Fixing the fighter


Homebrew and House Rules

151 to 200 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A 100 underpowered options still make a less effective character than 20 effective options.

It doesn't matter if you have a 100000000 choices to pick... You can't pick them all... And you have to play with whatever limited number of options you picked, and at that point "build versatility" is worthless.


I've never seen the hundreds of options available as limiting. Nor, with books adding options to bypass feats some see as taxes, have I thought of the fighter class becoming more restricted because there are more options out there.

Fighters benefit from feats. The more to choose from the more varied. This allows for more combos and in that respect will not only be equal to but outweigh those that don't have those options.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

A 100 underpowered options still make a less effective character than 20 effective options.

It doesn't matter if you have a 100000000 choices to pick... You can't pick them all... And you have to play with whatever limited number of options you picked, and at that point "build versatility" is worthless.

Yup. And "balance" shouldn't be a character creation paradigm where # of choices is taken into account against the power of said choices, it should be a factor of what happens when you actually sit down to play.

I mean, put that into practice-

Fighter player- "Wow guys, I was up all night sifting through almost 400 combat feats to decide what kind of Fighter I wanted to build, and which feats I needed to get there, and in what order. I'm going to be a two weapon kukri fighting machine! What a task! I'm ready to go now though!"

GM- "Awesome! Well, your Fighter, Hero the Magnificent, rolled well for initiative and goes first! Stun us with what your research has unleashed!"

Fighter player- "Okay. Are there any enemies within reach?"

GM- "No, they're across the rubble strewn antechamber, entering through the door opposite yours."

Fighter player- "Rubble strewn, huh? So charging is a..."

GM- "No go, yeah."

Fighter player- "I, uh, walk across the room and swing with one kukri."

GM- "All right, you hit! Roll your 1d4+2."

....

You see where I'm going with this? There are probably twice as many spells in the game as combat feats (if not much, much, more), but that doesn't mean that all spells are balanced to be half as effective as a weapon attack. Just because there are a lot of feats to sift through to build a Fighter, doesn't mean he should be paying for those character creation choices with decreased effectiveness at the table. It's debatable whether that's really a benefit at all. The bonus feats a Ranger gets are pre-optimized for a particular fighting style, he doesn't have to pay feat taxes for prereqs, and almost every fighting style imaginable is currently covered by one of his Combat Styles. How is having to do more work up front for a potentially lesser result at achieving the same desired effect a boon?

Saying the Fighter's steep feat taxes are balanced against the fact that you can build a lot of different types of Fighters is basically telling someone that they have to do more work for a lesser result, and you're going to charge them for the "privilege".

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Cavall wrote:
I've never seen the hundreds of options available as limiting.

Nor I, but we're not talking about spellcasters here.

Quote:


Nor, with books adding options to bypass feats some see as taxes, have I thought of the fighter class becoming more restricted because there are more options out there.

I agree that there have been some nice feats lately that let you skip over or which act as other feats which are very "tax-y". Most of these feats are available to every character though, not just the Fighter, and often other characters can leverage much greater benefit out of them, since they're not still tied to other chains and prereqs (while Combat Expertise can be replaced by Dirty Fighting, for example, you're still paying a feat, and the Fighter pretty much has to take Weapon Focus for most of his decent options).

Quote:


Fighters benefit from feats.

They are not unique in this regard. Everyone benefits from feats, and there are very few that only the Fighter can select.

Quote:


The more to choose from the more varied. This allows for more combos and in that respect will not only be equal to but outweigh those that don't have those options.

False conclusion. You assume that "more possible end results" is synonymous with "better". It's not. If one religion offers me 8 paths to Heaven and the other offers me 60 ways to go Hell and a vague promise of a possible Heaven in an undefined but potentially plausible situation, the second religion is not necessarily better because it gave me more choices. Most of those choices were bad, so I'll take the option that gave me fewer choices but a stronger guarantee of good results.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

or to put it a simpler way, going from choosing between 10 good feats and 30 sucky ones to 10 good ones and 60 sucky ones does not mean you are better off and should be praised for your potential versatility at sucking.

i.e. the choices you make still have to be as strong as regular class features, elsewise they are a sucky choice.

Again, just look at Rage Powers. They are 'combat feats' for barbs. And they are worthwhile class features. They waaaaaaay outpower combat feats for what they can do.

And Extra Rage Power? It's a feat.

==Aelryinth


Ssalarn wrote:
Quote:


Fighters benefit from feats.
They are not unique in this regard. Everyone benefits from feats, and there are very few that only the Fighter can select.

Well, there'd be some truth to this if a feats were better. If a feat were worth four spells and the sorcerer bonus feat lists remained terrible a fighter would be as good as a sorcerer without changing his chassis at all.

I don't think that's the ideal solution, but the concept of more feats as a worthwhile class feature is not fundamentally unsound, just the implementation.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Feats have HUGE balance problems.

Consider Favored Class bonus: 1 Hp/level. That's equal to toughness.
1 skill point/level. That's been a feat in a 3.5 and several 3rd parties. AWT took this to 2 skill points...but a bunch of limits on it.

Aaaand then we have something like Extra Spell Known. Which is a feat for spon casters. And an FC point for human spon casters.

Yeah. so 20 levels of FC = 1 feat, and for human oracles, bards and sorcs, 20 levels of FC = 20 bonus feats.

Huzzah. And you wonder why melees don't have nice things?

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Feats have HUGE balance problems.

Consider Favored Class bonus: 1 Hp/level. That's equal to toughness.
1 skill point/level. That's been a feat in a 3.5 and several 3rd parties. AWT took this to 2 skill points...but a bunch of limits on it.

Aaaand then we have something like Extra Spell Known. Which is a feat for spon casters. And an FC point for human spon casters.

Yeah. so 20 levels of FC = 1 feat, and for human oracles, bards and sorcs, 20 levels of FC = 20 bonus feats.

Huzzah. And you wonder why melees don't have nice things?

==Aelryinth

There are feats and there are feats. I've seen a lot more builds with toughness than expanded arcana. You've established that a spontaneous caster specific feat is at least 1/10 as good as a mediocre filler feat. (the human FCB is equivalent to taking expanded arcana 10 times and never taking the highest level spell known). I only remember seeing expanded arcana once in a build. It was the spells known equivalent of a travel domain cleric 1 monk 18 barbarian 1 who took fleet for every feat.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I told you feats were hugely erratic in power.

20 FC = 1 toughness feat.
20 FC = 17 spells known + 3 cantrips, if you care.

I don't think you're going to argue that 17 spells known from levels 1 to 8 are worth a LOT more then 1 feat. Even if we take it down to 2 spells = 1 feat, that's still 10 Feat-Equivs.

And I believe for human spon casters, that FC option is by far the most common. It's simply too nice, and that's even with all the options to buy or acquire new spells known via magic items or pseudo-prep casting.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

I told you feats were hugely erratic in power.

20 FC = 1 toughness feat.
20 FC = 17 spells known + 3 cantrips, if you care.

I don't think you're going to argue that 17 spells known from levels 1 to 8 are worth a LOT more then 1 feat. Even if we take it down to 2 spells = 1 feat, that's still 10 Feat-Equivs.

And I believe for human spon casters, that FC option is by far the most common. It's simply too nice, and that's even with all the options to buy or acquire new spells known via magic items or pseudo-prep casting.

==Aelryinth

It's commonly taken, but it's not actually good since it doesn't give you spells known at the level you're actually short on. I think people massively overvalue it compared to other options. When you're level 10 the FCB you spent on cantrips up to third level spells at levels 1-8 are practically wasted. You could have more bonus hitpoints than you get each time you level up. At any level only the last two or three FCB bonus spells have much value. At level 20 you find yourself with a bunch of extra 8th level spells that are your fourth choice at best and your seventh and lower spells are lagging in DC so much only the handful of spells you didn't need the FCB to get are any good and the guy who got an extra HP or skills actually has something for his first 17 levels.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
Feats have HUGE balance problems.

For the record, I don't disagree with this at all. Feats are not remotely balanced with each other. Your example, however, has some problems.

Aelryinth wrote:

Consider Favored Class bonus: 1 Hp/level. That's equal to toughness.

1 skill point/level. That's been a feat in a 3.5 and several 3rd parties. AWT took this to 2 skill points...but a bunch of limits on it.

Aaaand then we have something like Extra Spell Known. Which is a feat for spon casters. And an FC point for human spon casters.

Yeah. so 20 levels of FC = 1 feat, and for human oracles, bards and sorcs, 20 levels of FC = 20 bonus feats.

Huzzah. And you wonder why melees don't have nice things?

==Aelryinth

Firstly, the Feat in question actually gives two spells if used for spells of lower level than the highest level spell you can cast, so that's 10 Feats (not 20), and being forced to take the less useful of the two versions.

The other issue, and it's a real one, is that Toughness is a good Feat that people actually take. Extra Spells? Not so much.

So...your implication that the balance is off in that the FCB that grants is categorically better is kinda misleading. It is a bit better, but not to nearly the extent you're implying I'd peg it as about as valuable as the Racial FCB that grant 1/6 of a Feat, to be honest (which is to say, very good but not overpoweringly so).

Which brings us to the third issue with using FCB as a demonstration tool for Feat imbalance, which is that Racial FCB are supposed to be (at least potentially) notably better than just taking the +1 skill point or hit point per level. So pointing out that they are kinda doesn't prove anything about Feats.

Now, like I said, I actually entirely agree that Feats aren't balanced, but bringing in Racial FCB stuff just confuses the issue. Stick to Feats and what they do. Maybe reference Class Abilities, or even reference the basic FCB, but the racial stuff? Not a good thing to reference.


Eh... I think Toughness is a really crappy feat... It's mediocre (at best) at 1st level and all but completely irrelevant at any point beyond that.

It's not as bad if taken in conjuction with the bonus hp FCB, but it's still not a good feat.

"It's worth a feat" is a terrible metric for power and balance... A feat can give you anything ranging from Sure Grasp to Leadership. Saying "it's a feat" means absolutely nothing.

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:

Eh... I think Toughness is a really crappy feat... It's mediocre (at best) at 1st level and all but completely irrelevant at any point beyond that.

It's not as bad if taken in conjuction with the bonus hp FCB, but it's still not a good feat.

Eh. I've seen lots of people take it, and none regretted it and wished they'd taken something else (something I've seen happen occasionally with bad Feats). That may not make it good, but I think it makes it 'not bad'.

Lemmy wrote:
"It's worth a feat" is a terrible metric for power and balance... A feat can give you anything ranging from Sure Grasp to Leadership. Saying "it's a feat" means absolutely nothing.

This, I agree with entirely.


Here are a couple things I'm working into my house fighter...thoughts?

These 3 items replace bravery (added player choice of good will or reflex based on their flavor).
Inspiring Courage. 3rd level. 1/day - allows ally to re-roll a save vs fear/shaken effects. Additional uses every 4 lvls.

Inspiring Fortitude. 9th lvl. uses IC ability to allow new save if the effect was caused by something allowing a save or suppress for 1min if not. Fatigue, Exhaustion (becomes fatigue if suppressed); Sickened, Nauseated (becomes sickened if suppressed).

Inspiring Strength. 15th lvl. same as I.F. but for Staggered, Paralyzed/Stunned (become staggered if suppressed).

A new class feature:
Brothers in Arms. 5th lvl. Fighter has generated a network of allies, old Army buddies, and friends of friends. Once per day fighter can scan the crowd or drop a few names/events to possibly meet someone they fought with or who knows someone they fought with. 25% chance at 5th level which increase 5% per level to 10th, and then 10% per level until it reaches 100% at 15th.
This NPC can provide a boon to the fighter mechanically increase the settlement 1 rank for base equipment, magic items etc. At 10th increase 2 ranks, and at 15th 3 ranks. However, beyond access to gear, the player is encouraged to work with the GM to call in other favors be it information (equal to a successful knowledge check in any knowledge), transportation/healing/condition removal, or meetings with influential people, etc; only limited by the players imagination and subject to GM approval. This ability is usable nearly anywhere there are other friendly humanoids, not just in a town.

Still working on some things that come online in later levels.


My thoughts:

-Fighter's biggest need is for quality of life improvements. As others have stated, the Fighter can absolutely fight, no problem there. And trying to have them match magic-using characters is an uphill battle- even with a complete rework, magic is just that insane. So my goal would be to move it from Tier 5, so to speak, to Tier 4 or maybe even 3, but probably Tier 4. Make it comfortable at doing it's job, and give it the potential to do some things out of combat. I also want to avoid making the Fighter more confusing than it already is by adding Talents- the simplicity of the Fighter really is part of it's appeal, and I want to keep that.

- Problem number 1 then is the lack of skill points, and it's an easy fix. 4+INT is absolutely the bare minimum for any class that doesn't have magic. A Barbarian has more general life skills than a Fighter, and that's just wrong for an experienced mercenary, a soldier, pretty much any flavor of fighter should at least have the life skills of your typical Barbarian. 6+INT seems a bit high, but I might bump up Lore Warden and Tactician to 6+INT to keep them as the "skilled fighter" archetypes. As for adding class skills, it's pretty touchy, but I think at the very least adding Perception isn't too crazy. With this change along Fighters will feel like they can DO THINGS.

-Problem number 2 is the lack of defenses. I'm not sure I like boosting the base Will save, but I think changing Bravery so that it also provides resistance to mind affecting spells isn't unreasonable - other than making some archetypes that trade Bravery away worse.

- The third thing is versatility within combat. They don't need to be STRONGER, but having more options would help. Fighters have a reputation for grabbing one weapon and sticking to it. Personally, I think Weapon Focus/Specialization should apply to Weapon Groups so that at least a Fighter can use multiple weapons of a same type. Buffing combat maneuvers so that they are a little less awful also seems like it might help here, though that would be a fine line to walk balance-wise. I plan on allowing the Stamina system as an optional rule, simply because it gives players a little bit more to do within combat than just swing and hit, but it's a little too complex to require.

-The other change I'm considering is allowing you to select Archetype features, particularly from low powered weapon archetypes like Archer/Crossbow, instead of a feat. This would allow a lot more variability in character creation, though it could reinforce the "pick a weapon and stick with it". I'm not sure how I would balance this but it is a thought.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Eh... I think Toughness is a really crappy feat... It's mediocre (at best) at 1st level and all but completely irrelevant at any point beyond that.

It's not as bad if taken in conjuction with the bonus hp FCB, but it's still not a good feat.

Eh. I've seen lots of people take it, and none regretted it and wished they'd taken something else (something I've seen happen occasionally with bad Feats). That may not make it good, but I think it makes it 'not bad'.

Meh... +3 hp at 1st level might make a difference quite often, when a single hit from a random orc deals just as much damage as you have hp... Which is usually something between 8 and 15 hp.

By 3rd level, +3 hp will rarely, if ever, make any difference... Same goes for +10 hp at 10th level and +20 hp at 20th level... Combined with the bonus hp from FCB, it might actually matter at some point.

Still, the feat is mediocre at best when combined with FCB and nearly insignificant by itself.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Atarlost wrote:


***snip*** At any level only the last two or three FCB bonus spells have much value. At level 20 you find yourself with a bunch of extra 8th level spells that are your fourth choice at best and your seventh and lower spells are lagging in DC so much only the handful of spells you didn't need the FCB to get are any good and the guy who got an extra HP or skills actually has something for his first 17 levels.

See, I completely disagree with this. Even 1st level spell slots often have value at high levels. Not offensively of course, but as "quality of life" improvements and wealth extenders. There are many long duration low level spells that essentially last the whole adventuring day by 15th-20th level, and these tend to get cast (at least in my experience) far more regularly than your top tier spells, because except in really severe circumstances, they're essentially static effects that you can leave in place on your character sheet.

Similarly, even at level 20 you're going to have mooks and non-combat situations that you don't want or need to waste your high level spells on. The last couple sorcerers I played ended up being very, very different and far more capable thanks to having deeper lists of spells known, and having more flexibility with my lower level spells meant I had my full repertoire of top tier spells available for the serious fights.

Lemmy wrote:


Meh... +3 hp at 1st level might make a difference quite often, when a single hit from a random orc deals just as much damage as you have hp... Which is usually something between 8 and 15 hp.

By 3rd level, +3 hp will rarely, if ever, make any difference... Same goes for +10 hp at 10th level and +20 hp at 20th level... Combined with the bonus hp from FCB, it might actually matter at some point.

Still, the feat is mediocre at best when combined with FCB and nearly insignificant by itself.

I'm inclined to agree with Lemmy here. I don't know that I've ever taken Toughness on a character before (maybe on a Sorcerer who got it as a Bloodline feat and none of the other feats seemed particularly worthwhile?), and I don't see it taken by other characters very often, except on odd niche builds like half-orc melee wizards.

Maybe it's because the tables I play at tend to use the Fast XP track or PFS progressions and we don't spend as much time as 1st level characters? Even when running APs I haven't seen it come up much, if at all, unless it was a "freebie" feat tied to some other class feature or option.


I'd honestly only take Toughness on spellcasters, because they get additional value out of each HP they have due to spells like Mirror Image and Blur making it harder to get hit. So that 20 HP only has to soak up one blow, instead of 5.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Lemmy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Eh... I think Toughness is a really crappy feat... It's mediocre (at best) at 1st level and all but completely irrelevant at any point beyond that.

It's not as bad if taken in conjuction with the bonus hp FCB, but it's still not a good feat.

Eh. I've seen lots of people take it, and none regretted it and wished they'd taken something else (something I've seen happen occasionally with bad Feats). That may not make it good, but I think it makes it 'not bad'.

Meh... +3 hp at 1st level might make a difference quite often, when a single hit from a random orc deals just as much damage as you have hp... Which is usually something between 8 and 15 hp.

By 3rd level, +3 hp will rarely, if ever, make any difference... Same goes for +10 hp at 10th level and +20 hp at 20th level... Combined with the bonus hp from FCB, it might actually matter at some point.

Still, the feat is mediocre at best when combined with FCB and nearly insignificant by itself.

The FCB bonus for extra spells known, on the other hand, can keep delivering forever, because it lets the sorc use utility spells that may be useful his whole career. Offensive spells? Your main spells will take care of those at the given levels. But True Strike can be as valuable at level 20 as at lower levels. Ditto Mirror Image. Dispel Magic. Mass Energy Resistance.

And at level 20, you're normally going to have 3 each 7th, 8th and 9th level spells known, plus your bloodlines. With the FCB, you can have 5 7th, 6 8th and 3 9th level spells...and you can still take Expanded Arcana, if you like.

That's like choosing the Rote of Poly any Object, Mind Blank, and Clone, and now finding you have room for Prismatic Wall, Moment of Prescience, and Greater Shadow Evocation. Aie! How horrible to have these extra spells for no money, and at the cost of 3 hp!

Expanded Arcana suffers from Buyer's remorse. At the level you take it, it's a great feat...one more spell known of your current level, or two lower ones.
Two levels later, those spellchoices are rapidly withering in response to your choices available NOW, so you have buyer's remorse. Toughness, in contrast, just keeps giving the small benefit it did, every level, going up slightly. It's no stronger then False Life, but at least you don't have buyer's remorse that you could have waited for Greater Toughness, the Return (TM) instead.

===Aelryinth

Paizo Employee Design Manager

PK the Dragon wrote:
I'd honestly only take Toughness on spellcasters, because they get additional value out of each HP they have due to spells like Mirror Image and Blur making it harder to get hit. So that 20 HP only has to soak up one blow, instead of 5.

And honestly spellcasters, ironically enough, have a lot more wiggle room in their feats than most martials. There aren't really any feats that a wizard or sorcerer absolutely have to have, whereas martials often don't have much wiggle room once they've decided what build they're going with. Archers have to have Precise Shot if they want to function, Gunslingers generally need Rapid Reload as soon as they can get it, two-weapon combatants have a whole slew of feats they need to pick up... Conversely, when a wizard goes to pick his or her feats, it's generally "X would be nice" or "Y helps shore this up a bit so I don't need to waste spells on it".

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You forgot Druids and Natural spell, you plebian, you. How dare you think casters don't have feat taxes!!!!

And obviously because Druids do all casters are so afflicted (whistles and looks away).

==Aelryinth


I've been away of the boards for almost half a year by now, and the first thread I see coming back is a fighter fix thread.

Good old paizo forum.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Nicos wrote:

I've been away of the boards for almost half a year by now, and the first thread I see coming back is a fighter fix thread.

Good old paizo forum.

I find the consistency to be a welcome rock of stability in an otherwise chaotic world.


Re Toughness: sure, it doesn't often make any difference, but when it does that difference is quite important. A matter of life and death, quite literally.

Re Sorcerer FCB: Metamagic is a thing. Pick those lower-level spells correctly and they keep on giving - Dazing Fireball, Persistent Hold Person, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Quickened Toppling Magic Missile.

The fighter FCBs are, of course, mediocre. +1 CMD on a couple of things. Borderline value, IMHO; though they might get taken more if the fighter had enough skill points.


It's my plan, as part of my fighter/feat rework, to roll Toughness and Diehard into a single feat. The purpose of both is to prevent you from dying, no? Makes the feat(s) worth taking at that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I've been away of the boards for almost half a year by now, and the first thread I see coming back is a fighter fix thread.

Good old paizo forum.

I find the consistency to be a welcome rock of stability in an otherwise chaotic world.

Well, Fighter being weak is a consistent problem. I'm glad this topic exists though, I'm pretty new to these forums, so it's all fairly new to me.

It also validated my house rule of allowing the Fighter to have 4+ INT skill points, which annoyed one of my players- he argued that ends up being a lot more skill points than you think, and could imbalance the game! (I pointed out that if the Barbarian and Ranger having actual skills doesn't break the game, neither will the Fighter.) So it's actually really nice to see that at least most people here at least agree on that change, even if all of my players didn't.

Sellsword2587 wrote:
It's my plan, as part of my fighter/feat rework, to roll Toughness and Diehard into a single feat. The purpose of both is to prevent you from dying, no? Makes the feat(s) worth taking at that point.

I actually don't like Diehard. It makes you more likely, to, well, die, if you are still standing when you have negative HP. But the automatic stabilization can't hurt and I guess it's nice to have the option to use it. Of course, keep in mind that if Casters get more value from Toughness than Fighters, you are actually buffing Casters more than anyone! This may not be a problem, but it's worth keeping in mind.

This is why I'd rather buff the Fighter itself than buff his feats. If you buff the feats, it helps the Fighter to a degree, but helps everyone else just as much if not more.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I've been away of the boards for almost half a year by now, and the first thread I see coming back is a fighter fix thread.

Good old paizo forum.

I find the consistency to be a welcome rock of stability in an otherwise chaotic world.

Ooh! Good idea! Let's give fighters an alignment restriction! Everyone knows that that makes a class more powerful automatically. Plus, if you give fighters an alignment restriction, anyone who plays a fighter automatically becomes a ROLEplayer and so balance stops mattering!

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I've been away of the boards for almost half a year by now, and the first thread I see coming back is a fighter fix thread.

Good old paizo forum.

I find the consistency to be a welcome rock of stability in an otherwise chaotic world.
Ooh! Good idea! Let's give fighters an alignment restriction! Everyone knows that that makes a class more powerful automatically. Plus, if you give fighters an alignment restriction, anyone who plays a fighter automatically becomes a ROLEplayer and so balance stops mattering!

This guy's on it.


It amazes me how many people jump up to say that the fighter doesn't need changing. It's like claiming that there's not a martial-caster disparity. It's just one of those things that seems self-evident to me anymore that the fighter is just incredibly dull as a class. Yeah, anybody can role-play, but . . . meh. Nevermind.

Ok, what I really jumped on to say is that I really like the Kirthfinder fighter. Between the changes to feats, the fighter talents, and other changes, building a Kirthfinder fighter was really the first time I've ever built a fighter and actually felt satisfied with the result.

Fighter v. Avenger Vigilante:

Also, man, I know I'm late to the party, but the avenger vigilante beats the fighter for me hands-down. Even if you completely remove the social bonuses. So many vigilante talents are either "a feat with extra stuff" (Cunning Feint, Favored Maneuver, Fist of the Avenger, Lethal Grace) or straight-up multiple feats (Shield of Fury[yeah, shield only, because that's somehow a bad thing], Signature Weapon, Strike the Unseen), not to mention the abilities that can't be replicated by feats (Mad Rush, Nothing Can Stop Me, Perfect Fall) completely trumps, to me, the bonus feats and other piddly bonuses (I'm looking at you, Bravery) that the fighter gets. Variety, mechanics, fun, the avenger wins hands-down for me.


Ssalarn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

A 100 underpowered options still make a less effective character than 20 effective options.

It doesn't matter if you have a 100000000 choices to pick... You can't pick them all... And you have to play with whatever limited number of options you picked, and at that point "build versatility" is worthless.

Yup. And "balance" shouldn't be a character creation paradigm where # of choices is taken into account against the power of said choices, it should be a factor of what happens when you actually sit down to play.

I mean, put that into practice-

Fighter player- "Wow guys, I was up all night sifting through almost 400 combat feats to decide what kind of Fighter I wanted to build, and which feats I needed to get there, and in what order. I'm going to be a two weapon Starknife fighting machine! What a task! I'm ready to go now though! I may not be as effective as a single combat method Fighter but I'm super versatile and ready for anything."

GM- "Awesome! Well, your Fighter, Hero the Magnificent, rolled well for initiative and goes first! Stun us with what your research has unleashed!"

Fighter player- "Okay. Are there any enemies within reach?"

GM- "No, they're across the rubble strewn antechamber, entering through the door opposite yours."

Fighter player- "Rubble strewn, huh? So charging is a..."

GM- "No go, yeah."

(Edited to make a character who's not suffering from a glaring weakness)

Fighter player- " I QuickDraw my Starknives and smirk at the rubble. Pulling back my arm I hurl the weapons with all my might, I strike the first one for 1d8+12, the second Starknife flies as the first bounces after it struck the target arcing back toward me. It strikes true as well and crits dealing 3d8+33 damage then while it begins it's arc back the first one, already caught Lance's back out dealing another 1d8+12 and I finish with the final one and a final 1d8+12."

GM- "Holy crap. You just did 87 (6d8+60) damage at level 7... 2 of them are dead one looks badly hurt... Uh... Glamdrolf? You're up."

Glamdrolf the Wizard- "I uh, cast fireball... Doing... Uh... 24 damage."

GM- "2 of the remaining 3 make their saves and take 12 damage. The one who failed it would have survived but it was one of the ones hit by the Fighter."


Wasn't fireball one of the less preferrable spells for an optimized wizard? Frankly, they should have nerfed all the damage-bypassing spells up to 2nd Edition levels of reliability, so evocation kaboom spells feel somewhat useful and not overshadowed by such.

And for the fighter, what benefit is being a "jack of all weapon fighting" when only focused specialists get all the spotlight and love calls? I thought paladins/rangers were far better in melee/ranged weapon fighting, respectively (not even counting the myriads of things they can do other than killing stuff)?


Lucas Yew wrote:

Wasn't fireball one of the less preferrable spells for an optimized wizard? Frankly, they should have nerfed all the damage-bypassing spells up to 2nd Edition levels of reliability, so evocation kaboom spells feel somewhat useful and not overshadowed by such.

And for the fighter, what benefit is being a "jack of all weapon fighting" when only focused specialists get all the spotlight and love calls? I thought paladins/rangers were far better in melee/ranged weapon fighting, respectively (not even counting the myriads of things they can do other than killing stuff)?

Actually that's not a jack of all trades Fighter. That is a build I am currently using on a Fighter. It's a Starknife Weapon Master who has been using the heck out of the ability for a Weapon Master to get AWT abilities as Bonus Feats without counting against their total. Up to, and including, post level 4 whenever able to trade out a previous feat to grab another AWT.

It hits hard in Melee or in Ranged, but if I wasn't making sure I took the things to fight effectively in ranged combat I could have squeezed another 2-4 damage out.

Seriously, its a Fighter that is equally good in melee or in ranged combat. It can full attack and two weapon fight. It has decent skills. It's by no means a bad character by any stretch. Heck, by level 9 the darn thing will be able to fly without needing a caster.

Fighters in the post-WMH era are perfectly fine.


Honestly, I too have thought and discussed upon the subject of "Fixing the Fighter" for a long time, and I'd like to share the conclusions I've arrived at with my group.

1) Generally speaking, as a non-magical class the fighter is unjustified in having so few skill points or class skills. An easy and rather common fix, just 4+int skill points and 2 extra class skills of his choice.

2) Generally speaking, the issue of narrative power is rather null, because when picking a certain class, the player should understand exactly what he will be playing with it. The fighter is an expert warrior, using mostly his expertise and training to survive. He shouldn't be as good at being a leader as a cavalier or a paladin, simply because that's just not the focus of the class. That said, if he wants to, he can simply pick up the leadership feat without issue.

3) The main reason the fighter "sucks" is because not only is his specialty hitting things or shooting things with sticks, but he also has very little actual control over HOW he hits people with those sticks, or even if options are available, they require an unjustified immense investment of resources in order to obtain them, and even then, the options presented are usually sub-par or very unreliable, making doing damage to things pretty much the most effective action one can take.

In conclusion: The class is uninteresting to play because the system it specialises in is uninteresting (Mundane combat). Compared to something like GURPS where when you build a "fighter", you're locked into a wide array of tactical choices and maneuvers, as well as many different ways to actively defend yourself, and every blow you potentially land being lethal to the enemy.

When Swashbuckler first came out, I pretty much started taking at least one level on every single fighter I ever played, because being able to actively defend and riposte seemed like an absolute blessing to me and made my first few levels of gameplay rather interesting and even tactical. I think we need more of this kind of stuff. Giving the fighter things to do with his swift action, standard action, immediate action, move action and free action and choices to make in that regard is, to my mind, the ideal way to "fix" the fighter. Tome of Battle tried it long ago, as well as Path of War in pathfinder, but the system itself seems to be too similar to spellcasting, and thus betrays the image of a fighter. Grit-based systems are probably the way to go about this, or well, make stamina feats and abilities a little more interesting than providing odd situational bonuses and options.


Using some of what I picked up on this thread and others, here's direction I'm going with my house fighter.

Post and Link

main features:

1. Additional skill points and class skills associated with soldiers/military.

2. Select a good will or reflex based on flavor.

3. Gain additional combat feats at 1st level (if fighter is your favored class)and select one to set the flavor of fighting style you'll primarily use. Retrain a feat each lvl at 4th and beyond.

4. Stamina Pool. uses Fighter level rather than BAB (to keep dipping limited); can use on feats per Unchained; has over 20 selectable stamina uses (combat; skills; buff your allies; allow an ally to "walk it off" delaying a killing blow for 1 round; and a dispelling strike option - as dispel magic or try to suppress your enemy's spell resistance, supernatural abilities, and SLAs); pick a daily adaptive stamina ability at 2d level and more as you gain levels.

5. Inspiring Your Allies - allow them to make new saves or suppress an increasing number of conditions as you gain levels

6. Brother's In Arms - as the saying goes, its a small army, you never know who you'll run into (out of combat narrative power)

7. Gain a Cohort (similar to leadership feat); or become a Training Instructor (allows allies to retrain feats when they level), and you can grant them proficiency in armor/weapons and eventually Armor Training as a fighter when they're in view of you.

8. Slightly modified AWT and Armor Training

9. Art of War - gain bonus to qualify for feat prerequisites as you advance

Paizo Employee Design Manager

HWalsh wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

A 100 underpowered options still make a less effective character than 20 effective options.

It doesn't matter if you have a 100000000 choices to pick... You can't pick them all... And you have to play with whatever limited number of options you picked, and at that point "build versatility" is worthless.

Yup. And "balance" shouldn't be a character creation paradigm where # of choices is taken into account against the power of said choices, it should be a factor of what happens when you actually sit down to play.

I mean, put that into practice-

Fighter player- "Wow guys, I was up all night sifting through almost 400 combat feats to decide what kind of Fighter I wanted to build, and which feats I needed to get there, and in what order. I'm going to be a two weapon Starknife fighting machine! What a task! I'm ready to go now though! I may not be as effective as a single combat method Fighter but I'm super versatile and ready for anything."

GM- "Awesome! Well, your Fighter, Hero the Magnificent, rolled well for initiative and goes first! Stun us with what your research has unleashed!"

Fighter player- "Okay. Are there any enemies within reach?"

GM- "No, they're across the rubble strewn antechamber, entering through the door opposite yours."

Fighter player- "Rubble strewn, huh? So charging is a..."

GM- "No go, yeah."

(Edited to make a character who's not suffering from a glaring weakness)

Fighter player- " I QuickDraw my Starknives and smirk at the rubble. Pulling back my arm I hurl the weapons with all my might, I strike the first one for 1d8+12, the second Starknife flies as the first bounces after it struck the target arcing back toward me. It strikes true as well and crits dealing 3d8+33 damage then while it begins it's arc back the first one, already caught Lance's back out dealing another 1d8+12 and I finish with the final one and a final 1d8+12."

GM- "Holy crap. You just did 87 (6d8+60) damage at level 7... 2...

Hi Walsh. Let's see your first level Fighter who deals 1d8+12 and makes three attacks while two-weapon fighting with dual starknives. You've got me interested. Bonus points, show me a way to do it with another weapon, like axes. There's got to be more than one build for the Fighter that works, right? Hard mode: do it without diving through multiple splat books.

I'll definitely admit, Paizo's been issuing a lot of band-aid fixes lately; just goes to show how productive threads like this actually are, and that someone at Paizo is listening, agrees with, and is trying to address the issues people are experiencing.

And in the future, please refrain from mangling my posts.


Ssalarn wrote:
*snip*

To clarify, I'm snipping this because Paizo doesn't actually allow quoted replies of long messages as it cuts them off with an ellipses.

I pointed out, in the post you replied to, that is at 7th level, not 1st.

At 1st level there is no way anyone is going to be a competent "anything" they are first level.

-----

Though, you could do something similar I guess. The problem is none of them are going to come online until around level 6-7.

You'd need 2 books mostly:

Core and WMH could do it, it wouldn't be as good as the starknife thing though because you'd need a different feat or AWT to enable it with the axes. I think its possible though to do something similar. Though I'm falling about 6 points short in my current math on damage.

-----

Similar with a handaxe

Fighter, Weaponmaster

Human: Weapon Finesse Handaxe
1st: Weapon Focus: Handaxe
1st Bonus: AWT: Focused Weapon*
2nd Bonus: Point Blank Shot
3rd: Throw Anything
4th Bonus: AWT: Trained Throw
5th: Weapon Specialization Handaxe
6th Bonus: Ricochet Toss
7th: Startoss Style (Handaxe)

Closest I can get is, assuming a Strength of 14, and a +1 weapon, with gloves of dueling is around 1d8+16 as a throw and 1d8+11 melee. This is a quick build going off of memory, but its basically the same build with a small change so I am not sure if that is fair. Can't dual wield with this version.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ssalarn wrote:

Hi Walsh. Let's see your first level Fighter who deals 1d8+12 and makes three attacks while two-weapon fighting with dual starknives. You've got me interested. Bonus points, show me a way to do it with another weapon, like axes. There's got to be more than one build for the Fighter that works, right? Hard mode: do it without diving through multiple splat books.

I'll definitely admit, Paizo's been issuing a lot of band-aid fixes lately; just goes to show how productive threads like this actually are, and that someone at Paizo is listening, agrees with, and is trying to address the issues people are experiencing.

And in the future, please refrain from mangling my posts.

The weapons handbook has a LOT of feats to make fighters more effective, most especially throwing weapons and finesse fighters.

The problem is more that, yay, the fighter's effective in combat.
He's ALWAYS been decently effective in combat. Introducing feats to make more weapon styles effective in combat does NOT help the fighter's problems.

Replace 'starknife thrower' with 'archer' and the example above is, like, moot, for instance.

I'm more amused at how he portrayed the wizard. ANY wizard who uses direct damage is going to be a badass with it, or they just won't use it.

Wizard: "Oh, I'll fireball."
GM: Go ahead.
Wizard: (rolls dice) Okay, I do 12d6+24 hp damage...ah, 64 to all of them, a little on the low side. Save DC is 21."
GM: uh, right...I...guess they're all dead...
Shocked fighter looks at the wizard: "How many times a day can you do that?"
Wizard: Only three right now, it's a signature spell. Just wait til I get a Lesser Rod of Maximize! Then it'll be 76 points minimum! And the damage only goes up with level!"
Fighter looks at throwng weapon: "Right..."

Or are we assuming that the fighter is a smart and clever optimizer, and the wizard is an idiot?

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:


Or are we assuming that the fighter is a smart and clever optimizer, and the wizard is an idiot?

==Aelryinth

The Wizard is specializing for evocation damage. I'm pretty sure, by default, that isn't optimizing.

Because, yeah, I know that particular build. Its a blast and a half but not really optimized to be honest.

You're using Magical Knack, Sorcerer dip (Dragon/Orc), Magical Lineage, and Empowering a Fireball... Yes?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speccing for evo dmg...that fireball the example cast at 24 is a 7d6 fireball.

MY wizard was a standard rote blaster caster, speccing in fireball, one level of sorc for dual bloodline for additional dmg, and two traits to lower metamagic cost of empower to 0. With signature spell, at leve7 he's got 6th level casting +2 for sig spell, + Empower, and +2/die.

There's a significant difference, and he's just doing the same thing as a fighter who access the Weapons Handbook.

==Aelryinth

Paizo Employee Design Manager

HWalsh wrote:


I pointed out, in the post you replied to, that is at 7th level, not 1st.

Gee, must have missed that. Probably because you tried to hijack my post to make your point, and I was talking about a newly generated character in response to the value of having hundreds of options if those options aren't on par with other option pools available in the game.

Quote:


At 1st level there is no way anyone is going to be a competent "anything" they are first level.

I very much disagree with that. I think Clerics, Wizards, Druids, Bards, and a number of other options are all capable of dealing with level appropriate challenges pretty much right out the gate. When we ran Jade Regent, our 1st level Cleric channel bombing an undead encounter saved the whole parties tail-feathers. Same thing happened in Rise of the Runelords, where our 1st level elven Wizard was nearly as good an archer as our Fighter (better because of more favorable die rolls in combat) and still had other options to bring to the table. Regardless, the actual point I was making in the original quoted statement was that a wealth of options is only a boon if the majority of those options are good; pointing out a single niche build actually underscores that point, like so-

Quote:


Though, you could do something similar I guess. The problem is none of them are going to come online until around level 6-7.

Wait, you mean that with all the hundreds of options a Fighter has, he's not going to be swinging in his weight class until over a quarter of the way through the game? Wow, I guess having all those choices isn't as much of a positive balancing factor as some people were making it out to be earlier in the thread. Thank you for taking the time to help make my point from a while back! Seriously, no sarcasm here, you made my point for me more eloquently than I was able to.

Quote:


You'd need 2 books mostly:

Core and WMH could do it, it wouldn't be as good as the starknife thing though because you'd need a different feat or AWT to enable it with the axes. I think its possible though to do something similar. Though I'm falling about 6 points short in my current math on damage.

See above. Also, what skills and saves does this Fighter have? How does he contribute out of combat, and how does he deal with scenarios that are common at 7th level, like flying/burrowing/invisible opponents? Is his Will save sufficient to keep him as more of an asset to the party than a liability? Is his Reflex save sufficient to keep him in the fight? How difficult would it be for a new player to create this Fighter? How many builds, lets just say out of 1 for each weapon group, are more or less equally viable? If I expend an equal amount of resource on a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian, will the Fighter be more, less, or equally proficient in the areas of combat, exploration, and social interaction?


WMH did make for some very nice throwing builds. The only problem I have is that making a throwing-focused character is still practically impossible before level 6, and the number of feats involved kinda make it a "fighter or go home" thing.

It's nice to see them getting a unique niche, but I'm at a loss as to how you're supposed to make the damn thing work before you get to level 6. A lot of campaigns start at level 3 or 4, and if the GM is really gonna make life hell, at level 1.


Ssalarn wrote:
See above. Also, what skills and saves does this Fighter have? How does he contribute out of combat, and how does he deal with scenarios that are common at 7th level, like flying/burrowing/invisible opponents? Is his Will save sufficient to keep him as more of an asset to the party than a liability? Is his Reflex save sufficient to keep him in the fight? How difficult would it be for a new player to create this Fighter? How many builds, lets just say out of 1 for each weapon group, are more or less equally viable? If I expend an equal amount of resource on a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian, will the Fighter be more, less, or equally proficient in the areas of combat, exploration, and social interaction?

I have been able to pass a Paladin with the WMH stuff. I was saying 6th level for this build (which is really feat intensive) with other builds you can get a bunch of interesting things. There is an AWT, for example, that grants you 2 skills considered to have ranks equal to your BAB. There is an AWT, for example, that turns your Bravery bonus into straight Will Save.

I've become fond of the Weaponmaster myself for access to the AWTs because a lot of them scale. I've also seen some shenanigans with Duelist Gloves and stacking AWT: Weapon Specialist on standard Fighters, though that takes until level 10'ish.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:

WMH did make for some very nice throwing builds. The only problem I have is that making a throwing-focused character is still practically impossible before level 6, and the number of feats involved kinda make it a "fighter or go home" thing.

It's nice to see them getting a unique niche, but I'm at a loss as to how you're supposed to make the damn thing work before you get to level 6. A lot of campaigns start at level 3 or 4, and if the GM is really gonna make life hell, at level 1.

I do agree. I wish you could get Ric Shot before level 6. That is the main thing that slows builds down.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

WMH did make for some very nice throwing builds. The only problem I have is that making a throwing-focused character is still practically impossible before level 6, and the number of feats involved kinda make it a "fighter or go home" thing.

That's my main problem with throwing builds (and Sohei archers) as well; what the heck am I doing until they come online, and if we're starting at that high level, why not play something with more versatility? I could play an archer ranger with a griffon companion at that point and have awesome damage, crazy scouting capabilities, amazing skills, and a packet of other awesome options, and really I could do the same thing starting at level 1 without ever having to deal with spending entire levels (potentially weeks or longer of IRL time) being kind of bad at the one thing I'm supposed to be good at (not to mention all the other things that make up being an adventurer.

Quote:


It's nice to see them getting a unique niche, but I'm at a loss as to how you're supposed to make the damn thing work before you get to level 6. A lot of campaigns start at level 3 or 4, and if the GM is really gonna make life hell, at level 1.

Most of the groups in my area run APs, which means pretty much every adventure starts at level 1. Both of the online campaigns I'm playing in also started at (and are still at) level 1. Way of the Wicked Book 1: Knot of Thorns, and Book of Terniel, both excellent 3pp adventures by the way. The reality is that there are simply far, far more adventure modules, APs, etc. that occur or start at level 1 than there are for any other level, and most GMs I know use prewritten adventures because they're such an amazing time and effort saver. Heck, even Paizo is built around their adventure paths, to the point that one could say their hardcover line exists for the primary purpose of supporting their adventure paths! So, "how does it play at 1st-5th level" is at least as relevant as "is it performing up to par at 7th level".


You can get a thrower working pre-level 6, but its difficult and you don't get an easy way to restock. I've done it with daggers and bandoleers. Though, just about every build I know of comes online around level 5ish anyway.

In theory, with throwers, I make them capable in melee to get by. Remember you don't need to be optimized. If you are a fighter and have a +2 ability modifier to attack you can work fine until it happens. If you are a thrower, usually I go with a finesse build so for 1-5 I am a finesse melee fighter with some throwing ability. Once Ricochet Shot comes online that becomes a primary method of combat.

Though again, if you are demanding to be fully capable at level 1, there is no way. You can theoretically do it with a Good dex, quickdraw, and a ton of daggers to throw.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You missed the most important point. The fighter is the ONLY melee combat class that doesn't get some form of TH/Dmg boost at level 1. So if you're talking low level...congrats, at level FIVE you finally get a class bonus to combat.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

You missed the most important point. The fighter is the ONLY melee combat class that doesn't get some form of TH/Dmg boost at level 1. So if you're talking low level...congrats, at level FIVE you finally get a class bonus to combat.

==Aelryinth

Eh... The Paladin's damage boost at level 1, is 1, vs 1 enemy.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Plus his Cha bonus. And a deflection bonus to AC nobody gets at level 1. That bypasses all DR.

It's waaaay more then the fighter gets!

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Plus his Cha bonus. And a deflection bonus to AC nobody gets at level 1. That bypasses all DR.

It's waaaay more then the fighter gets!

==Aelryinth

Actually no, the Charisma bonus is to attack, not damage. They do get the AC bonus and bypass DR, but even then, its 1 enemy, that must be evil, 1 time per day.

The Fighter gets an extra feat. That can equal +2 to +3 damage vs everything (Power Attack). I admit it isn't great, but the feat stacking over levels isn't really something that we should discount. They can get additional +'s to damage that other classes can't. They can get scaling bonuses to damage. They are slower starting.

I will admit, IF there was a change to the Fighter, I'd simply allow them to take AWT with bonus feats (all of them, instead of just the Weaponmaster) because those REALLY turn the tide.


My main concern with "buffing" the Fighter even further is that, as it stands, the Fighter can go toe to toe with the Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian.

It does require a greater degree of system mastery to get the mileage out though. I one does however, then it isn't something a non-Fighter can match. They usually require a specific feat-intensive build. Then, to make that even better, would throw the Fighter into a tier unto itself beyond anything any of the Fighter-centric classes can hope to match.

Then there is also the shenanigans that the Fighter's Relic Master archetype can cause.

This line, in the Relic Master, can be a game-killer:

"Alternatively, if she is using a magic item with an appropriate spell in its construction requirements, she can use an item mastery feat without it counting against the feat's total uses per day."

This can be seriously problematic if a player is a Pure Fighter, or simply uses a 1 level dip elsewhere to shore up their Fortitude base. Access to the right magical items, and as early as level 4 you can get the ability to dimension door at will. Dispel Magic at will. Flight at will. It can be ridiculous.

151 to 200 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Fixing the fighter All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.