Yet another attempt to "fix" the fighter


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Link

This is an attempt to write up a fighter that would scale better into higher levels based on my personal experience of what I would like from a purely martial character.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. This is still a work in progress.


You know what. Nvm. I can't really figure out a good fix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like the idea behind Athletics. My only suggestion would be to change it to a bonus to the skills instead of ranks. That would let the Fighter become practically superhuman when he jumps and swims.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
You know what. Nvm. I can't really figure out a good fix.

Because the problem is not the Fighter. The problem is the game's 'Magic' system. Once you have a mechanism that's 100% effective, and never fails (Saving throws are resist attempts) then it becomes the go to tool.


CVB wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
You know what. Nvm. I can't really figure out a good fix.
Because the problem is not the Fighter. The problem is the game's 'Magic' system. Once you have a mechanism that's 100% effective, and never fails (Saving throws are resist attempts) then it becomes the go to tool.

I don't think the consistently fun portion of the game is the problem.

I've seen both the Aegis and the soulknife from Ultimate Psionics. They don't have "spells" or powers, and are effective martials.

The answers are out there, it's just difficult to make "completely mundane" flavor and mechanics work out.


Fighter is broken?

Most games I play the fighters out-damage everybody. The fighters go toe-to-toe with demon-lords and monsters the size of houses and laugh off blows that shake mountains.

I mean from this very short series of posts I don't know what the complaint *is* exactly, but it seems to be "in a vs. match the caster wins." Assuming, of course, the wizard wins initiative and gets out of reach, since locking the two in a steel cage Wrestlemania style means fighter wins and wizard can't do anything.

PC vs. matches like that boil down to who gets lucky first.

Fighters don't get many options? Meh. Compare a fighter's combat maneuvers (of which there are quite a few) with a sorceror's spell selection. Now remember that a figher doesn't run out of sword swings, a sorceror runs out of spells pretty freakin' fast.

Although I think sorceror and oracle are terrible classes, if we're going that far.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:

Fighter is broken?

Most games I play the fighters out-damage everybody. The fighters go toe-to-toe with demon-lords and monsters the size of houses and laugh off blows that shake mountains.

I mean from this very short series of posts I don't know what the complaint *is* exactly, but it seems to be "in a vs. match the caster wins." Assuming, of course, the wizard wins initiative and gets out of reach, since locking the two in a steel cage Wrestlemania style means fighter wins and wizard can't do anything.

PC vs. matches like that boil down to who gets lucky first.

Fighters don't get many options? Meh. Compare a fighter's combat maneuvers (of which there are quite a few) with a sorceror's spell selection. Now remember that a figher doesn't run out of sword swings, a sorceror runs out of spells pretty freakin' fast.

Although I think sorceror and oracle are terrible classes, if we're going that far.

Unfortunately, neither demon-lords nor wizards have any reason to go toe-to-toe unless they're forced to.

Unfortunately, the Fighter can't summon a steel cage Wrestlemania style.
Unfortunately, the wizard is more likely win initiative (especially if he's a Diviner).
Unfortunately, casters don't need to get lucky because they're good. They dictate the terms of the engagement in a way the Fighter can't even begin to.
Unfortunately, combat maneuvers are weak control in exchange for not doing any damage, and grow increasingly more difficult to pull off as monsters get bigger (sometimes you can't even attempt them against monsters more than one size larger).

The Fighter is rather solid at standing still and trading blows though. That's super.


boring7 wrote:

Fighter is broken?

Most games I play the fighters out-damage everybody. The fighters go toe-to-toe with demon-lords and monsters the size of houses and laugh off blows that shake mountains.

My suggestion to you is to leave the boards and go keep having fun. Or at least stay out of balance discussions.

Ask yourself: If I am wrong, do I want to learn why? Will that make the game more fun for me to play?

Here's how it is going to break down if you continue. More likely than not you will get into a long balance discussion thread with multiple people disagreeing with you and some people agreeing with you. It won't change your opinion you'll just find new ways to reinforce your own, because at the end of the day you won't believe the "theorycraft" until you run into it in actual play. Then you will start looking for it, start seeing if all those arguments you heard were right. You will then either come to the same conclusion naturally or you won't. Which is exactly what would happen if you weren't berated with the fighter's "flaws".


Edit: Okay, I'll keep this short then.

Simple question 1: "Am I right, is it the vs. match-up?"

Simple question 2: "So you make the fighter immune to mind effects, the only real weakness they have against casters. Then what do the casters do now that they got nothin'?"

Edit the second: So I guess A is A, right?


boring7 wrote:

Edit: Okay, I'll keep this short then.

Simple question 1: "Am I right, is it the vs. match-up?"

Simple question 2: "So you make the fighter immune to mind effects, the only real weakness they have against casters. Then what do the casters do now that they got nothin'?"

Edit the second: So I guess A is A, right?

Q1: No. It's about PCs vs encounters and comparing the fighter's performance with other classes or just comparing it in a vacuum against encounters while in a party.

Q2: Many many awful things. Especially the monsters. Normally it is less about what is happening to the fighter and more what the fighter can do about it.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
CVB wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
You know what. Nvm. I can't really figure out a good fix.
Because the problem is not the Fighter. The problem is the game's 'Magic' system. Once you have a mechanism that's 100% effective, and never fails (Saving throws are resist attempts) then it becomes the go to tool.
I don't think the consistently fun portion of the game is the problem.

And do you know why the Magic system is fun? Because it's consistent AND it provides more that 'I hit him with mah AXE!'.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I've seen both the Aegis and the soulknife from Ultimate Psionics. They don't have "spells" or powers, and are effective martials.

That's a matter of reflavouring the text.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The answers are out there, it's just difficult to make "completely mundane" flavor and mechanics work out.

I agree, but at that point it stops being D&D, which is the basis for Pathfinder.

As you point out to Petty Alchemy, Magic bypasses the main combat mechanic to determine success and defeat: Damage. A lot of spells end the fight long before damage ever gets rolled.

So my argument is that until that part of the rules gets in line with the rest of them, the non-casters in general will never be as 'fun' or as 'interesting'.

How to go about doing this? Well, honestly, you got me.


the system is broken as always it have been!!
deal with it!
The problem is not the classes, is the system itself.

Skill Ranks/Points?
Feats?
A lot of feats in every book doing nearly the same from the first book?

Spells are broken, and boring at all (almos 40 years casting magic missile using spell slots or vancian magic)

True 20 seems to be a beter option

Grand Lodge

If the fighters could move and even make half their attacks instead of just one

-or-

They could use a maneuver then still hit for dmg they would have more fun. Plus every fighter should get profession (solider) and that would work for their out of combat way of doing things.

Yes I know not every fighter is a solider but they could use it in different more flavourful ways.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing I do with fighters so they have some out of combat utility is give them maximum ranks in Craft (armor) and either Craft (weapons) or Craft (bows) so that they have a unique niche out of combat.


Christopher V Brady wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The answers are out there, it's just difficult to make "completely mundane" flavor and mechanics work out.

I agree, but at that point it stops being D&D, which is the basis for Pathfinder.

As you point out to Petty Alchemy, Magic bypasses the main combat mechanic to determine success and defeat: Damage. A lot of spells end the fight long before damage ever gets rolled.

So my argument is that until that part of the rules gets in line with the rest of them, the non-casters in general will never be as 'fun' or as 'interesting'.

How to go about doing this? Well, honestly, you got me.

Perhaps D&D is based on the idea that martials should have issues. But I disagree that Pathfinder is required to do so. If DSP can do what they did in Ultimate Psionics within the PF system then it stands as an example of what martials could be and ways to balance casters without ripping out their fundamentally fun elements.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:

Fighters don't get many options? Meh. Compare a fighter's combat maneuvers (of which there are quite a few) with a sorceror's spell selection. Now remember that a figher doesn't run out of sword swings, a sorceror runs out of spells pretty freakin' fast.

Although I think sorceror and oracle are terrible classes, if we're going that far.

Wait, Oracles run out of spells fast? Nobody told me! I have been playing since level 3 with a Heavens Oracle in PFS, including some of the grinder scenarios designed to drain resources, and I have not once ran out of 1st level spells. Man, I must have been missing out on all the fun of being a spellcaster with quite a few spells/day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A comment on the skill points: 2 skill points per level means you're either maxing two skills (one probably being perception) or being worthless at multiple skills. It allows the fighter no real room for flexibility in their skill point distribution. You want a fighter that rides horses? You better have at least a 12 INT because you need Ride AND Handle Animal before considering any other flavor skills.


i have been playing pathfinder for 5 years, and i haven't found anything about the fighter to be particulary broken.

it would be nice to have more skills points.
but seriously if you want move and attack better than in my opinion

barbarians with pounce and sooner- you have the dawnflower

you want to be the combat manuevers master- lore warden

you want to out damage the barbarian - two handed archtype

you want to do two weapon fighting better than anyone else- two weapon archtype, brawler, dawnflower, mobile fighter

personally i think the problem is people keep thinking of this as a
single player action RPG game, where your character needs to be able to finish the game solo.

The only two classes that have a legitamate arguement for needing fixing are monks and partiuculary rogues

if i were to offer tweaks, it would be more skill points, and a way to regain feat supremancy, there are too many feats now, and no way for a fighter a to master the same % of them as originally intended.


Really I think fighters start off great and only get problems as you go up in levels. By mid levels your fighters are still useful, but are dangerously squishy, they will be almost dying every serious combat.

The issue is compounded by the diminishing returns of feats. I run out of feats I want by level 8. After that, I either have to throw feats at a new combat style or pick B or D-list feats. Neither of those options help improved my defenses.

EDIT: As for rogues, their problems start at level 1 and continue till level 20. I'm already thinking of special ways I as a GM could set up the game such that a rogue player doesn't realize this. "Oh look you are level 3 and just found a head-band of ninjutsu and sniper goggles! Boy that was a lucky treasure roll!", "Why yes you did find a wand of fire-ball just before assault the Water elemental Lord's keep. Gee golly!", Player walks into room "YOU FOUND A TRAP. This will take a minute or two to disarm, everyone else should look about the room while the rogue is doing that". For fighters, I'm already thinking up artifact swords and magic gear to throw at them. "Your food was poisoned with a +2 inherent bonus to wis elixir! Oh look a head-band of intellect and it gives you perception and UMD!"

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Really I think fighters start off great and only get problems as you go up in levels. By mid levels your fighters are still useful, but are dangerously squishy, they will be almost dying every serious combat.

The issue is compounded by the diminishing returns of feats. I run out of feats I want by level 8. After that, I either have to throw feats at a new combat style or pick B or D-list feats. Neither of those options help improved my defenses.

Fighters, like pretty much any full BAB character, are decent at low levels by virtue of the fact that you'll have a lot of problems that can be solved by hitting them, and most of those won't have many hit points. The value of feats decreases as you gain levels thoughl; that +1 from Weapon Focus is all right at levels 1-5, but may not even equate to a 2% improvement as levels, AC, and other defenses increase. Similarly you have to pour more and more of your resources into one thing to keep it competitive, while the value of that kind of specialization gets less and less. Unless your enemies are primarily medium humanoids, combat maneuvers can really be a chump's game, where your chance to succeed just cannot scale as fast as as the defenses of the monsters you're fighting. And the more feats you spend on shoring up weaknesses, the less you're spending to actually advance your character, which just leaves you further behind in the long run.

ikarinokami wrote:

personally i think the problem is people keep thinking of this as a

single player action RPG game, where your character needs to be able to finish the game solo.

I tend to think that people who think the Fighter's flaws aren't a big deal tend to confuse teamwork with life support. I don't want every class to be the best at everything, but I want them to be self-sufficient. The Fighter is the least self-sufficient class in the game, even less so than the Rogue. I made the comment in another thread about how the Fighter is probably the only class I wouldn't make a BBEG out of without using some special race, template, or equipment to drastically modify his abilities and simulate some of what you can get from spellcasting.


Ssalarn wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Really I think fighters start off great and only get problems as you go up in levels. By mid levels your fighters are still useful, but are dangerously squishy, they will be almost dying every serious combat.

The issue is compounded by the diminishing returns of feats. I run out of feats I want by level 8. After that, I either have to throw feats at a new combat style or pick B or D-list feats. Neither of those options help improved my defenses.

Fighters, like pretty much any full BAB character, are decent at low levels by virtue of the fact that you'll have a lot of problems that can be solved by hitting them, and most of those won't have many hit points. The value of feats decreases as you gain levels thoughl; that +1 from Weapon Focus is all right at levels 1-5, but may not even equate to a 2% improvement as levels, AC, and other defenses increase. Similarly you have to pour more and more of your resources into one thing to keep it competitive, while the value of that kind of specialization gets less and less. Unless your enemies are primarily medium humanoids, combat maneuvers can really be a chump's game, where your chance to succeed just cannot scale as fast as as the defenses of the monsters you're fighting. And the more feats you spend on shoring up weaknesses, the less you're spending to actually advance your character, which just leaves you further behind in the long run.

Eh, I wouldn't throw all full BAB chars under the bus. Paladin's do pretty well sans code. Rangers are like a fighter/rogue gestalt that also gets spells and an animal companion. The right monk builds manage to hold their own late levels (but have problems early). DSP soulkife, aegis, and marksman do pretty well from 1-20.

I don't like the barbarian answer to martial problems (+20 extra to die roll, pounce, spell sunder), but it works (I say go dragon totem for fly and extra DR, IMHO better than pounce. Pounce is just too much damage).

Fighters are a pretty glorious 1-10 experience, a careful GM could make the fighter not notice problems even after that through various means, but this doesn't come from just trusting the system (WBL, CR, APL).

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Eh, I wouldn't throw all full BAB chars under the bus.

The "like all full BAB characters" was aimed at the "are decent at low levels by virtue of the fact that you'll have a lot of problems that can be solved by hitting them". To be clear, the Fighter is pretty much the only full BAB character I don't think pulls his weight, except at very low levels. As the Fighter falls off and starts losing ground, the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, etc. continue to make excellent forward progression. Nothing wrong with full BABs in general, just pointing out that pretty much any character with full BAB can do fine during the first 5 levels. Even an NPC Warrior can keep up before enhanced movement modes and 3rd level spells start coming online.


Ssalarn wrote:
I tend to think that people who think the Fighter's flaws aren't a big deal tend to confuse teamwork with life support. I don't want every class to be the best at everything, but I want them to be self-sufficient. The Fighter is the least self-sufficient class in the game, even less so than the Rogue. I made the comment in another thread about how the Fighter is probably the only class...

Or are huge Wizard/Magic user fans.

Because Ssalarn, you nailed the Fighter's problem: Lack of self-sufficiency. Just about every other class gets some to some degree, whether it's in Magic, skills or skill based powers (like the Bard's Bardic Knowledge, that's a skill based power.) But the Fighter simply gets feats, a lot of which are kind of useless at higher levels. A flat bonus gets outpaced fast in a few levels, so anything that doesn't scale is really a trap (like Monte Cook wanted, there's an interview somewhere on the net where he talks about his goals for D&D 3e.)

And doing damage at higher levels is useless and pointless, because there are more methods (mainly magic) in which you can shut down an encounter faster.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and the replies to it/quoting it. Baiting posts don't help the conversation.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So I've had a lot of fun playing a fighter... but I don't think I'm going to do it again. Even with some GM fiat to offset maneuver problems, I've wound up with a dude who is a monster in combat... Assuming the combat doesn't last long, because my hit points deplete fast.

Out of combat, I try and effectively role play the guy, to often disastrous results given my lack of useful skills like diplomacy, bluff, and spell craft. I mean, yeah, in theory you have other party members to help with that stuff... Until your effective role players miss a session and you're left with the guy in the party who is just interested in combat.

It's frustrating to ONLY have the ability to hit things, and be worse at that than a Barbarian, and be worse at staying the fight than a Paladin.


Captain Morgan wrote:

So I've had a lot of fun playing a fighter... but I don't think I'm going to do it again. Even with some GM fiat to offset maneuver problems, I've wound up with a dude who is a monster in combat... Assuming the combat doesn't last long, because my hit points deplete fast.

Out of combat, I try and effectively role play the guy, to often disastrous results given my lack of useful skills like diplomacy, bluff, and spell craft. I mean, yeah, in theory you have other party members to help with that stuff... Until your effective role players miss a session and you're left with the guy in the party who is just interested in combat.

It's frustrating to ONLY have the ability to hit things, and be worse at that than a Barbarian, and be worse at staying the fight than a Paladin.

My recommendation for you is the Aegis!

I had your exact same problems with the fighter.


Christopher V Brady wrote:
And doing damage at higher levels is useless and pointless, because there are more methods (mainly magic) in which you can shut down an encounter faster.

Theory and practice both disagree with this assessment.

Those save-or-die spells that still exist tend to fail because foes get really good saves pretty fast. Or they require incredible amounts of set-up, the kind which kind of deny "adventuring." Sure the only way to kill the tarrasque is some convoluted magical trap, but that's not going on an adventure in a dungeon or a wilderness anymore, it's taking out a hit or exterminating a pestilence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
Christopher V Brady wrote:
And doing damage at higher levels is useless and pointless, because there are more methods (mainly magic) in which you can shut down an encounter faster.

Theory and practice both disagree with this assessment.

Those save-or-die spells that still exist tend to fail because foes get really good saves pretty fast. Or they require incredible amounts of set-up, the kind which kind of deny "adventuring." Sure the only way to kill the tarrasque is some convoluted magical trap, but that's not going on an adventure in a dungeon or a wilderness anymore, it's taking out a hit or exterminating a pestilence.

From what I experience, mid to high level enemies don't trade full attacks and use their vast array of abilities to prevent that from happening.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Christopher V Brady wrote:
And doing damage at higher levels is useless and pointless, because there are more methods (mainly magic) in which you can shut down an encounter faster.

Theory and practice both disagree with this assessment.

Those save-or-die spells that still exist tend to fail because foes get really good saves pretty fast. Or they require incredible amounts of set-up, the kind which kind of deny "adventuring." Sure the only way to kill the tarrasque is some convoluted magical trap, but that's not going on an adventure in a dungeon or a wilderness anymore, it's taking out a hit or exterminating a pestilence.

From what I experience, mid to high level enemies don't trade full attacks and use their vast array of abilities to prevent that from happening.

team game.

if there are only casters, those monsters would gladly trade those abilities for full attacking.

if there are fighters/barbarians around then they try to fall back and use the abilites.

it's the casters job to get the fighters/barbarians to the there targets.

an all wizard party is just as compramised as an all fighter party, it doesn't mean either class is lacking.


This is the Suggestions/ House Rules/ Homebrew forum. The Op posted a class based off the fighter and asked for feedback, not a debate on the power of fighters. This thread is heavily derailed and this kind of debate does not belong on this forum section.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

ikarinokami wrote:


team game.

if there are only casters, those monsters would gladly trade those abilities for full attacking.

if there are fighters/barbarians around then they try to fall back and use the abilites.

it's the casters job to get the fighters/barbarians to the there targets.

an all wizard party is just as compramised as an all fighter party, it doesn't mean either class is lacking.

Except your hypothesis that an all wizard party would somehow be lacking in damage-dealing options is completely wrong. Totally aside from all the shape spells out there, a Wizard can buff up in the space of a single round and deal as much damage on a full attack as a Fighter, so if that were somehow their only option, they've got it covered. This idea that Wizards somehoe need Fighters to function is a fallacy that's been around long enough that many people just accept it without stopping to actually look at it.

Teamwork is "You + Me = Better than the sum of our parts", not "You + Me = I can actually do my job".

The "Fastball Special" is about the only kind of teamwork the Fighter is capable of, and with the exception of like 1 spell even then you aren't amplifying the Fighter's destructive force, you're just getting him close enough to swing a sword.

Caster and caster using teamwork on Balor - this could go a lot of ways, but lets use the most straightforward option available. Caster 1 dimensional anchors the balor while Caster 2, buffed up and transformed into a dragon, flies up and goes ape-shit on the balor.

Compare to

Caster and Fighter - Caster teleports Fighter up to swing at Balor. Balor teleports away and sends minions to chew on party. Rinse and repeat.

There's a lot of variations on those two things but the story's pretty consistently the same: the Fighter pretends that teamwork is other people letting him do his job, when teamwork for everyone else actually involves both parties being independently capable of doing their job and doing it even more effectively thanks to the other bodies on the field. A Fighter and a Wizard is like having 1.5 people on the field when they work together, but a Wizard and almost any other class is like having 2.5.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Yet another attempt to "fix" the fighter All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.