Aelryinth: there is no subconscious about it :) more an active intentional attempt on my side. That's why I took the time to clarify the campaign.
Using Stamina to boost physical skill rolls is a start, and I think it's very easy to implement.
Giving him 4+int skill ranks per level might also even the gap.
Edit: and having a look at his class skills list might be in order - I seem to remember while doing a across the bord comparison that the fighter is at the bottom for no good reason ( are tower shields really that great? :p )
Last I would consider if either 1.) Replacing bravery with something more substantial - like increased movement, or a way to use manouvers more efficiently against slippery opponen. Or 2.) Outright adding something like that and keeping bravery where it is.
People keep talking about giving the fighter "all good saves" or complex new abilities that make more similar to other newr classes, I think that the apparent simplicity in a 1st lvl fighter is part of his appeal, and removing that makes you wonder ... if that's what you want - why not play a Brawler or swashbuckler and pick up some armor feats?
Lastly I would add that the increased options for all combat feats with the stamina rules is a badly implemented and complicated addition, that increases the bookkeeping for the player while mostly just adding boring static bonuses and not much more.
@LuxuriantOak: At the end of the day, I don't think it's really feasible to seriously increase the fighter's versatility in and out of combat without doing away with some of its simplicity. I mean to say, I think 4 + Int skill ranks is a no-brainer, and I don't mind your stamina houserule. These are both things which give fighters stuff they need, but they're also very modest.
Basically, some people want a fighter who, at high levels, is a commander of armies and a world-renowned warlord able to influence the flow of the campaign's narrative on the same scale as, or on a scale at least somewhat comparable to, a 9th- or 6th-level caster. This design goal can never be achieved while maintaining the simplicity of the fighter's current design parameters. Basically what I'm saying is you have to clarify your goals. Do you want a fighter who's not sucky at skills (which is a fine ambition) or do you want a fighter who becomes Genghis Khan on speed at higher levels? These two goals will require vastly different levels of changing the class.
Just my 2 cp.
Cheers,
- Gears
@LuxuriantOak: At the end of the day, I don't think it's really feasible to seriously increase the fighter's versatility in and out of combat without doing away with some of its simplicity. I mean to say, I think 4 + Int skill ranks is a no-brainer, and I don't mind your stamina houserule. These are both things which give fighters stuff they need, but they're also very modest.
Basically, some people want a fighter who, at high levels, is a commander of armies and a world-renowned warlord able to influence the flow of the campaign's narrative on the same scale as, or on a scale at least somewhat comparable to, a 9th- or 6th-level caster. This design goal can never be achieved while maintaining the simplicity of the fighter's current design parameters. Basically what I'm saying is you have to clarify your goals. Do you want a fighter who's not sucky at skills (which is a fine ambition) or do you want a fighter who becomes Genghis Khan on speed at higher levels? These two goals will require vastly different levels of changing the class.
Just my 2 cp.
Cheers,
- Gears
You are absolutely right, those two goals are completely different.
I can only answer for myself when I say that the main goal (for me) is to give the fighter more out of combat versatility with skills.The "general"-option you kinda outlined is not one I'm interested in, I think such an idea is less class-dependant and more game dependant.
Feats like Leadership and rules like the kingdom rules in Ultimate Campaign are the ones who should tackle that scenario.
This is also because I think that a high level Fighter should be allowed to NOT be a leader if the player wishes it, as much as the opposite.
So assuming that all leading is something based on cha-modifiers, diplomacy and performance tests, and that either the leadership feat or Good Oldfashioned Roleplaying/GM fiat/player wishes decides wheter the fighter is a lone knight (a la dark souls) or a mighty commander (like DA: inquisition) ... then my fighter build has the following:
4+int skill points, and most likely slightly more class skills (Without overthinking it I would consider adding 1 more knowledge skill, perception & stealth)
Stamina rules -and the possibility of using stamina on any skill rolls that seems fitting (pushing yourself while climbing: yes, but while studying history? I think not)
And that leaves ... options for being relevant at higher levels against creatures with features like teleport/flying/invisibility/DR and such.
So which of these are actual problems?
Invisibility is annoying, but there is a feat called blind fight (not saying all fighters have it, I'm just saying they can take it and they have loads of feats) so the main issue is finding named creture.
- which is a Perception roll, and I've already made it a class skill.
- and if you allow stamina boosting to work on perception skills that's an added boost for when it's needed (not saying it will work every time, but it can help - haven't run the numbers)
DR is not a problem, the fighter has a nice damage output and weapons can be made out of different materials/enchanted, not an issue moving on.
Flying and teleportation: here we go ... in a full plate the fighter isn't exactly quick, and even if he is wearing less his movement is not fast and limited to horisontal ...
So the solutions for such problems are amongst others; gain flight somehow; stop said opponent from leaving close combat with you somehow; use a ranged attack ....
gaining flight is wholly dependent on items or teammates.
using ranged attacks is fine - but many will complain that it reduces their characters input a lot (assnming he is not an archer of course)
and higher levels will have more of these types of enemies.
using manouvers to hold on to enemies and stopping them from flying off/dissapearing is cool - but only works if you're close enough in the first place ...
I personally think there is nothing wrong with challenging players with different types of scenarios where they sometimes will be outmanouvered or have to rely on different tricks or tactics than usual.
(remebering the rules for cover will solve many problems with flying or teleporting enemies - they can't do much against you if they can't see you - And if you're fighting a flying enemy in an open field without even a bow: WHY?!)
It becomes a problem when it happens constantly and the player feels outshined by everybody else (cohorts included).
Sorry for the wall of text, but you got me thinking and I wanted to clarify my reasoning.
Did I miss something?
@LuxuriantOak: At the end of the day, I don't think it's really feasible to seriously increase the fighter's versatility in and out of combat without doing away with some of its simplicity. I mean to say, I think 4 + Int skill ranks is a no-brainer, and I don't mind your stamina houserule. These are both things which give fighters stuff they need, but they're also very modest.
Basically, some people want a fighter who, at high levels, is a commander of armies and a world-renowned warlord able to influence the flow of the campaign's narrative on the same scale as, or on a scale at least somewhat comparable to, a 9th- or 6th-level caster. This design goal can never be achieved while maintaining the simplicity of the fighter's current design parameters. Basically what I'm saying is you have to clarify your goals. Do you want a fighter who's not sucky at skills (which is a fine ambition) or do you want a fighter who becomes Genghis Khan on speed at higher levels? These two goals will require vastly different levels of changing the class.
Just my 2 cp.
Cheers,
- Gears
I'll say this again, all of the high-end Martials and even 6th level spellcasters don't really have any ability similar or gamechanging as what you're describing. Not even Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, Magi, Warpriests, etc. have that sort of power. And these are some of the strongest martial types out there, some of which possess 6 level spellcasting. At best, they have Teleport, and that's concluded by simply saying "Yo, I have Boots for that." And not all 6th level spellcasters will have that spell (Warpriest and Bard in particular), not to mention taking into consideration Investigators, Inquisitors, Alchemists, and other such. From this, it's self-explanatory: "Changing the narrative," as others so freely call it, is a 9th-level-Spellcaster-exclusive niche.
Quite frankly, the Leadership feat is probably the most similar to what you're describing, and even something such as that is limited, especially when you consider that a Fighter, 9 times out of 10, will dump Charisma, which Leadership is heavily reliant on. It'd be much more fulfilling on a Paladin, since he actually does possess a very high Charisma most of the time.
I mean, you could add a class feature that says the Fighter adds half his level to his Leadership score, but all that does is shore up the fact that he dumped Charisma, and doesn't really accomplish anything other than staying relevant with other Martials who are more qualified for taking the feat. And for those ones that don't? They'll still be behind, but the gap won't be as horrible.
Let's also take into consideration that there are means to have the world at your disposal without having to rule it. The best Diplomancer, which is usually a Bard, will have a much better (and more fair) chance at conquering the world through kindness. I'm not saying that Diplomacy is foolproof, or that it's a surefire answer to everything (that's what a Sledgehammer is for), but if you're ever given a social scenario, a Diplomancer will make the target(s) of your social scenario basically give you the shirt on his back and then be on standby if you need anything else.
And that's just by using a Skill. The other alternative is by using Permanencied Charm Person, and that has its own limitations. Using Permanencied Dominate Person, you turn what's supposed to be your loyal citizens and soldiers into unwitting cannonfodder (which, for an Evil empire, is probably the most fitting). But that takes a lot of time and resources to pull it off, something which Diplomacy can do without having to spend any sort of resources.
Just like that, a powerful Wizard spell is trumped by Skills.
From this, it's self-explanatory: "Changing the narrative," as others so freely call it, is a 9th-level-Spellcaster-exclusive niche.
And that's really, really lousy design. "You must be a full caster to affect the narrative" is like saying "You must be this tall to ride this ride." To correct that, there are two possibilities:
1. Give everyone else some narrative power as well; or
2. Remove those abilities from the full casters.
Because this thread is all about buffing the fighter, rather than nerfing the wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, oracle, summoner, witch, etc., people like me are focused on solution (1). If you disagree with (1), it would be logical to instead focus on solution (2), which has nothing to do with the fighter. If you don't think there's a problem at all, presumably you wouldn't be in this thread.
Surely there has to be some kind of middle-ground between the grotesque overpowered-ness of the wizard and the utter lack of options available to a vanilla fighter? Furthermore, a "narrative-influencing" fighter should hopefully be able to do this in a fashion that's unique to the fighter class, not cribbing abilities off spellcasters and refluffing them as "(Ex)".
I'm not saying I can design this idealized "narrativist fighter" off the cuff, I'm just saying that I think it should be possible to do without "turning" the fighter into a 9- or 6-level caster. Ideally, I think a narrative-influencing martial class should be a lot better at certain things than any 6-level caster, but a lot worse than them at others. I.e., they should excel in areas related to warfare and military matters, but they shouldn't also be the guy you send in to charm the emperor/empress or infiltrate the secret cult, et cetera.
Anyway, I do feel like this might be another subject matter altogether. I'm all for keeping the fighter as a Tier 4-ish competent fighting man type class. The class that's being envisioned is so far from being a fighter in the traditional sense that it might as well bear a different name, "warlord" or similar. I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to calling it "fighter", I just again want to stress these are two vastly different classes that're being discussed here, and neither of them is a bad design choice. Heck, I love playing Big Dumb Fighters and Big Dumb Barbarians, and not being able to "influence the narrative" has never hampered my fun when playing such characters. But that doesn't mean I don't think a narrative-focused martial class should or could also exist.
Cheers,
- Gears
Surely there has to be some kind of middle-ground between the grotesque overpowered-ness of the wizard and the utter lack of options available to a vanilla fighter? Furthermore, a "narrative-influencing" fighter should hopefully be able to do this in a fashion that's unique to the fighter class, not cribbing abilities off spellcasters and refluffing them as "(Ex)".
Agree on both counts -- with some reservations. Given that there's a spell to do anything at all you'd care to name -- at some point, if you make a rule that fighters can't do anything that resembles any spell, you're saying the rule is that fighters can't to anything. In which case, why have them?
From this, it's self-explanatory: "Changing the narrative," as others so freely call it, is a 9th-level-Spellcaster-exclusive niche.And that's really, really lousy design. "You must be a full caster to affect the narrative" is like saying "You must be this tall to ride this ride." To correct that, there are two possibilities:
1. Give everyone else some narrative power as well; or
2. Remove those abilities from the full casters.Because this thread is all about buffing the fighter, rather than nerfing the wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, oracle, summoner, witch, etc., people like me are focused on solution (1). If you disagree with (1), it would be logical to instead focus on solution (2), which has nothing to do with the fighter. If you don't think there's a problem at all, presumably you wouldn't be in this thread.
I didn't say it was a good design. All I said was that it is the current niche regarding what class types get what sort of abilities. I'm simply working within what's already processed, and understanding why X has Y, and why Z doesn't have W, when they should (or shouldn't).
You also need to establish what each class should be able to do, and what they can do that no other class can. Maybe Paizo doesn't feel that every class should have some sort of ability to "change the narrative," or they have a completely different concept of what "changing the narrative" means, or how it's accomplished. (It's probably the former.) And to be honest, they're kind of right: Not every class should be able to do the same thing, and if so, then not on equal levels. Otherwise, what's the point of having different classes?
In the thought process experiment, where everybody was given one class that had the best of everything available (all spells, all spell levels, full BAB, all good saves, best skill points, counts as everything for everything, etc.), it beckons that question of design values and whether giving everybody the same sort of power is really signs of providing an interesting and dynamic game, and is doubly true for optimizers and those who believe there is just that "One Build."
If we're going to argue that Fighters can't properly "change the narrative," then you're going to need to define what that precisely means, because my definition of "change the narrative," which can result from killing an important figurehead, such as a King or Lord, might differ from your sort of "changing the narrative," (which I'm going to presume is all of the exploits regarding Sno-Cone Wish Machines, Teleport, Summonings, etc). And we all know that our perspective of such will be vastly different from Paizo's, assuming they even have a perspective of it at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple example: say we have a class that's supposed to be really good at tracking and hunting. If we define "ability to track" as "ability to follow really obvious footprints across the ground"(which is more or less what they did with the ranger), then when you reach a level at which people can teleport and plane shift, that class becomes obsolete -- they are no longer a full participant in the game. The narrative has left them behind, because all they can do is tag along with someone else.
Now imagine that rangers, at high levels, could track across planar boundaries, or even track a teleporting quarry by following their spoor across the Astral Plane. When you do that, you allow the ranger to interact with the narrative again, retaining his relevance. That's a solution (1) approach.
If you also want to protect the ranger's niche, you go a step further and make locate creature, find the path, trace teleport, discern location not spells anymore -- they become ranger class features instead. Now the ranger isn't just relevant, he's needed. That's a solution (2) approach, and -- as Ethereal Gears correctly points out -- you can do both. But doing neither isn't really doing anything to address system-wide problems, so it's like setting mousetrap when the roof is about to collapse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kirth: I get your point. I'm not averse to abilities that somewhat resemble existing spells or achieve similar goals. It's just my belief and hope that there's plenty of unexplored design space out there for cool, thematic, martial-themed extraordinary abilities that don't just look like badly disguised spells. I would never say that a "mundane" ability cannot mimic or resemble a spell when appropriate, or vice versa, for that matter. Moderation in all things. :)
As regards the rest of the discussion, I would just like to point out that I am definitely on the side of thinking that what this game needs is both elevation of the lower-tier classes and the unabashed nerfing of the truly egregious excesses currently existing within Tier 1 and parts of Tier 2. I don't want fighters to be able to cast Wish. I kind of don't want Wish, Simulacrum, et al to exist at all in their current form, and I'm all for the total elimination of spells (regardless of spell level) which simply render the class features of other classes obsolete. However, that discussion is arguably beyond the scope of this thread, which is supposed to be primarily concerned with how to re-design and "unchain" the fighter.
Cheers,
- Gears
However, that discussion is arguably beyond the scope of this thread, which is supposed to be primarily concerned with how to re-design and "unchain" the fighter.
It is indeed a much larger discussion, but it's the context in which re-designing is occurring. If the fighter, in the overall game, can't affect things beyond what he already can, we're not really "unchaining" him in my mind, so in essence we're predetermining that only solution (2) applies. On the flip side, my approach has been to start with solution (1) approaches. Without any context, we can't really pick a direction or make a re-write that fulfills any particular goal at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fair enough. I'm just going to take some time now, I think, to try to dream up cool military-themed abilities that a would-be "field marshal"-type fighter could benefit from, preferably without tying him up too much with lugging around minions, followers and cohorts...
Well, several people have posted how they'd change the Fighter, EG, so you don't need to re-invent everything from scratch. My effort was posted in this thread on 20th November.
Oh, no, I've read through most of the proposals posted thus far. I think a lot of them are great! I just might have some ideas of my own that go in a slightly different direction.
That is of course your prerogative. :)
As regards your particular fix, Arakhor, I think it's very good. There's some part of me that's still vaguely wanting to create some kind of "leader of armies" ability that isn't just Leadership. I am currently working on something like that for a homebrew different class, but I'm not sure yet how feasible it is. If it works for that class, though, I think it could be quite easily ported to a "fighter fix" as well. Now, I like your option of either gaining followers or a flying mount. I think it's neat and totally workable. It's quite possible there's things I want the fighter to be able to do that are, as has been mentioned above, better represented via the kingdom building rules and other similar subsystems, i.e. they are not really things that fit into the "this is stuff you get to allow you to go out adventuring" mold typical of class features. Anyway, we'll see if I can come up with anything!
Cheers,
- Gears
The easiest way to make a Fighter a leader is to have a fairly small bonus that he can gift all his allies with...and then have that bonus be apply to simply a HUGE amount of people who follow him.
So, the bard would get power, at the cost of duration and range. The fighter gets what he's always had....constant power, that affects everyone continuously.
I've noted before that there are 6 different 'martial ideals', and people tend to have wildly varying interpretations of where the fighter fits into them.
They are:
Champion
Mentor/Teacher
Guardian/Sentinel
Hunter
Soldier
Warlord.
The fact remains that the fighter should be able to excel at all of those roles, and instead is outgunned in all of them but soldier (mostly because soldiers profit more from teamwork feats then any other job).
Too many people think the fighter should only be a champion, and that warlord should be a completely different character. Conan and most of the Greek Heroes tend to disagree with that...the great warriors were also great leaders of men.
As for hunting, the only thing that should differentiate ranger from fighter is the mystical/magical edge of the former. a fighter should be an extremely effective tracker and killer. Likewise, the guardian/bodyguard/sentinel role is ICONIC to the fighter, more then any other class...but they suck at it.
as for Champion, they've got the offense, but in a magical world, completely lack the defense to compare with a barb or paladin at this.
If you want a good 'fighter fix', the fighter should have the resources to be built to any of those six roles, and be extremely good at it, rivaling all other martial classes.
===Aelryinth