spell cleaving, Robilar's Gambit/Come and Get me, etc.
And they can function perfectly well with any weapon in hand, they don't need to specialize.
==Aelryinth
The problem is, every class focuses on fighting. Every other class in the game can at least break even with the fighter's combat utility, while also crushing him in out-of-combat usefulness.
With the possible exception of the rogue who is probably somewhat suckier than even the fighter in combat (although still superior to fighters outside of it, obviously). However, it's not like the rogue isn't the class considered the most underpowered class (more than even the fighter) on these forums, so I am not sure that "better than rogue" is a great accolade.
*PS, also, don't ask me about cavaliers, I have never played one, seen one played, or tried to build one
and btw, the idea of giving fighters various social benefits as a class feature is just plain silly.
You might tone down your remarks a tad: "I disagree with that approach" is awesome. "That's just plain silly" is dismissive. "That's hilariously stupid" (the next step down the chain, and one that's getting to be increasingly popular on the boards) is offensive.
It accomplishes some of what needs fixing, true
Until you present a different set of mechanics that does the same, then stop here.
both of whom are almost guaranteed to be much wiser and/or intelligent than the fighter and thus naturally much better suited for leadership?
Intelligence =/= leadership ability. Bravery, the ability to face hard choices, the ability to seize opportunities count for a lot more than mental processing power.
It lacks verisimilitude.
Yeah, so do dragons. And hit points. And about 90% of the other stuff people accept without question.
The verisimilitude issue is that you're giving 'powers' to a charecter that really aren't about him, but rather are dictating how the world works around him just because he gained a level. That's a really big lump to swallow.
Much better to give the fighter the skills and flexibility to EARN those kinds of social influence rather than have them be handed to him. You do this by giving them more skills, making feats scale rather than requiring deep chains, using some of the freed up feat slots as designated non-combat bonus feats with interesting and relevant social or utility abilities to choose from, and finally telling casters they can't have everything all the time.
I disagree that new feats are the answer, that is until Paizo stops publishing feats that should be combat actions/maneuvers. Feats should do something cool, or at least outside of the box. We don't need a feat for every little corner case that may pop up in combat, or that cover a generic combat trope that a relatively well trained warrior should be able to attempt.
I love Kirth's ideas he listed a few pages ago, but before I even added those I'd add (the ubiquitous)4+INT skills and do away with all feat prereqs (other than class, class features, level and +BAB) on bonus combat feats. That will end useless chains for the fighter, allow him to retrain into a better version of a feat as he goes up in level without carrying deadweight on his feat list and at least open up feats for the sake of diversity and rounding out the character. It will produce some spiking in power at low levels, but I don't think that's too big a deal, nor would outweigh the value it would bring to getting the class closer to par.
And that 'Fighter gets the best AC' is a complete lie. That honor goes to Barbarians, who can get stacking dodge and nat AC bonuses, while armor exists that allows them a dex bonus to AC as high as the fighter will acheive.
And then they get Superstitious with +7 to all saves vs Magic by 20th, pounce, energy resistance, spell cleaving, Robilar's Gambit/Come and Get me, etc.
And they can function perfectly well with any weapon in hand, they don't need to specialize.
==Aelryinth
I said best AC in heavy armor, or at least I meant to.
The verisimilitude issue is that you're giving 'powers' to a charecter that really aren't about him, but rather are dictating how the world works around him just because he gained a level. That's a really big lump to swallow.
Much as casters are given spells that dictate how the world works around them, just because they gained a level. There is a nearly exact correspondence there that's not accidental -- every one of the abilities I listed is geared to providing a mundane alternative to the spells' impact on the game world, at level-appropriate break points.
Much better to give the fighter the skills and flexibility to EARN those kinds of social influence rather than have them be handed to him. You do this by giving them (a) more skills, (b) making feats scale rather than requiring deep chains, using some of the freed up feat slots as designated non-combat bonus feats with (c) interesting and relevant social or utility abilities to choose from, and (d) finally telling casters they can't have everything all the time.
(a) This is relevant for 2 or 3 levels, as explained above -- short of overhauling the entire system, skills are obsolete by 3rd level, 5th max. I would love for this to not be the case -- if you have a better skill system, please link to it!
(b) I do that, Frank and K do that, and a lot of other people, and it addresses his ability to have more than one combat schtick, but that's all. It's a good thing to do, but it's still only a band-aid.(c) Please post these "interesting and relevant social or utility" feats you've designed that are filling the gap -- we'd all like to see them.
(d) This is the crux of things -- we can make fighters relevant by bringing them up to the level of the casters, or by nerfing the casters down to their level, or some cmbination of the two. Nerfing casters is a deceptively easy route -- get rid of planar binding, nerf flying and invisibility and charm person and all other spells that supersede skills, axe all the spells that step on others classes' toes (e.g., find the path). Also nerf the entire school of Divination into the ground. And make all casting spontaneous instead of prepared.
Unfortunatly, a lot of people are very adamantly opposed to that approach, which is why most of the 3.X fixes you see go the other route -- empowering martials. Which is what we're trying to do.
If the only way to do that is by mugging the DM, stealing his "fiat rewards," and hard-coding them back into the class (where they were in 1e), then I'm all for it, unless someone proposes something that actually accomplishes that goal within a rules-based system (not the current "the DM should probably have pity and give you story rewards to make you feel special, but we won't step up and provide a system for it," which is a total cop-out).
and btw, the idea of giving fighters various social benefits as a class feature is just plain silly. It accomplishes some of what needs fixing, true, but why exactly is the kingdom filled with such awe and respect for a guy who swings a weapon really well when he's standing right next to the lady who can raise the dead and the guy who turns dragons into dust with a gesture, both of whom are almost guaranteed to be much wiser and/or intelligent than the fighter and thus naturally much better suited for leadership? It lacks verisimilitude.
What's more impressive, killing a dragon with PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!! or a sharp pies of metal and elbow grease.
You don't get it:
Wizards have a Spell that allows them too mind control stuff. But if the creature is immune too mind control thats something else. The Wizard might not even have the spell
The issue with a Fighter that auto has followers that forces the GAME WORLD too act a certain way:
What if Im in a desert setting? A Survival Horror setting?
Balancing the Fighter around the assumption that there will be any followers AT ALL, is just wrong in my opinion.
Many of the opinions I've seen reflect the idea that the Fighter is supposed to be the Badass Normal. As is though, the Fighter is the PC version of the Warrior, almost equally bland but with higher numbers.
I find it amusing how people often refer to Wizards as being Batman (for their ability to overcome all challenges given prep time), when Batman was supposed to be the Badass Normal among a group including the Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter. The Fighter should be able to capitalize on prep time far better (whereas currently he can't contribute anything, at least not anything class-given. Good ol' consistent fighter). I think the ability to retrain feats regularly would be a good start. Then writing up more cool feats that accomplish magic-level effects.
But Batman isn't.
Batman is a martial artist, ninja, who takes a beatdown from super villians that would crush normal people (even counting his armor, he should be dead), and hurts them physically.Heck, he used to have a gun till they rewrote Batman without one.
Really he is a wizard: just they reflavor everything to look normal.
You would build a better Batman if you used other classes, but they use abilities that deactivate in antimagic fields to accomplish it. Batman doesn't care what color the sun is or stuff like that.
But yeah why can't we reflavor some stuff to make it look normal? Gustavo posted a good direction I think.