The Fighter Unchained! Let's get the Fighter into PF Unchained


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see Combat Styles the way arcane casters have various Schools of Magic.

Allow the Fighter to develop a Style or Styles the same way a Wizard can inherently with his class and not need to expend Feats to do so.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Jobo wrote:
Well the wizard is not good at fighting. I don't think we are fixing that.

The Wizard is great at fighting.

The Wizard has good defenses, and OPTIONS in combat. "Fighting" is not just "hit it hard". The Wizard is great at fighting because he can buff allies and control the flow of battle.

The Paladin is great at fighting because he can hit things good, and is practically impossible to take down.

The Ranger is good at fighting because he has options, and if he catches you with your pants down (or god forbid you fall into one of his Favored Enemy categories by default) he will shred you. Granted the Ranger is kind of the weakest link of the True Martial Trio.

The Barbarian is good at fighting because he's mobile, resilient, and absolutely BRUTAL at hitting things.

The Fighter is, ironically, not good at fighting. He's good at hitting things but he has:

-No real options.
-No non-AC defenses.
-No special abilities.
-No special mobility, and no option to get such.

Making the Fighter better at hitting things misses the point. He's already good at hitting things.

You need to make the Fighter better at FIGHTING.

One might say that all the fighter has is a hammer, when most level-appropriate challenges are not nails.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I'm reposting this as a commentary on Fighter design, fitting with the above summation on Fighter fighting ability.
========================================================
A philosophy of advanced Fighter design:

When you design the Fighter class from a ‘realistic’ standpoint, you have to make allowances that the Fighter is supposed to represent the professional martial classes of history, NOT just be a weapon master who picks up combat tricks. This has to be further adjusted by the presence of magic. As in, there's no way under Heaven that any true warrior would not adjust for the presence of magic, any less then they'd adjust for the presence of firearms, tanks and helicopters.

To that end, we'll begin with some observations about the cornerstones of the class as it stands.

Armor Proficiency: Being experienced in armor is useful, but by no means mandatory for the class. Plenty of soldiers in ancient times, and especially duelists and gladiators, wore very light armor. In a magical world, where magic can bypass armor, its usefulness will be dubious, and alternatives sought, unless this can be rectified, much like classic steel armor went out of use soon after firearms dominated the battlefield.

Shield Proficiency: The shield, probably the one item that most identifies a professional medieval warrior above all other things, is completely ignored by those using a 2h weapon or missile weapons. It, too, should be elective. A shield that cannot be used to block magical attacks is also of limited usefulness.

Skill points: Military men have a lot of downtime. Sure, they can be indolent and lazy. Or, they can train, train, train, and pick up new things (hence the reason officers exist, and sergeants!). While it is totally believable that a Fighter could start out with only 2 skill points if he devoted his full time to mastering all those weapons and armor and a full BAB, the skills he has should increase rapidly with his training, if for no other reason than so he can perform the different roles expected of a melee combatant. So a fighter should be learning additional new things, in addition to getting better at his old things…something you can't do with the current rules aside from raising your Int stat.

Martial Weapons: Prof in martial weapons should really be more restricted then it is. Learning ALL martial/simple weapons would take a simply immense amount of training and time. Most professional fighters learned to use one weapon well and stuck with it. Someone who was awesome with a lot of weapons was FAMOUS for his flexibility. But the reason you had swordsmaster and spearmasters was because learning to be a master of both was anything but easy.
That being said, a fighter needs to learn weapons usable at all ranges: in a grapple, at arm's reach, at weapon's reach, at extended reach, at close throwing range, and at proper missile range.

So, one of the things you might want to do is revalue martial weapons. Make knowing a weapon have value again!

I suggest doing the following:
Martial classes (full BAB) start with knowing all simple weapons and a number of martial weapons equal to their starting skill points (including Int bonus, i.e. smart melees know more weapons). Fighters start at level 1 with all martial weapons, period. Paladins gain proficiency in all martial weapons as a blessing from the Heavens when they start their class (along with their armor and shield profs).

¾ BAB classes start with all simple weapons and 2 weapons of their choice from lists appropriate to their class (monk list, cleric list, rogue list, etc). They can spend one skill point per weapon to learn more weapons from their list.

½ BAB classes start with a number of simple weapons equal to their starting base skill points (typically 2). Their BAB is a perfect indicator of the fact that these classes simply do not spend time learning to master any weapons. They can burn skill points to learn additional simple weapons.

Martial Weapon Proficiency would give you the right to spend your skill points to acquire proficiency in one martial weapon per skill point. Exotic Weapon Proficiency would do the same for exotic weapons (Martial Weapon Prof pre-req). If your Int bonus goes up and you level up in a martial class, you get an additional weapon prof.

Using a shield as a weapon is a Martial Weapon Prof. Rote Warriors are trained to defend themselves with a shield, not attack with it.

Learning Improved Unarmed Strike or Improved Grapple is a Martial Weapon Prof AND a combat maneuver (due to not provoking an AoO). In a nod to martial traditions, Fighters should start with one or the other for free.

This adds back in some complexity from the earlier editions of the game, and at the same time restores value to those same skills. People will actually start favoring weapons again, outside of the Weapon Focus feat! Additionally, it gives skill points a valuable use unrelated to skills … unless you count skill in a weapon a skill, of course!

After level 1, NO weapon proficiencies are gained by any class, with the exception of the Paladin. Your class's Weapon Proficiency lets a multi-classer spend skill points to learn the weapons of his choice, however.

---------------------

The Fighter has been generally expected to perform six roles historically, and his class abilities should reflect that. Those roles are:

Champion
Guardian
Master/Teacher
Warlord
Hunter
Soldier

The Champion role is also the role of the Gladiator and the Duelist. Basically, it is the ability of the fighter to go out there and defeat his enemy in single combat, be it before cheering crowds, tilting at the lists, or one-on-one combat in a formal duel.
The current fighter takes a nod to this role with his weapon mastery. With a weapon in hand that he loves and has trained with, a fighter is a superb champion in the martial world.
HOWEVER …this is a magical world, and so a proper champion must be able to take on magical threats. He must be able to evade magical attacks and withstand magical assaults on mind and body.
He does not have this capability as part of his class. All he is, is tough. Champions are generally focused on Strength, and Power Attack is their hallmark feat.
The class best filling the Champion role is the cavalier, who can simply pick an opponent and make himself dangerous against them. The barbarian can do the same, his rage powers and rage giving him a natural buff against any foe, and Superstitious granting defense against magic.
The ranger and the paladin can also serve as superb champions, the one using FE and the other using Smite, to become the best of their kind against their specific enemies. The paladin also brings great saves and even immunities to the field.
The Fighter tends to bring little to the table to be excellent against a particular kind of foe, he simply has constant ability, and below average to very poor defenses.

The Guardian role is equal parts sentry, bodyguard, vanguard and scout. It requires alertness, attentiveness, readiness, the ability to stave off boredom, quick reactions and intercession.
The Fighter has no such ability to be a guardian as part of his class. His class skills do not include something as basic as being able to perceive an enemy or assess opponents, and he certainly can’t intercede on such things.
Guardians tend to have Wis as a useful stat. Combat Reflexes, Skill Focus (Perception) and Improved Initiative are probably as key as you’re going to get here.
The best Guardians tend to be barbarians and rangers, the former because they get Uncanny Dodge and the latter because they get crucial skills and skill bonuses (trying to sneak up on a ranger in favored terrain is perhaps unwise).

The Master is the Fighter who learns many skills…and then passes them on to others. The ability of fighters to teach martial skills to another is the key part of this, finding eager students who share their love of martial ability. The Master is a font of martial knowledge, a cunning and dangerous enemy who knows his art inside and out, and from many angles, discovers new techniques and passes them on. Expertise is their hallmark feat.
Masters tend to favor a high Int. Yet, there is very little for a Master style fighter to do in the standard class.
There is no class that truly satisfies the Master paradigm, although a Ranger’s skill points and broad list dovetails best with the idea of an intellectual warrior.

Where the Master is teacher, the Warlord is leader. The brilliant general, cunning strategist, and superb tactician are all hallmark roles of the fighter. The ability to guide, inspire and lead others effectively has also been a standard of the martial classes. In times of peace, they are statesmen and cunning preparers. In times of war, kings and countries turn to them to lead the way.
The Warlord maps to Charisma. But there are no fighter skills that map well to Warlord abilities. Leadership would be the closest equivalent, or the 3.5 Marshall class with its auras.
The closest PF class to a Warlord is the cavalier, who can give away teamwork benefits. The Ranger’s guide power to give away FE benefits also qualifies, as does the Paladin's Aura of Courage and ability to give away Smites. Both of these are quite limited in usefulness in mass combat scenarios.

The Hunter is equal parts hunter, assassin, and infiltrator. His job is to find the enemy and kill them, preferably via stealth or at minimal risk, often via use of missile weapons. They are the commandos and snipers of martial roles.
Hunters tend to focus on death via bows and crossbows. Alas, many of the supporting skills they need are not a part of the fighter class, including stealth. Deadly Aim is probably their hallmark skill, and Dexterity their key stat.
The best PF martial class for this is naturally the ranger, who can track, locate, stalk, and deliver the damage.

Lastly, the Soldier. While Warlords are about leading troops, the soldier is all about teamwork and fighting alongside others as part of a greater whole. The only nod to this archetype are the Teamwork feats, most of which don’t function well unless everyone you’re fighting with also knows them.
The Soldier tends to map to Constitution. The job tends to endorse being tough as nails, dogged and persistent more than cleverness, agility, or brute strength. As long as you can endure, you can fight. Armor Training, Endurance and the Teamwork feats would be the hallmark of soldiers. The Fighter makes a better soldier than any other martial role…but then, so does a standard NPC Warrior.
Both Fighters and Cavaliers make great soldiers…the former because they can take Teamwork feats, and the latter because they can give them away.
Stalwart, if it worked for those without Expertise, is probably the best feat for Soldiers. Brace for it! Improved Aid Another and many Teamwork feats would also qualify.

-----------------------------------
And while we’re on the subject of Warriors…

The definition of the NPC Warrior class should be: A Warrior is a trained martial combatant whose job might occasionally result in lethal combat. They are trained to better fight and defend themselves then most common people, but they are not ‘professional’ combatants who go out looking for trouble to throw themselves against.
Well trained militia, your average constable or guardsman, recruited or conscripted soldiers, and peacetime military forces whose main job is to stand around with weapons and armor and dissuade attackers are likely to be warriors. A nation or tribe with a strong martial tradition will likely have warriors instead of commoners (Karrnath in Eberron would be an example of such a place, or barbarian tribes).

A Fighter, Cavalier, Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin is generally someone who is very active in the exercise of their martial skills…they go looking for danger, if it doesn’t come finding them. They are, by simple definition, the elite. A group of warriors is told by their superiors to go fight something, whereas a PC class martial hears about it and relishes the challenge of putting it down.

Warriors should start with Medium Armor prof, simple weapons, and martial proficiency in a number of weapons equal to their starting skill points. Thus, they know fewer weapons than any other martial class, and are the least likely to spend skill points on learning more. They should be inferior in all ways to a true Fighter, in much the same way that an average cop doesn’t compare to an MMA combatant, or dedicated Special Forces operator. Historically, the average weapons of a warrior were the spear and the knife, neither of which are martial weapons.

Indeed, a warrior should compare to a fighter as an expert does to a rogue, or an adept to a true priest or wizard.

----------------------------------

No simple feats can bridge the gulf of ability needed to take on these roles.

To enter the role of Champion, the fighter needs to be able to orient himself specifically to take on a specific opponent or kind of opponent. In short, he needs an aligned buff. Being equally effective against everyone is the hallmark of a Soldier, not a Champion. He also needs better defenses, as no simple cast spell should be able to take him out easily.

To enter the role of Guardian, the Fighter needs to have skills that cater to the job, and abilities that mix well with it. The ability to sense foes, intercede, withstand physical and magical assaults, and the like are all part of it.

To enter the role of Master, the fighter needs to be able to expand his skill and feat selection immensely, and he must be able to pass it on. He should be able to train others in martial skills more effectively than other classes, and it should be easy for him to get students to pass his knowledge onto. Can’t be a Master without students!

The Warlord needs to be able to lead and inspire. This means he must be good at the job of warfare, such that only the most specialized of other classes can rival him. He must also be capable of providing buffs for a large number of people…a broader area, if not greater power, then that typical of a bard, and this should be extremely effective for any personal followers that he might have…which he should draw to him like bees to honey with his reputation.
A 14 Int Warlord should be able to sit down across from a 30 Int Wizard and beat him at chess, and have his own cheering section as he does so. His BAB and class benefits should map to high skills in other areas.

To be a Hunter, the fighter’s options for stealth and survival training needed to be broadened and open up, and at least some form of alpha strike be available, the most obvious of which is Vital Strike. A limited ability to customize himself against a given foe should also be present.

To be a Soldier, he should be better at teamwork than any other class…and be capable of it even if they aren’t. That steps on the toes of the inquisitor and cavalier…but the former isn’t a soldier, and the latter is technically just a fighter archetype. I actually find it funny that the inquisitor even includes Teamwork feats…it smacks of the ‘kill team’ concept from Inquisitor 40k.
The Soldier is effectively a lower level role…higher level soldiers tend to evolve in Champions and Warlords, and the base chassis of the fighter does okay at this. It can probably be solved with a couple proper feats…and appropriately valuing the level 1 skills of the fighter.

Class Resources for a fighter to draw on:
Simple and Martial Weapon Prof.
Shield Prof.
Tower Shield Prof.
Light, Medium and Heavy Armor Prof.
2 skill pts/level.
Bravery (a mental buff that advances to +5)
Armor Training (a physical buff for agility, movement, and endurances that advances to +4/+5)
Weapon Training (a physical buff for strength, skill and competence that advances to +4)
AoO’s (extra actions, a useful sub for swift actions).
Expertise (an intellectual/agility/competence based feat bonus that advances to +6)
Stalwart (a toughness/con based bonus that advances to +6)
Power Attack (a strength based bonus that advances to +6 or +12)
Deadly Aim (a finesse/dex-based bonus that advances to +6)
Toughness (a hp bonus that equals +1 per level)
Fleet (a feat that gives you +5 Movement)
Training, which allows you to retrain class choices, skills, traits, feats, and permanently increase hit points within the constraints of your hit dice, for the cost of gold.

All his abilities are extraordinary. The fighter has no supernatural, spell-like, or spellcasting abilities, and UMD is not a class skill.

The fighter gets more bonus feats than any other class. Unlike other classes with bonus feats, he has to qualify for them.

The fighter has no in-day flexibility. He is absolutely static from day to day unless untraining something. His choices are constant, and he has no capability to adapt himself to a foe. The Rogue is the only other class that shares this inflexibility. Even the barbarian or monk can elect when to spend rage rounds and ki powers, and on what, the cavalier who to challenge or grant teamwork feats to, etc.

The fighter has no way to buff himself or others.

His class features include no static defensive benefits (Armor Training is stat-based).

Design objective: Make use of the above resources and solve his problems.


Otherwhere wrote:

I'd like to see Combat Styles the way arcane casters have various Schools of Magic.

Allow the Fighter to develop a Style or Styles the same way a Wizard can inherently with his class and not need to expend Feats to do so.

I actually like this idea. Even without going the way of the Tome of Battle (or Path of War now), you could give fighters a starting school choice like you give wizards the same, with "generalist" being the vanilla fighter option, and other schools getting a limit on their weapon/armor training in exchange for other goodies. This is now handled with archetypes, but it'd be much, much better that way.

Dark Archive

LoneKnave wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

I'd like to see Combat Styles the way arcane casters have various Schools of Magic.

Allow the Fighter to develop a Style or Styles the same way a Wizard can inherently with his class and not need to expend Feats to do so.

I actually like this idea. Even without going the way of the Tome of Battle (or Path of War now), you could give fighters a starting school choice like you give wizards the same, with "generalist" being the vanilla fighter option, and other schools getting a limit on their weapon/armor training in exchange for other goodies. This is now handled with archetypes, but it'd be much, much better that way.

So would you guys be willing to loose feats to accommodate the extra stuff, and Is something like the rangers Combat style about what you are looking for?


brad2411 wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

I'd like to see Combat Styles the way arcane casters have various Schools of Magic.

Allow the Fighter to develop a Style or Styles the same way a Wizard can inherently with his class and not need to expend Feats to do so.

I actually like this idea. Even without going the way of the Tome of Battle (or Path of War now), you could give fighters a starting school choice like you give wizards the same, with "generalist" being the vanilla fighter option, and other schools getting a limit on their weapon/armor training in exchange for other goodies. This is now handled with archetypes, but it'd be much, much better that way.

So would you guys be willing to loose feats to accommodate the extra stuff, and Is something like the rangers Combat style about what you are looking for?

"Lose feats to accommodate the extra stuff"

Why would we take anything away from the fighter? You're implying a trade when what the Fighter needs is shameless buffs and add-ons.


Okay, so this is going to be a stupid question, but... 1 spell is half a feat, right? Like, that was it's worth when the game got designed if I recall correctly.

Okay, so knowing that... why do sorcerers get 2 spells/level but fighters only 1 feat every two levels?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Because the designers didn't and still don't have any inkling of the actual power levels of things they design.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am cynical about attempts to improve the fighter. Maybe it is just me, but it seems like every attempt to give the fighter something nice becomes "give every class where someone swings a sword the same nice thing as we gave the fighter" followed with the revelation that rage/smite/magic makes the nice thing better for the other classes than it did for the fighter.

Despite my cynicism, put me down for having the fighter in Unchained. Maybe if they started from the ground up it would work better.


Aelryinth wrote:

The Fighter has been generally expected to perform six roles historically, and his class abilities should reflect that. Those roles are:

Champion
Guardian
Master/Teacher
Warlord
Hunter
Soldier

In pathfinder terms, these are separate classes or at the very least archetypes. And not all of them are even full BAB classes. As you noted, different classes fit these roles differently well, and that's the point. The best hunter should be the rogue, what you gave was basically a concept description for the rogue.

What we should focus on is have the fighter fill some of these roles very well.

The role the fighter fills now is the champion (because they master a particular style of fighting), Master (because they can teach you all their feats), and soldier (because they have no daily limits on their abilities). That's not so bad.

Much of the complaint about fighters in my mind comes from people not actually having tried the combat maneuvers in Pathfinder. The fighter has a lot of control in these.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The Fighter has been generally expected to perform six roles historically, and his class abilities should reflect that. Those roles are:

Champion
Guardian
Master/Teacher
Warlord
Hunter
Soldier

In pathfinder terms, these are separate classes or at the very least archetypes. And not all of them are even full BAB classes. As you noted, different classes fit these roles differently well, and that's the point. The best hunter should be the rogue, what you gave was basically a concept description for the rogue.

What we should focus on is have the fighter fill some of these roles very well.

The role the fighter fills now is the champion (because they master a particular style of fighting), Master (because they can teach you all their feats), and soldier (because they have no daily limits on their abilities). That's not so bad.

Much of the complaint about fighters in my mind comes from people not actually having tried the combat maneuvers in Pathfinder. The fighter has a lot of control in these.

I would say the best hunter ought to be the Hunter, or at least the Ranger, don't you think? Rogues are more urban counterparts to the Ranger, generally speaking.

Honestly, I have a problem with the combat maneuvers because of the way they're handled. For Fighty McGee, to be good at tripping someone without getting punched in the face every time he tries, he must invest two feats into training at it and have 13 int for no reason. He has spent two of his feats, which are the only class features he has besides Training, to gain a +2 to trip attempts and not getting attacked when he does them.

Thunderstomp, a trip attempt that can be done at a distance and therefore has no AoO attached, is a 1st-level spell with no prerequisites. Blade Lash, a long-distance trip that is unlikely to provoke an AoO, is ALSO a 1st-level spell and gives the Bloodrager or Magus using it a +10 on their trip attempt compared to the Fighter's +2 until he takes Greater Trip.

When the wizard Thunderstomping and the Bloodrager Blade Lashing run up against a lot of creatures with too many or too few legs to trip or things that fly, they just need to stop using the spell for a while. The Fighter now has two feats that don't do anything and nothing he can replace them with.

I don't see much point to Combat Maneuvers the way they work right now unless you're a Brawler or a Martial Master Lore Warden fighter.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Starfox wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The Fighter has been generally expected to perform six roles historically, and his class abilities should reflect that. Those roles are:

Champion
Guardian
Master/Teacher
Warlord
Hunter
Soldier

In pathfinder terms, these are separate classes or at the very least archetypes. And not all of them are even full BAB classes. As you noted, different classes fit these roles differently well, and that's the point. The best hunter should be the rogue, what you gave was basically a concept description for the rogue.

What we should focus on is have the fighter fill some of these roles very well.

The role the fighter fills now is the champion (because they master a particular style of fighting), Master (because they can teach you all their feats), and soldier (because they have no daily limits on their abilities). That's not so bad.

Much of the complaint about fighters in my mind comes from people not actually having tried the combat maneuvers in Pathfinder. The fighter has a lot of control in these.

The champion is the representative combat in single combat one on one vs a foe. The fighter suckeths at this ability in a magical world, because of his lack of defenses and staying power. He is also unable to use class abilities to optimize against a particular foe (vs, say, Smite/FE/Challenge). Paladins, rangers and cavaliers make good champions, and barbarians because of their defenses.

Being able to master a fighting style is a Sign of the Master...knowing lots of feats. Unfortunately there are no mechanics for passing this mastery on, or meta-feats that accrue from completing a feat chain, or extra synergies with multiple feats, all things that would be necessary for a fighter to really profit from tons of feats.

They can soldier on. But it's quite literally all they can do.

Combat manuvers are opposed checks. Raging barbs can pop their level onto a contested check. Paladins can apply smite, Rangers their FE, cavs their challenge. Given the increasing size of enemies, these tactics tend to get less and less effective with level, not moreso. The fighter isn't really any better at them then any other class, and the cake has to go to the Barb.

===Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I would say the best hunter ought to be the Hunter, or at least the Ranger, don't you think? Rogues are more urban counterparts to the Ranger, generally speaking.

Honestly, I have a problem with the combat maneuvers because of the way they're handled. For Fighty McGee, to be good at tripping someone without getting punched in the face every time he tries, he must invest two feats into training at it and have 13 int for no reason. He has spent two of his feats, which are the only class features he has besides Training, to gain a +2 to trip attempts and not getting attacked when he does them.

Thunderstomp, a trip attempt that can be done at a distance and therefore has no AoO attached, is a 1st-level spell with no prerequisites. Blade Lash, a long-distance trip that is unlikely to provoke an AoO, is ALSO a 1st-level spell and gives the Bloodrager or Magus using it a +10 on their trip attempt compared to the Fighter's +2 until he takes Greater Trip.

When the wizard Thunderstomping and the Bloodrager Blade Lashing run up against a lot of creatures with too many or too few legs to trip or things that fly, they just need to stop using the spell for a while. The Fighter now has two feats that don't do anything and nothing he can replace them with.

I don't see much point to Combat Maneuvers the way they work right now unless you're a Brawler or a Martial Master Lore Warden fighter.

I'm not concerned with the fighter being the best, so much as it being a viable choice for him.

As it stands, the fighter doesn't have the skill points, mobility, stealth attack, tracking ability (social or ground based) or alertness required of a hunter of men.

And Rangers, who get spellcasting to ease their loads, get 6 skill points on top of everything else.

So. The fighter makes a poor hunter on the locating and the capture/kill of the quarry from stealth side. A true hunter shouldn't be reliant on having spells or an animal companion, you know?

And in perfect agreement with you on Manuvers. Ugh.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Slayers make excellent hunters sans spells and animal companion. They're also solid Warlords, Soldiers, and probably better Master/Teachers than a Fighter.

They're not any better as Champions (though they're equally good, IMO), and sorta fail as Guardians, but they do more of those roles well than the Fighter does.

Just for the record.

On a more on-topic note, if Unchained's fatigue pool for martial characters really is notably better for Fighters, that might well boost their ability to function as Champions, and possibly as Master/Teachers or Guardians. So that'd be a bit better.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Unless fatigue pools include recovery from effects, some form of healing, and broader magical best, I'm not holding my breath with something so simplistic.

Without more skill points to reflect their lack of magical ability, ain't humming for out of combat versatility, either.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
Unless fatigue pools include recovery from effects, some form of healing, and broader magical best, I'm not holding my breath with something so simplistic.

Healing and effect recovery or avoidance seem pretty possible. And the ability to have bursts of effectiveness seems almost inevitable (and definitely helps the Champion thing).

Aelryinth wrote:

Without more skill points to reflect their lack of magical ability, ain't humming for out of combat versatility, either.

==Aelryinth

Yeah, this doesn't seem likely to change. :(

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

To be honest, I'm not worried about the fighter's attacking ability. he would do fine as a champion if his defenses were significantly better. Weapon Mastery+ Weapon Spec IS a potent combo, after all.

He should just get the benefits before 4th level. Y'know, like the level 1 where all the other classes get it.

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not really behind a lot of these suggested changes. Most of them seem to be completely out of balance (like giving the bravery bonus to all saves). They also don't need more skill points (if you want skills as a fighter, make a lore warden), or bonus damage.

I think that the path to change should be through what was done with the Slayer. The problem with fighters isn't that they can't perform. Fighters get a ton of feats at their disposal, but most of them lack any kind of flair. If you look at multiple classes like barbarians, alchemists, slayers, wizards, rogues all get their own feats in the form of talents. Fighters come off as rather vanilla because they just get a pile of feats to deal with, there is nothing that's fighter only among feats except for Weapon Specialization. Fighters should get talents like rogues or slayers with advanced talents. It should be centered around combat flexibility, not just pure damage.

Here are some of my ideas:

Tough as Nails: Prerequisites: Toughness. This talent allows a fighter to substitute his Constitution modifier for his Armor Class instead of his Dexterity. This bonus does not stack with the bonus granted by Dexterity or any effect that uses Dexterity. This modifier is not limited by or has any effect on armor check penalties as well.

Tougher than Nails: Prerequisites: Toughness, Tough as Nails, Fighter level 9. This ability activates when the fighter is the target of a melee or non magical ranged attack. This attack cannot be a spell or spell like ability. When triggered, the fighter may take an immediate action to boost his AC by his Constitution modifier and gains DR/- equivalent to the fighters Constitution modifier. This effect only applies to a single attack and can only be used once per round.

Man at Arms: Prerequisites: Fighter level 9. The fighter gains a +1 to hit and damage with all weapons that he is proficient with. This bonus does not stack with bonuses from Weapon Training or Weapon Focus.

Master at Arms: Prerequisites: Man at Arms, Weapon Specialization with a single weapons. Once a day the fighter may change his Weapon Specialization to a different weapon after practicing with the weapon for one hour. In addition the newly acquired specialization also gains the benefits or weapon focus or any other weapon specific feat. This bonus does not stack with the bonus given by Man at Arms. Also, the fighter may take a swift action to gain the benefits for this talent for a number of rounds equal to his level per day. The fighter must have the weapon of the desired type in his hands when using this feat.

Tenacity: Prerequisite: Bravery class feature. The fighter's bravery bonus now applies to any effect the causes the fatigued, exhausted, sickened, and nauseated conditions.

Shake it Off: Prerequisite: Tenacity. The fighter may take a full round action to make an additional saving throw against and effect affected by Bravery or Tenacity. This roll is made at a -1 penalty which also reduces the fighters bonus to Bravery or Tenacity by the same amount until the next time the fighter rests for 8 hours. This ability may be used a number of times per day equivalent to the fighter's Bravery bonus.


The fighter desperately needs a resource pool that can be used for bonus AC, extra AOO's or whatever. Have it function like a grit pool kinda, call it "bravado" or "prowess", then you've got a little cushion added to the otherwise bare-bones of the fighter. Hell, give the rogue a similar pool, nothing gamebreaking will come of it, guarantee you that.

I always felt as though the fighter was secretly just for building archers.

I like that "Tough as Nails" ability, but it basically hands dexterity's entire boon over to Con, which seems a bit unbalanced. I'd rather use Cha and call it "Armor of Fear", plus it gives Fighters a reason to have at least one positive mental stat.


Dexterity is still used for initiative, ranged weapons skills and reflex saves. Replacing it with CON for AC isn't going to suddenly nerf it.

It does make it very appealing for barbarians though.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Without better Save defenses, suddenly getting Con to AC will be helpful, but still place him in the lower tier.

There is NO justification whatsoever for a Fighter having 2 skill points and a Ranger getting 6. None. The Ranger is a SPELLCASTER. He can wiggle his fingers and use magic to solve his problems. The fighter has only his hands. He even gets an animal companion to handle his tracking and step and fetch.

The difference is tower shields and heavy armor prof at level 1. The fighter should have a minimum of 4 skill points just because he never gets magic, and it should indeed be 6 when you look at the other classes.

I got around it by increasing his skill points and class skills by his Bravery bonus. So when his Bravery tops out, he's got 7 skill points a level, and 5 class skills of his choice, just as customizable as his feats.

+1 th/dmg on all weapons is nice, but useless at level 9. The fighter needs something at level 1. This is a benefit to replace all secondary weapon groups at best, and add other stuff on.

Stat bonuses to stuff are dangerous and the most easy thing to abuse in any class or build. You should stay away from them if possible. I don't mind Con to AC, but it blatantly favors armored guys over dex-reliant builds like Archers. Not a totally bad thing, of course. Guys in melee typically should have the most hit points, and it gets away from MAD. Still, should be at a higher level to discourage dipping.

I don't like pools for fighters. It may be unavoidable, but I just don't like them. I don't mind per day abilities as long as they are strictly defined, but I don't like per encounter stuff, either.

I am really curious what Unchained is going to bring, and afraid I'll be disappointed regardless.

==Aelryinth


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Tough As Nails Idea is primarily meant for your big heavy armored "tank" fighters. One benefit this gives is less dependency on MAD. The toughness requirement should discourage dipping. Besides, archers need all the feat slots they can attend.

I can see the problem with the level requirement on Man at Arms. The idea was to make it so that a fighter could pick up almost any weapon and be reasonably ok in using it. The Master at Arms feat is for the situation where you're in a dungeon and you find that awesome weapon that you just have to use RIGHT NOW.

I'm not really in favor of getting fighters more skill points. Honestly I think the idea is more justified for clerics because they should be better education. Fighters in general are not educated. Yet both get the same number of skill points.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Soluzar wrote:
I'm not really in favor of getting fighters more skill points. Honestly I think the idea is more justified for clerics because they should be better education. Fighters in general are not educated. Yet both get the same number of skill points.

See, I take the opposite view on this. The Fighter is a professional. He's a Warrior who has the training, dedication, and heroic qualities to rise above the station of NPC class and hang out with the PC classes. This isn't Joe Guardsman on the corner who a protagonist outwits and knocks out easily, and this isn't some stupid thug at a bar. This is a guy who knows weapons and armor better than anyone else in the world and learns complicated fighting styles twice as fast as most.

And he has two skill points.

Consider briefly that the Barbarian, who are often fluffed as illiterate savages that aren't familiar with wearing PANTS, get four.

The Ranger, a fighter who spends most of his time out in the woods and talking to animals and spirits, has SIX. So does the Slayer, whose primary differentiation from the Fighter is that he's more of a focused hunter and doesn't train with his gear as much.

Does it REALLY strike you as internally consistent that the Fighter, a professional soldier and often fluffed as a leader of men, is half as skillful as an illiterate bear-wrestling barbarian from the tundra and a THIRD as skillful as a man who fits in better among trees and wolves than people?

The fighter's half as skillful as a bare-knuckle boxer whose whole thing is he's not formally trained and improvises a number of his moves on the spot? Really?

The fighter's whole thing is that he trains twice as hard as anyone else for his feats and mastery of the weapons and armor. This would make me think he'd also be learning MORE skills than the Barbarian, not half as many.

As far as education, your average fighter can be a certified genius in engineering but apparently wasn't taught how to analyze his surroundings as well as a frigging Bard? Come on.

(The guy billed as a living weapon also somehow has worse reflexes than a man who sings for his supper, but let's not touch on that.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wizards are the most educated class in the game and they only get four. Fighters aren't typically known for being skilled. That's what the Lore Warden is for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizards get 2+Int for balance reasons, not flavor reasons. Wizards will have the highest Int in the game by end, so they don't need a high base skills.

The Fighter has no such balance requirement, and only having 2+Int goes against the class flavor as well. How exactly are you supposed to be a "skilled warrior" who is a " Soldier, knight, hunter, and artist of war" if you have as many skills per level as Joe the Bum (less than Average Joe the farmer, who is part Expert)?

To be ANY of those things you need skills. Soldiers need Profession (Soldier), Perception (guard duty) plus Climb and Swim (to traverse terrain) at the very LEAST.

Officers should add Kn. Local (you can't get very far if you don't know whether you're fightinga Dwarf or an Elf, eh?) and Kn. Geography (likewise you can't get very far if you don't know WHERE you are).

Knights? Need everything Soldiers have, plus Ride and Handle Animal, and probably Diplomacy as well.

Hunters need everything Soldiers need, plus Survival, and probably Handle Animal, likely alongside Craft (Traps) and maybe Acrobatics.

The only one vague enough to get away with it is "artist of war".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soluzar wrote:
Wizards are the most educated class in the game and they only get four. Fighters aren't typically known for being skilled. That's what the Lore Warden is for.

When athletic skills and mental skills stop having the same value then I will agree with you.

As it is now Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, Stealth, Fly, escape artist, ride, sleight of hand, and perception all scale on the same system as Knowledge, appraise, social skills, linguistics, ect.

There is no correlation between skill point number, hit die, and concept.

Rangers don't need 6+ skill points a level to do Ranger things, but get it anyway.

Rogues have had no training or education yet have 8.

Barbarians are less educated than Fighters, but have better class skills and more skill points.

Gunslingers have 4 per level and assumingly have equal "training" to Fighters.

In Pathfinder you need 4 skill points per level to do what your class needs you do+ 1-2 things you want to do.

At 2 skill points per level you don't have enough to even be decent at one thing you want, only at what's expected from you by your party. The only classes running 2 per level should be Int based characters.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, Rogues are based on intelligent thieves, not high school drop outs.

Between quickness of reflexes, quickness of wits, quickness of gab, and being quick on their feet, rogues almost always are good at a lot of things...which is best exemplified by skills.

Rogues get by on their brains and reflexes, and clever people know the value of their brains. It could be said that Rogues are the MOST intelligent of all the classes, because they get the most skill points. They know how to use the brains they've got.

Wizards aren't as 'skilled', because they spend all their genius brainpower dissecting complicated arcane thingies, and the stuff must take up some of their brainspace. They make up for it by being so damn smart that the space they give up isn't an imposition.

So, Rogues ARE smart...they tend to love to learn all sorts of things other people don't.

It's just that skills are so underpowered in the face of magic that it doesn't matter.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Actually, Rogues are based on intelligent thieves, not high school drop outs.

Between quickness of reflexes, quickness of wits, quickness of gab, and being quick on their feet, rogues almost always are good at a lot of things...which is best exemplified by skills.

Rogues get by on their brains and reflexes, and clever people know the value of their brains. It could be said that Rogues are the MOST intelligent of all the classes, because they get the most skill points. They know how to use the brains they've got.

Wizards aren't as 'skilled', because they spend all their genius brainpower dissecting complicated arcane thingies, and the stuff must take up some of their brainspace. They make up for it by being so damn smart that the space they give up isn't an imposition.

So, Rogues ARE smart...they tend to love to learn all sorts of things other people don't.

It's just that skills are so underpowered in the face of magic that it doesn't matter.

==Aelryinth

"When athletic skills and mental skills stop having the same value then I will agree with you.

As it is now Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, Stealth, Fly, escape artist, ride, sleight of hand, and perception all scale on the same system as Knowledge, appraise, social skills, linguistics, ect.

There is no correlation between skill point number, hit die, and concept."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Soluzar wrote:
Wizards are the most educated class in the game and they only get four. Fighters aren't typically known for being skilled. That's what the Lore Warden is for.

I'd argue that's blatantly false, as Wizards are hardly the only class that has all knowledge skills, and their descriptions would indicate the Wizard has studied magic for their education. The Investigator studied Alchemy and quite a bit besides, and the Bard knows EVERYTHING. Heck, it's even reflected in class features; Investigators can inspire their mental skills to greater heights and Bards get a huge bonus to knowledge checks by being bards. Both of them are obviously much more educated than the clever but specialized wizard.

And fighter does call to mind skills. Skills like being able to move adroitly about the terrain, making use of their special training to ignore the weight of their armor. Skills like being able to climb and swim or ride a horse. Skills like being able to notice an enemy sneaking up on them.

You wanna tell me that the Barbarian, a class explicitly flavored as pure, unrelenting brawn, is good at all four of those things and the Fighter will only be good at two of them?

It really does kinda point out the Fighter's odd plight when a fighter of average intelligence (10 or 11), is only about as skillful as a particularly dim-witted Barbarian or Brawler (7 or 8 int.) Let's repeat that; the guy whose intelligence is average is still only about as skillful as a particularly dim-witted example of a man from a different profession.

And stepping outside the fluff, you know what every 2+int class in the game except the Fighter has that the fighter doesn't?

Spells.

Arcanists, Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Magi, Wizards, Witches, Warpriests, all of 'em get spells. Fighty McGee gets a whole lot of nothing because apparently being a fighter means you're more of a stupid, unskilled thug than the guy whose powers revolve around flying into berserker rages in which he can't use skills.

2+Int is a relic of bad design from older editions of Dungeons and Dragons, and the only purpose it serves in the modern day is to keep INT-Based casters like the Arcanist, Magus, Wizard, and Witch from being able to out-skill skill monkey classes like the Bard, Rogue, and Investigator. For the fighter, it is nothing but a crippling and arbitrary cap on the class's utility, and contributes to the negative reputation of the fighter; "If you play this class, you're an unskilled thug only good for hitting people". "That's a terrible class for my character, then, I don't want to play a stupid thug," a gamer might say to themselves, and then they go make a slayer or cavalier or whatever and the fighter sinks a little lower.


I do call Fighters combat mongrels....


2 skill points is barely enough to be passable at a single skill "role". If you want to actually be good at something, you need at least 4 skill points per level...

- Scout: Stealth, Perception are the bare minimum. You probably want Survival and Disable Device as well. Acrobatics, Climb and Swim also help.

- Diplomat: Diplomacy and Sense Motive are the bare minimum. Bluff and Intimidate are required to be actually good at it. Linguistics and Kn(Local) also help.

- Magic Specialist: Spellcraft and Kn(Arcana). You probably want Kn(Planes) and UMD too.

- Spy/Thief: Bluff and Stealth are a must... But what about Disguise, Diplomacy and Linguistics?

- Scholar: There are a bunch of different Knowledge skills... You definitely want Linguistics. Possibly Spellcraft as well.

And so on...

That's why every class other than Int-based full casters should have at least 4 skill points per level... Because that way they can at least do one job well, instead of being barely capable of doing anything.

There is no excuse for Fighters to only get 2 skill points per level. They should get at least 2! Even 6 wouldn't be too much!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's obvious from a design standpoint that for fighters it was feats that were the focus, not skills.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

And the Fighter is a poorly designed class because of it focusing far too much on Feats, and not enough on meaningful class features and out of combat power. Which is what we're discussing changing.

I'm not sure what your point was there.


Rynjin wrote:
I'm not sure what your point was there.

I'm confused as well...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find it kind of funny that a lot of people defending the fighter are propping up the worst design choices as iconic.

Maybe they're just in love with the term "Big Dumb Fighter." It is certainly an archetype, but how would 2 more skill points ruin that? Just put the other two points into athletic skills or profession.

Not being good at the stuff people expect you to be good at is what we need?

Being good at getting charmed is a feature?

Being unable to cope with an ever changing battlefield is a feature?

Being worse at damage than most other classes while simultaneously having worse defenses is bueno?

What's going on currently with the Fighter can be likened to someone saying the Rogue is the master of performance and focused on performance, but the Bard is standing right there being better at performance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

The Fighter has no such balance requirement, and only having 2+Int goes against the class flavor as well. How exactly are you supposed to be a "skilled warrior" who is a " Soldier, knight, hunter, and artist of war" if you have as many skills per level as Joe the Bum (less than Average Joe the farmer, who is part Expert)?

To be ANY of those things you need skills. Soldiers need Profession (Soldier), Perception (guard duty) plus Climb and Swim (to traverse terrain) at the very LEAST.

Officers should add Kn. Local (you can't get very far if you don't know whether you're fighting a Dwarf or an Elf, eh?) and Kn. Geography (likewise you can't get very far if you don't know WHERE you are).

Knights? Need everything Soldiers have, plus Ride and Handle Animal, and probably Diplomacy as well.

Hunters need everything Soldiers need, plus Survival, and probably Handle Animal, likely alongside Craft (Traps) and maybe Acrobatics.

The only one vague enough to get away with it is "artist of war".

Professions should be inherently part of a Class. (Or a choice of associated Professions the player can choose from to customize their character.) There should be no need to invest Skill points in them.

I understand the mentality behind "Fighter=low skill points" because, at the time, they were the 1 class to gain so many Feats as they leveled up. But the real benefit would have been to make them Class skills, like Rogue skills are for Rogues, or Schools for Wizards, etc. Fighters can tailor their build based on IN-CLASS ability options. Feats could be gained at the same rate as everyone else.


I disagree. Fighter should be generic, there shoudl not be a profesion imposed on them. Soldier, general, martial artist, bounty hunter whatever, that shoudl be options, let the fighter have skills and let him use them as he see fit.

Shadow Lodge

Really he only classes which should have 2+int skills should be fulcasters, they dont even give dam about skills because they can solve everything trought magic.


Nicos wrote:
I disagree. Fighter should be generic, there shoudl not be a profesion imposed on them. Soldier, general, martial artist, bounty hunter whatever, that shoudl be options, let the fighter have skills and let him use them as he see fit.

Which is why I am suggesting that Professions be handled differently than the use of Skill points. I don't care, really, what Profession a certain class pursues. I do mind needing to use valuable skill points - especially on a Skill starved class like the Fighter - to do so.


I'm wondering whether one reason the devs aren't planning to have an Unchained fighter is because there will be an expansion of Fighter-only feats that are more powerful? It would be awesome if fighters got access to something equivalent to pounce...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One would think something like that would be the sort of thing one mentions when trying to convince people a product is worth buying.....


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Because the designers didn't and still don't have any inkling of the actual power levels of things they design.

I'd venture to say that if there is something like knowledge of something called "actual power levels", and that knowledge has varying degrees of level, the designers in question have the highest degree of that knowledge in virtue of their depth and length of experience.

If that is not the case, perhaps you are talking about something else. It may be that the highest levels of knowledge still do not give you the answers you want, but to say they "don't have any inkling" is off base.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You would think so, but you'd be surprised at how many errors all of the designers make, especially the ones who aren't the core 3 (Jason Buhlman, SRM, and Mark Seifter, formerly SKR).

Ironically the designers of this game do not, in many cases, have the greatest rules knowledge.

But besides errors, "I made this" does not necessarily tie into "I understand the relative power of this".

Hence why you get statements like "Adding Charisma to saves for the Swashbuckler would be overpowered!" and then the book is released and the F+&*ING ORACLE gets a Feat that allows it.

Because a frontline melee fighter who has Charisma as a secondary stat at best would benefit more from it, supposedly, than a class who can function with Charisma as their ONLY high stat.

Or statements like it would be overpowered to make the Rogue better, because 8+Int skill points is a huge benefit it needs to be nerfed in other areas to possess.

In many cases the community, who collectively have more playtime and can notice these things in actual play more readily and in greater numbers have more knowledge of how all the pieces interact (which is 80% of what determines the actual power level of an option).

Which is fine. That's inevitable in any game. The community finds bugs and exploits, broken combos and terrible options much more easily than a small internal playtest can.

But it proves the initial statement pretty handily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think in literally every game I've ever played, veteran players tend to know the game better than the designers... The difference is not as obvious in tabletop RPGs as it is in video-games, but it's still there.

That happens because players likely spend more time playing and debating the game and looking for cool stuff to do. Designers often write the rules with something in mind and assume the (to them) obvious use of the ability is the one that will stick, they create an ability and think "this is how it's used", while players don't have that initial state of mind, so they see an ability and think "how can i use this?" which leads to them thinking outside the box and most likely finding more uses to the ability than the designer ever intended or expected, including glitches, bugs, loopholes, etc.

And of course, no amount of playtest can compete with countless passionate players playing the game with that "how can I use this?" mentality. As soon as a book is released, it's picked apart by players. In a few weeks, many players will know that material just as well, if not better, than most designers.

I'm not saying that I know more about the game than the designers, but the community in general. I seriously doubt the designers know the system better than the community.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
I seriously doubt the designers know the system better than the community.

Indeed, though I do have to say that Mark Seifter probably knows the system better than most people at Paizo as he was one of those passionate players that picked apart the rules and used the forum to his advantage.

I mean, look at the Kineticist playtest, he tried to suss out every possible broken option the Kineticist could use, then intentionally released a weaker version on the off chance that he missed something, and he pretty much nailed every combo that exists that plays off the Kineticists powers.

I gotta say, from a 'power balance' perspective, I think Mark is the best thing Paizo has done in awhile. He's not afraid to attempt to break the system and find it's flaws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I believe Mark is a great designer.

That said, releasing a weaker version of the class is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be done in a playtest... You gotta release the version intended to be in the game, and hope that players will find all exploits and loopholes, because that's exactly what playtests are for.

Sovereign Court

They know the system better but like they often said and even during the Q&A at pax, whenever they release anything, they cannot assume that everybody is a veteran of dnd and pathfinder, so they have to make it easy for everybody, like it is their first time ever playing.

Yeah it would be nice to have a book targeted at veteran of the game but so far, they don't really have a financial incentive to do so.

Fighter will most likely have a few options here and there, I don't expect a complete rewrite like the other listed classes tho.


Ah, yes. I'm sure. Releasing options that are clearly terrible to anyone with a working knowledge of the game, but look good at a glance REALLY helps all those newbies.


Lemmy wrote:

Yeah, I believe Mark is a great designer.

That said, releasing a weaker version of the class is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be done in a playtest... You gotta release the version intended to be in the game, and hope that players will find all exploits and loopholes, because that's exactly what playtests are for.

I disagree, I think he did the right thing with it. When it comes to combat classes, like the Kineticist, it's all about those harmonic buffs. He released an intentionally weaker class, to see what we could come up with, and since no one was able to push the envelope over a certain threshold, he felt within his rights to go forward and bump the damage up to where he wanted it in the first place.

It's easier to add to the damage of the class after the playtest, than it is to take damage away.


Tels wrote:
It's easier to add to the damage of the class after the playtest, than it is to take damage away.

But it's still easier than taking damage away from an already published class... If the Kineticist proves to be too powerful because the released version was stronger than the playtest version, then there is basically nothing they can do.

Anyway... I'm apprehensive about the Kineticist... I think the Burn mechanics poses a serious threat of ruining an otherwise great class...

301 to 350 of 441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / The Fighter Unchained! Let's get the Fighter into PF Unchained All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.