|
Terrible example, humans make great everything, and elves don't make particularly good fighters, especially with the con hit.
Here's a better one: Wally the wizard is a human with 14 con FCB hp and toughness, getting 7.5 hp a level.
Frederina the Archer Fighter is a HUMAN fighter with 14 con who takes FCB hp also because human skills, but also has the toughness feat Frederina gets 9.5 hp a level.
So Frederina is comfortable with 3 skill point per level? Because I've never seen anyone comfy with that. 4's a minimum, and more are wanted.
And where exactly in her Feat progression can she fit Toughness? I mean, let's examine this:
1: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot,
2: Deadly Aim
3: Weapon Focus
4: Weapon Specialization
5: Iron Will (with Con 14, Str 14, and Dex 16+, you have no points for Wis above 12) or Advanced Weapon Training
6: Manyshot
7: Clustered Shots
8: Greater Weapon Focus
9: Point Blank Master (you might grab this earlier, pushing other things later)
10: Advanced Weapon Training
11: Improved Precise Shot
12: Greater Weapon Focus
All of those are way better than Toughness. Dropping something for it is silly, and most Fighters won't do it. So comparing a Wizard with Toughness to a Fighter without is super reasonable.
Fighters and Swashbucklers are probably the classes that most miserably fail to live up to their class descriptions. :(And the Swashbuckler has at least received a patch via Noble Fencer that helps it out a bit.
In fairness, Fighter's received several patches similarly. Advanced Weapon Training is great, and from description Advanced Armor Training at least gives extra skills, and there are several Feats in Ultimate Intrigue that help out in making Bravery actually really good (ie: the ability to apply it to all mind effecting stuff is one Feat, the ability to give it to all your allies is another).
It's not really enough, IMO, but it's helpful.
aand it only took... 7 (?) years for Paizo to finally give Fighters something decent. At this rate they might actually be a decent class by 2030. :P
But why do feats have to fix some of the issues with the fighter.
They should have some cool abilities that go along with their mountain of feats.
The idea is that they can customize their concept better with feats, much like spellcasters can customize their concept better by focusing on certain types of spells. Whether or not that is feasible is a different discussion, but that's the idea.
If the fighter could trade all their feats every day like a caster can swap their spells, I'd agree that's a good comparison. The versatility would make up for the underpowered feats.
Sadly, that's not how it works.
Oh, and you forgot to add False Life to the wizard. It's pretty much a core spell...even the iconic sorc and wizard have it. It's like a pre-emptive heal.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't personally hate the fighter the way it is, but I guess even the brawler would be a better chassis to start building a new one. Martial Flexibility and fewer bonus feats for starters. Some version of unarmed strike, except it applies to the minimum damage of one weapon group. Some version of AC bonus, depending on what you're wearing. A rework of close weapon mastery where he chooses another group of weapon, or it applies to all other weapons. As far as out of combat, well you picked a fighter, so I hope you know how to role play. A good design beginning with a chassis is not beholden to a chassis though, so it's just a place to start. There is always room to branch out into other areas.
And where exactly in her Feat progression can she fit Toughness? I mean, let's examine this:
I suppose I would take it somewhere is the first 5 levels and push everything back, but that's just me. Also, I wouldn't choose all of those feats, so there is more flexibility in when I gain certain ones. I don't know how it is in other people's games, but I don't roll Will saves in every combat. And when I do roll one, they aren't all immediate shut down effects if I fail. However, I do expect to take HP damage in every combat, even on the occasions that I don't.
Well, given that Fighters are described as knights and lords of the battlefield, I would assume that a certain amount of diplomacy and other tactical and classical skills would be part of their tool set.
Then wouldn't the easiest way to enable them to fit their description better be, to just add a couple skills to their trained list.
Allow them:Diplomacy
Knowledge(Nobility)
Sense motive
Say 5 or 6 skill points + Int mod. That would put them between the Barbarian and Rouge in skill points per level. Which is far more than the core suggests and is reasonable to represent more training than the barbarian and slightly less training than the rouge.
I would negate all the weapon training feats. Except for weapons that have a high probability of injuring the person wielding them like: spiked chains, chain spear, meteor hammer and others which all probably fall under exotic. Basically if its a weapon the fighter can use it with no penalty. That would free up several feats allowing the player to get feats for actions outside combat or for higher mobility.
"Fixing" the Fighter apparently means to some taking it out back to the old tree and shooting it.
Back when my group did 3.5 we simply removed the Fighter from the game.
All the 3/4 BAB classes that didn't have spells got bumped up to full BAB. Rogue and Ninja got a good Fort save.
All Full BAB non-TOB classes got the full Fighter bonus feat progression. All 3/4 BAB classes that had spells (but not full casting) and TOB classes got 1/2 the Fighter Feat progression.
|
|
I suppose I would take it somewhere is the first 5 levels and push everything back, but that's just me. Also, I wouldn't choose all of those feats, so there is more flexibility in when I gain certain ones. I don't know how it is in other people's games, but I don't roll Will saves in every combat. And when I do roll one, they aren't all immediate shut down effects if I fail. However, I do expect to take HP damage in every combat, even on the occasions that I don't.
I've seen a fair number of combats where the ranged characters don't take damage. Y'know, the ones where the PCs are fighting one or two melee brutes?
And even when they do take damage, 12 HP at 1st and 8 per level after that (what you get with 14 Con) is enough to absorb a fair bit. Many melee characters don't have that much.
And yeah, Will Saves don't happen every fight, but IME, they usually do completely screw at least you, and sometimes the whole party (Mind Control the high-damage guy!) when they happen, which is something you definitely want to avoid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking with my group last night, removing the fighter may be the way we go. Our problem at the moment is what niche is the fighter meant to fill that can't be done with a different class? What character concept does a fighter encapsulate that is both unique & interesting, but also not limited (ie fights good, but that's it)? Part of me wants to keep the fighter as the exemplar of a man at arms...but I dislike the idea of a character being completely reliant on equipment, and having a class that can only fight is poor form in a game about problem solving & resource management.
Design Manager
|
Speaking with my group last night, removing the fighter may be the way we go. Our problem at the moment is what niche is the fighter meant to fill that can't be done with a different class? What character concept does a fighter encapsulate that is both unique & interesting, but also not limited (ie fights good, but that's it)? Part of me wants to keep the fighter as the exemplar of a man at arms...but I dislike the idea of a character being completely reliant on equipment, and having a class that can only fight is poor form in a game about problem solving & resource management.Take the Avenger Vigilante, remove the dual identity stuff, and give it weapon and armor training (or maybe a choice of the two).
I don't think you even need to remove the dual identity stuff; those can be useful narrative tools, and they draw on a resource entirely separate from those that fuel the Avenger's combat abilities. I think keeping them also helps with the primary issues of the Fighter's lack of narrative power.
I actually thought the Avenger makes a great representation of a special forces type character. The dual identities being as much about a mental state as physical appearance actually reminds me of a lot of people I knew when I was enlisted, who had a "game face" that was almost completely at odds with their normal personality. Even the dual alignment fits within that paradigm, and actually provides some flexibility for a character to have his social alignment and his combat/adventuring alignment.
Also, the Avenger already has access to a version of Armor Training if he wants it, and abilities that serve similar functions to what Weapon Training provides, so I would worry that adding Weapon Training to the class might boost it past the top end of martial combat performance against many foes.
It gets to a certain point with a fighter quite quickly where they are doing critical hits every round..... a fighter can put out an awful lot of damage.
Now make the Fighter make sense in a world where Rangers exist.The biggest problem I see with the fighter is players who want to have their cake and to eat it too.
The fighter is the master of combat. He shines in combat. He longs for combat. He lives for combat. He gets some skills, but he's basically a fighting machine.
If you choose to play a fighter, you have to accept that your character will be mostly a death dispenser, unless you invest some feats and skill points to give him some other areas of expertise.
The Fighter outshines the Ranger in the area the Fighter was built for... pure simple combat. If he's an Archer, he'll be packing more feats. He might even take an archer archetype to outbow the Ranger, as well as use some spare combat features to make his melee that much more deadly. And his skills won't be dependent on going against a favored enemy or using a round to use magic to cheat one up. He'll most just as fast as the Ranger while being considerably better armored.
If he's a Lore Warden figher with a decent Intelligence, a.k.a. the Roy Greenhilt build, he might actually hold his own in some skill areas.
It gets to a certain point with a fighter quite quickly where they are doing critical hits every round..... a fighter can put out an awful lot of damage.
Fighter does critical hits better than basically any other class. The problem is, critical feats are so late in the career people kind of discount them.
I'd like to do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of this speaks to the title of this thread. If I had to throw in my $.02, I'd say the best way to fix the fighter would be to stop having people create these threads.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of this speaks to the title of this thread. If I had to throw in my $.02, I'd say the best way to fix the fighter would be to stop having people create these threads.
There's a worthless and meaningless contribution. Particularly since this thread actually has been largely on topic, addressing the title topic.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone tried using the stamina pool rules in Unchained and just giving it to Fighters? I haven't played with it, but it looks pretty potent.
As Blackwaltzomega noted, the main issue with the stamina system is that it only serves to reinforce things the Fighter is already good at, rather than expanding his strengths. Skill unlocks actually help the Fighter more than Stamina, though that's still a relatively limited fix.
There are quite a few pieces already out there that can be fused together to address a lot of the Fighter's weaknesses though. I think some real basic changes are increase skill points to 4-6+Int, expand the skill list to include things like Perception, give him an extra good save (I'd go with Will), and give him free proficiency in exotic weapons associated with his Weapon Training groups (that last bit is both to help him meet his fluff and help give him a more relevant edge in combat over his martial peers without stacking bonuses that will cause other issues in game). Giving him a version of Leadership or access to a social pool that procs off his Bravery class feature could also assist in expanding his narrative facility.
One thing I am not a fan of is removing a class from the game. Of course, what people do in their games is up to them. I have not removed any classes from my games. If someone wants to play a class, that's entirely their choice.
Part of my reasoning has to do with the fact that I don't actually play fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, or whatever class. I play a character with a set of abilities that work to accomplish the concept I have in mind. If that means that I am going to play a single class barbarian, then that's what I'm doing. If it's better for me to play a sorcerer/ranger/rogue to accomplish my goal, then that's what I'm doing. It's not about the classes so much as it is about the concept.
Everyone is different. Some people simply want to play their favorite class(es). That's ok with me too.
The times I have seen ineffective characters were times that the player was either not understanding the rules, the campaign, or both. Playing a wizard who focuses on crafting magic items in a campaign with little to no downtime means that you are probably wasting feats. Playing a ranger with favored terrain of mountains in a seafaring campaign is a waste of an ability. If someone wants to play a summoner, but doesn't learn the languages of the creatures he's summoning should learn that he can't get them to do things. Playing a druid that doesn't have handle animal may be challenging when you try to get that animal to do something, especially if you think it's a combat trained animal and you need it to fetch something.
So there have been endless threads on how to fix the fighter. Personally, I don't think it's as bad as some people think. It's certainly not where I would like it to be either. So I have a simple fix that I would like some feedback on.
What if all fighters had to take an archetype but they gave up none of their class abilities?
Personally when looking at the fighter within my own home game they are not having any problems. That said however, I have actively banned several of the newer classes that attempt of overshadow some of the more "classic" classes such as the Fighter or the Rogue.
It is my opinion that the issues with these non-spell casting martial / skill classes has nothing to do with the class itself, but everything to do with how overly generous Pathfinder / Paizo has been with the available magic system. In short in the effort to allow a mage to not be sitting out 1/2 of a game session because they burnt all their spells in the first 15 minutes of their day, Pathfinder simply went too far and now there is very little to stop them.
The waterfall effect of VERY accessible magic items (wands, scrolls, & potions mostly) means they can sling spells all day, and thanks to skills like Use Magic Device there is virtually no skill, spell or ability which is beyond their grasp. In short, Pathfinder killed the specialist (a very bad thing in a party) and gave rise to a generalist character concept build...but only for certain classes (mostly spell casters or those with high UMD skills). Other classes and character builds (martials for example) simply missed the gravy train and now everyone sees them as weak. In fact there is a larger problem at hand.
That said, here are a few things I did in my campaign (without targeting the Fighter specifically) which REALLY helped with balancing out the playing field.
1) Class defense bonus + armor as DR (IE; AC 5 = Armor DR 5/-). Armor DR can be bypassed by several things: a Natural 20, critical hits, massive damage, called shots (Ultimate Combat) and more mundane things like being set on fire, tripping (being prone = 1/2 DR) or drowning. Class defense bonus also means that a heavy armor user is not completely screwed without the armor. Armor as DR allows for more survivability (especially at lower levels) and really helps with martial characters.
2) Low magic = more restrictions on mages, magic items and max spell levels. Check out my profile, I've written / posted quite a bit about this here on the boards but a lot of it focuses on concepts like limiting casters to 2/3 partial caster classes, or putting a level cap on spell levels, etc etc.
3) Lower resistances. see # 2 above. If you limit the amount of spells, you have to rely on them to actually work vs relying on the idea that you have plenty more where that came from!
4) Full attack w/ a standard action. A mage & an Archer can both stand still and get full attacks pretty much anywhere on the board. A mage can cast a 10d6 (plus metamagic) fireball, which hits 20 foes and still move! A fighter however has to make a choice of full attack vs mobility, and in the event there are no foes within reach it is no longer even a choice.
5) + 2 skills per level (for every class with less than 6 skills per level) that must be non-combat related. One of which must be a "profession" skill such as K: Profession, K: Craft or K: preform. This combined with background Traits and Archetypes can really help to round out an other wise lack-luster character.
Would it be considered overpowered to just to make the feats that a fighter would get being automatically upgraded to the unchained stamina version permanently, without stamina being used?
Alternatively, if stamina points are still to be used, they just get converted into the mythic versions of those feats then, without having to delve into the rest of the Mythic system?
Of course, this would have to presume that Mythic feats are better than the unchained stamina feats... with the bog standard feats being on the low end of the totem pole compared to the first two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a worthless and meaningless contribution. Particularly since this thread actually has been largely on topic, addressing the title topic.
Let's talk about the title topic for a second: there's nothing at all wrong with the fighter, despite the premise for this and the countless other threads to the contrary.
Fighters are good, because they are an incredibly varied class. Pick anything related to combat, and the fighter does well at it.
Outside of combat, you have most people use 2 things to handle situations: roleplaying and skill ranks. between traits and archetypes, fighters have a wide variety of access to class skills, and can have a decent amount of skill points with which to purchase them.
As far as roleplaying goes, fighters aren't locked down to a very specific rp hook, like (say) a paladin or a cavalier. Because fighters exist in every culture and every race, how a fighter behaves can vary widely, even among members of the same culture or race.
Why would an archer have 14 con or toughness? She has separate attack and damage stats and needs wisdom even more than other fighters because as an archer she's more dangerous to her companions if dominated. And archery takes tons of feats. And then there's iron will.Frederina the Archer Fighter is a HUMAN fighter with 14 con who takes FCB hp also because human skills, but also has the toughness feat Frederina gets 9.5 hp a level.
Particularly with the clarifications in Ultimate Intrigue, why do people still think that a dominated character is going to attack their companions while in the midst of a fight against the person doing the dominating?
I don't like the stamina rules because the only way you can make them relevant is 'exclusivity'...and the name. Are you really trying to tell me a ultra-tough barbarian, the brute of the melee classes, doesn't have stamina? That the ranger, with endurance and die hard as default class abilities, doesn't have stamina?
Making it exclusive to fighters feels very wrong.
The fighter should indeed have a second good save. He's the Olympian of physical combat and training. He should have a good Reflex save. yes,yes, I know we WANT him to have a good will save. But he SHOULD have a good Reflex save.
Drahliana, Instant Enemy is a swift spell. So, no, the ranger does NOT have to spend a round buffing...unless he wants leaden weapon or gravity bow, too! I'm sure you are thrilled to hear that.
And people, arguing about the fighter's combat prowess is a dead end. NOBODY here thinks the fighter is underpowered in combat, and he really doesn't need a buff.
It's all the other stuff...the out of combat, the narrative power, the lack of skills and lack of skill at skills, the day to day options and lack of flexibility.
Address the weaknesses, and quit proclaiming the strengths everyone knows, and that every melee has.
As noted, the fighter no longer has a niche. Every other melee class can do what the fighter does, generally be more flexible about it, AND can do other stuff the fighter can't even dream of. THe barb gets Rage Talents that scale with level and a resistance to magic that borders on the insane, filling the brutal melee tank role perfectly. Paladins can save against ANYTHING and smite foes better then any other melee class, while healing away as good as a priest, the ultimate champions. Rangers are classic skill monkeys, can instantly customize themselves to Nova against any foe, and can make themselves instantly viable anywhere, the most flexible and versatile of the melee classes.
The fighter can't do any of those roles as well, he can only put out damage numbers.
==Aelryinth
I think you could make them viable with a few changes:
1) Give them a d12 hit die.
2) Make their tower shield proficiency actually be worth something by having them lose the penalties to using one.
3) Give them an extra couple skill points per level in addition to adding perception as a class skill
4) Give them "fighter talents" similar in power to Unchained Barbarian rage powers or rogue talents
So, basically totally overhaul the class in its entirety.
One thing I am not a fan of is removing a class from the game. Of course, what people do in their games is up to them. I have not removed any classes from my games. If someone wants to play a class, that's entirely their choice.
Part of my reasoning has to do with the fact that I don't actually play fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, or whatever class. I play a character with a set of abilities that work to accomplish the concept I have in mind. If that means that I am going to play a single class barbarian, then that's what I'm doing. If it's better for me to play a sorcerer/ranger/rogue to accomplish my goal, then that's what I'm doing. It's not about the classes so much as it is about the concept.
Then I perition to move the fighter in its current iteration under the npc classes section.
More seriously, can you give me some examples of character concepts that would be accomplished via the fighter that cannot be done so via another class? Because I'm hard pressed to think of one when not limiting myself to the fluff text provided for the class.
Also I find it interesting that of the Pathfinder classes, the fighter seems to be the only one tied to gear. Other classes have innate bonuses to skills, sefenses, damage, etc, but the fighter's main class features only work with specific weapons, or when he's wearing armor (compare barbarian dr to the fighter's dr for example)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I perition to move the fighter in its current iteration under the npc classes section.
More seriously, can you give me some examples of character concepts that would be accomplished via the fighter that cannot be done so via another class? Because I'm hard pressed to think of one when not limiting myself to the fluff text provided for the class.
Heavily armored straightforward warrior (no masked alter-ego, magic, or other weirdness) without a mount. Mechanically, a character with no Class Features that cost from a limited pool or require an action to activate. That simplicity in play appeals to some.
Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing (indeed, I have a fix of my own, as I believe you're aware), but it does give it a reason to exist.
Also I find it interesting that of the Pathfinder classes, the fighter seems to be the only one tied to gear. Other classes have innate bonuses to skills, sefenses, damage, etc, but the fighter's main class features only work with specific weapons, or when he's wearing armor (compare barbarian dr to the fighter's dr for example)
This is true, but in practice, the cost of magic items combine with the game's assumptions about which you have make everyone pretty gear dependent.
Is the simplicity in its behaviour worth the complexity in construction? There are complaints about the number of available feats even outside the fighter, and the fighter is trading otherwise straightforward features (evasion, fast movement, etc) for "read this list of thousands of options and try to select ones that synergise"
I'm going to say probably. Part of my motivation for removing the class is 1) it's simpler than rewriting the thing and 2) it convinces my group to shorten feat chains.
Also I kind of question having a class with no usable resource. Simple and approachable it may be, but it also means the class only has one speed. I see a potential problem with that in that a player cannot adapt to a situation. The classes approach to a problem simply becomes "are my numbers high enough? If yes, yay. If not, there's nothing I can do". You can't expend smite if your target is particularly tough, you can't save or soend rage, spells, etc. Basically you have a class that doesn't manage a resource in a game about resource management.
|
|
Is the simplicity in its behaviour worth the complexity in construction? There are complaints about the number of available feats even outside the fighter, and the fighter is trading otherwise straightforward features (evasion, fast movement, etc) for "read this list of thousands of options and try to select ones that synergise"
It is for some people. I'm not one of them, but I've talked a fair bit with people who like the Fighter, and it's worth it for them. Which is all that's needed to make keeping it a worthwhile choice, IMO.
I'm going to say probably. Part of my motivation for removing the class is 1) it's simpler than rewriting the thing and 2) it convinces my group to shorten feat chains.
Well, you could always steal someone else's re-write. There are lots. Heck, 4-6+Int mod skills, a few Class skills, Evasion for Fort at 10th level, and a Good Will Save and most people will be fairly happy. That's not too long.
As for the Feat chains...that's a better argument. Shortening Feat chains is a solid goal, and if ditching the Fighter lets you achieve it, then it might be worth it.
Also I kind of question having a class with no usable resource. Simple and approachable it may be, but it also means the class only has one speed. I see a potential problem with that in that a player cannot adapt to a situation. The classes approach to a problem simply becomes "are my numbers high enough? If yes, yay. If not, there's nothing I can do". You can't expend smite if your target is particularly tough, you can't save or soend rage, spells, etc. Basically you have a class that doesn't manage a resource in a game about resource management.
That's true to some degree, but again, some people want that. I'd argue that making the game accessible to as many people of as many different tastes as possible is worth the effort of fixing the Fighter (which didn't take me too long anyway).
DMW are you implying that I'm lazy!? Because you would be right...
I really liked Lemmy's changes when I last saw them though I must read through yours again. Of course the house rules I'm planning are far reaching in an effort to rebalance casters in general, barious weapons, etc.
So then the question I'd like to pose (again) is what should the fighter, as a class, do? The response from my group was "fight" which I found a little limited. I like the thought of the Olympian, a perfection of physique. So as a rogue may be focused on charisma, int & dex, the fighter would be str, dex & con. This goes beyond the attributes, more meaning additional benefits to behaviors that require those (athletics, climbing, etc).
I'm curious if a problem may be trying to assign the fighter to too many archetypes. Some wanting the strong, stalwart warrior. Others an armored brute. Still others a charismatic soldier, etc. (These 3 could be a paladin, a barbarian and a rogue respectively) But perhaps the fighter as a class should be nailed down to a more restricted idea. What, in general, makes a fighter, and what about that is unique to the fighter?
Then I perition to move the fighter in its current iteration under the npc classes section.
You can do whatever you want in your own games. The fighter is part of the core and many people enjoy the class, myself included.
More seriously, can you give me some examples of character concepts that would be accomplished via the fighter that cannot be done so via another class? Because I'm hard pressed to think of one when not limiting myself to the fluff text provided for the class.
Most concepts can be achieved with more than one class. When I build something, I look for what is needed and what I will enjoy. No matter what I post, there will be a dozen others showing another way to accomplish the same thing, all will say their way is better. It won't necessarily be true, but they will all say it.
Also I find it interesting that of the Pathfinder classes, the fighter seems to be the only one tied to gear. Other classes have innate bonuses to skills, sefenses, damage, etc, but the fighter's main class features only work with specific weapons, or when he's wearing armor (compare barbarian dr to the fighter's dr for example)
All classes are tied to gear somehow. The fighter only appears that way to you because he is designed to not have any supernatural or spell-like abilities. Everything he has is supposed to be extraordinary.
The fighter's class skills all have static DCs. He doesn't need to put a bunch of extra points into them. His bonuses to defense and damage are from the feats he chooses, the same with many other classes. The fighter's main class features are not restricted to specific weapons or when he's wearing armor. The weapon groups apply to a bunch of different weapons per group. The armor training applies only when wearing armor, but it's for a class of armor rather than a specific suit. All classes have things like this. A druid's bonus on handle animal applies only to his companion, not every animal he meets.
You can argue about whether those bonuses and options are good enough, but you can't argue that the fighter is the only one with those restrictions.
My GM regularly has enemies fall back once their forces are depleted by half to 2/3 then return to wage guerrilla war once the party camps. Not having classes with endurance in the party leads to a bad time for adventurers in his world.
As for the Feat chains...that's a better argument. Shortening Feat chains is a solid goal, and if ditching the Fighter lets you achieve it, then it might be worth it.
I have thought about doing this for the fighter, and the fighter only. There are so many feats that the fighter can't really take advantage of them while other classes have ways to add to their class abilities as they grow without having to spend as much time and money retraining. Spontaneous casters can automatically trade out spells at certain levels. Prepared arcane casters can simply learn new spells and take less time and money to add them to their spell books. Prepared divine casters can just ask for them. Classes with companions can dismiss them and get a new one. They may have to wait a level or a certain amount of time, but it's not a difficult investment.
The rogue has a similar problem, but this is not about the rogue right now.
Ah but the bonuses to defense and damage, at least in the case of the specialization chain, are for a specific piece of equipment. Armor training does give a benefit to any armor, but something like the gunslinger or monks scaling ac has no similar requirement (well, the opposite kind of requirement, but it's easier to find yourself in a situation where you're unarmored than one when you are. Jail, a ball, etc). Similarly cases where one would need to grab a weapon at hand rather than one they're specialized in potentially leaves the fighter behind. Making weapon focus & specialization work on weapon groups, & in the case of the fighter for all weapons within selected weapon training groups, would be interesting.
So I think an important question is why do you like the fighter? This isn't meant to be a cry of exasperation, but if we know what points we like about the fighter, that can be expanded. (For example I do like the idea of the combatant, exceptionally skilled and capable on the battlefield. THE guy you'd want to win a fight. And perhaps a few extra base skill points, an expansion of skill unlocks & shortening of feat chains, or introducing more self scaling feats like power attack would accomplish this. But I'd also worry this overshadows other martials like the brawler too much. So again what makes a fighter different?)
In regards to shortening feat chains, I don't think this would be a problem to do in general. It opens up more options to various classes, and could make things like combat maneuvers more appealing without requiring excessive investment. This gives more in combat options without it simply being an increase in power.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The character concept for Fighters is really awesome! "The Badass Normal"! The guy who just through training, discipline and will can stand equal to supernatural powers. He's the guy who embodies the "Charles Atlas Superpower". Awesome!
The real problem is the class' design concept... i.e.: "This guy hits hards and has high AC, therefore he'll suck at everything else". The Fighter is meant to be extremely limited and narrow-minded... And so it is... Which makes it a really bad class in a game as open-ended as table top RPGs, where literally anything can happen and there's no real limits to what can be attempted or achieved.
I once compared Fighters to grapplers in fighting games... Grapplers usually have high damage output and high health, but they are very often at the bottom of the tier list. Why? Because even in a fighting game, where there's nothing but combat, options are your most valuable resource... Not numbers. It doesn't matter how high your damage is when enemies can easily outmaneuver you, keep you away or downright neutralize your best tricks.
This becomes even more explicitly true the greater the variety of different situations the game has... And what game has greater variety of challenges than tabletop RPGs?
For as long as Fighters are designed to hit hard and do nothing else, they will never be good at adventuring... And they'll only be decent in combat as well. Amazing at standing still and full attacking, but mediocre at actually fighting, since combat will often be about much more than stantionary crestures trading blows.
|
There's a worthless and meaningless contribution. Particularly since this thread actually has been largely on topic, addressing the title topic.Let's talk about the title topic for a second: there's nothing at all wrong with the fighter, despite the premise for this and the countless other threads to the contrary.
Fighters are good, because they are an incredibly varied class. Pick anything related to combat, and the fighter does well at it.
Outside of combat, you have most people use 2 things to handle situations: roleplaying and skill ranks. between traits and archetypes, fighters have a wide variety of access to class skills, and can have a decent amount of skill points with which to purchase them.
As far as roleplaying goes, fighters aren't locked down to a very specific rp hook, like (say) a paladin or a cavalier. Because fighters exist in every culture and every race, how a fighter behaves can vary widely, even among members of the same culture or race.
fighters ARE underdeveloped, even going off your point of the fighter's versatility, any other martial class can fill that void and do it in a more flavorful way. want to be a mercenary, pick a ranger or a cavalier, want to be a general or prince, cavalier or Paladin, want to be part of the church, paladin, want to be a bandit or a slave, barbarian. See they don't actually have that much variety as it all comes down to how well the character is Roleplayed.
And they are just generally lacking in power after about level 4. any decent build for fighter would have around 4 skill points per level assuming you're not pumping int. that's the bare minimum for most classes, so you're hurting for skills unless you spread those points thin.
my point is that YES, fighters can be dynamic and do have access to skills with archetypes and traits, BUT so do ALL of the other classes, and many of them do it in a better way. So to say that the fighter is versatile by bringing in something that every other class can equally do seems to be a false statement.
Ah but the bonuses to defense and damage, at least in the case of the specialization chain, are for a specific piece of equipment. Armor training does give a benefit to any armor, but something like the gunslinger or monks scaling ac has no similar requirement (well, the opposite kind of requirement, but it's easier to find yourself in a situation where you're unarmored than one when you are. Jail, a ball, etc). Similarly cases where one would need to grab a weapon at hand rather than one they're specialized in potentially leaves the fighter behind. Making weapon focus & specialization work on weapon groups, & in the case of the fighter for all weapons within selected weapon training groups, would be interesting.
You just changed your argument. You first talked about the class abilities itself and now you are talking about feats. Those aren't the same thing. Choosing the bonus feat is the class ability. The fighter can actually choose martial versatility as a bonus feat, but he needs to be 4th level and human. The drawback to these feats is that most characters use the same weapon their whole career.
So I think an important question is why do you like the fighter? This isn't meant to be a cry of exasperation, but if we know what points we like about the fighter, that can be expanded. (For example I do like the idea of the combatant, exceptionally skilled and capable on the battlefield. THE guy you'd want to win a fight. And perhaps a few extra base skill points, an expansion of skill unlocks & shortening of feat chains, or introducing more self scaling feats like power attack would accomplish this. But I'd also worry this overshadows other martials like the brawler too much. So again what makes a fighter different?)
I see the fighter like I see every other class: a bunch of options I can use to fulfill the concept I'm looking for at the time. I have never played a fighter that was not a solid addition to the group.
In regards to shortening feat chains, I don't think this would be a problem to do in general. It opens up more options to various classes, and could make things like combat maneuvers more appealing without requiring excessive investment. This gives more in combat options without it simply being an increase in power.
The reason I wouldn't do it for all classes is because spell casting classes do not need it. They don't. They have enough strength and versatility without giving them more. Yes, that versatility can be a problem if the player makes bad choices, but if they can survive they can make adjustments later. Classes like the fighter do not have that option.
Lemmy can tell you that I can build pretty solid fighters. The reason is because I like challenges and I have a pretty good grasp of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The role that fighters perform better then other classes is units of professional soldiers.
Warriors are like cops, city guards, and militia. Guys who might have to fight for a living.
Fighters are those that actually go out and look for fights for a living.
The large amounts of feats and reliance on particular weapons is ideal for soldiers who can use teamwork feats and are grouped in units with similar arms and armor.
Nothing exceptional, just a little more competent and tougher then a warrior. They actually get a TH/dmg class feature at level 4 vs never! Woo!
==Aelryinth
@bob_loblaw (I'd quote but I'm on my phone which makes formatting a bit of a nightmare.)
In regards to equipment focus, weapon training is still selecting a subset of weapons, while studied target or a magus arcana is a bonus regardless of weapon (each with their own caveat, but this towards my feeling that fighters are more restricted on gear for their features than other classes). Even martial versatility is limited in comparison to "works with any weapon".
I also don't think shortening feat chains for everyone would be a problem, especially for casters. Most chains are combat oriented, and I can't imagine making vital strike scale akin to power attack would suddenly have casters taking it (or similar for the various combat maneuvers & fighting styles). Most such chains are also mutually exclusive in use. You won't be making use of greater grapple & vital strike in the same round for example (unless you have a trick weapon for it I suppose).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two things that while completely meaningless from a mechanical PoV, would do wonders to encourage players and designers to see Fighters as the mighty warriors they are supposed to be instead of "random dude with a pointy stick".
1- Give them "Fighter Talents" instead of feats. Include an option that allows them to gain a bonus combat feat and can be selected multiple times.
2- Change the class name. "Fighter" is as bad as "Magic User". It's so awfully generic, its no wonder so many people (including designers) see Fighters as little more than "slightly buffed NPC class" and describe them with a description that would better fit the Warrior class. Call them "Champion", "Warlord", "Paragon"... Anything that inspires players and designers to give the class cool, effective abilities!
@bob_loblaw (I'd quote but I'm on my phone which makes formatting a bit of a nightmare.)
I understand.
In regards to equipment focus, weapon training is still selecting a subset of weapons, while studied target or a magus arcana is a bonus regardless of weapon (each with their own caveat, but this towards my feeling that fighters are more restricted on gear for their features than other classes). Even martial versatility is limited in comparison to "works with any weapon".
I also don't think shortening feat chains for everyone would be a problem, especially for casters. Most chains are combat oriented, and I can't imagine making vital strike scale akin to power attack would suddenly have casters taking it (or similar for the various combat maneuvers & fighting styles). Most such chains are also mutually exclusive in use. You won't be making use of greater grapple & vital strike in the same round for example (unless you have a trick weapon for it I suppose).
Here's just the feats from the Core book that would increase the power of the wizard if we shortened the chains:
Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus
Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration
What could your wizard do with 2 extra feats?
Also, how would you handle feat chains that have branches?
fighters ARE underdeveloped, even going off your point of the fighter's versatility, any other martial class can fill that void and do it in a more flavorful way.
want to be a mercenary, pick a ranger or a cavalier
But a fighter works just as well as either of those
want to be a general or prince, cavalier or Paladin
or fighter or barbarian; and paladins would realistically be less likely to be paladins given that a great majority of them would choose their deity over their nation, which is not a great trait to have in a potential ruler
want to be part of the church, paladin, want to be a bandit or a slave, barbarian. See they don't actually have that much variety as it all comes down to how well the character is Roleplayed.
Hence why I said most people use roleplaying and skill ranks to handle things outside of combat.
And they are just generally lacking in power after about level 4.
Based on what metric?
any decent build for fighter would have around 4 skill points per level assuming you're not pumping int. that's the bare minimum for most classes, so you're hurting for skills unless you spread those points thin.
You forgot to add "In my opinion..." to the beginning of your sentence there.
my point is that YES, fighters can be dynamic and do have access to skills with archetypes and traits, BUT so do ALL of the other classes, and many of them do it in a better way. So to say that the fighter is versatile by bringing in something that every other class can equally do seems to be a false statement.
I'm not saying the fighter does the better than other classes at any of the things you're listing. I'm saying they're no better off. Nor is their roleplaying tied to a deity and a rigid code of conduct (like a paladin) or an order and a semi-rigid code of conduct (like a cavalier) or an ascetic view and drive to self enlightenment (like a monk) or have anger management issues (like a barbarian). The fighter CAN be any or all of those things, or he can also be a veteran of the king's army, a spy, a watch commander, a Dwarven shield bearer, an Elven duelist, the enforcer for a criminal organization, an assassin, or anything else.
Role playing and codes are cop outs.
If you're playing a class with a code, you already opted into that role playing style. i.e. you picked a character that fit the code you wanted. You can ALSO play a fighter like a LG paladin is not an argument against the paladin...it's another fact that the Fighter does not do the role of LG goody two shoes champion anywhere near as well as the paladin, i.e. the mechanics don't back up the role.
Ditto if the fighter tries any role that competes with barb or ranger, except for MAYBE being a soldier.
A fighter simply sucks at all the roles of a martial except soldier. If you want to hold to a martial theme, you are better off with another class.
==Aelryinth