Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Is there a good reason the Fighter should *NOT* have magical powers?


Homebrew

201 to 250 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I will admit I think the rogue could use some love as well, though they do have a whole suite of class abilities that apply to things like stealth, sleight of hand, perception and disable device. The skill is what lets them interact with the problem, but their class impacts what skills they choose and what kinds of situations they can apply them to.

Rangers also rely a lot on skills, but again, have class abilities that affect them (favored enemy, favored terrain), but also have a lot of interesting spells (many of which are only shared by the druid, though 10 are available only to the ranger).

What I would love to hear is why someone thinks the fighter SHOULDN'T have an interesting method of problem solving that is thematically appropriate to the class. Not why they shouldn't have a specific method, but shouldn't have ANY.


Irontruth wrote:

I'm looking for ways for the fighter to engage in problem solving that is thematically unique to the fighter. So far, you've offered up magic items and skills, neither of which are thematically unique to the fighter class.

Don't debate the details of the example, because that's fruitless, but my simple example from a few pages ago...

An adventurer comes across two farmers arguing about a cow.
... a wizard charms one of the farmers to end the argument.
... a cleric determines who it belongs to, but consoles the other farmer with a divine blessing.
... a druid asks what the cow wants.
... a ranger gives the cow to one farmer and finds game to help the other feed his family.
... a paladin seeks out the truth and gives the cow to the rightful owner
... a rogue steals the cow from one farmer and gives it to the other.

I want the fighter to have an iconic and immediately identifiable method of problem solving. I want to be able to describe the fighter solving the problem (without combat) in a way that if I don't tell you it's a fighter, you might correctly guess the character is a fighter.

If I say my character came across the two farmers and used an illusion to convince each farmer he took the cow home, you'd guess that I might be a wizard/bard/sorcerer and have a pretty good idea of what kind of character I'm playing. You won't know everything.

I don't necessarily think ALL problems need to be solvable in class 'unique' ways, but the fighter should at least have one interesting method (beyond skills) or a way that makes skill use unique and identifiable.

The only other solutions you have to spellcasting in your example can all be done by the fighter.

"Problems" doesn't disambiguate.

I need more substance in why what the fighter now has isn't enough, as there are a lot of feats and skills that many classes use for out of combat utility.

Fighters are probably the best at leading armies, since they can get all the bonuses they want from armor and weapons training.

"Something unique to solve problems" doesn't clarify enough for me to even take the argument apart, it seems you're merely restating the same problem.


My example is not about what solutions are possible, my example is what solution is iconic.

What is the iconic solution to that situation that you would stereotypically consider to be "fighter"? What solution, if presented without the class, would immediately make you jump to the conclusion that the character was a fighter?

I'm not asking you to judge the other ones, I'm asking for what the fighter's would be.

Here's the thing, you don't have to actually debate my argument. You can just acknowledge my concerns and move on with your life. The fighter class as written, does not meet the criteria I'm putting forward. It's okay to admit that, express no interest in changing it and move on. If you don't care about this aspect of the fighter, or feel it expressly shouldn't have what I'm asking for, then don't "argue" with me about it. You aren't going to change my mind on how I approach and view game design, which fundamentally is the source of my issue with the class. I think it is missing a key element, which is the true source of frustration most people feel about the class.


Irontruth wrote:

My example is not about what solutions are possible, my example is what solution is iconic.

What is the iconic solution to that situation that you would stereotypically consider to be "fighter"? What solution, if presented without the class, would immediately make you jump to the conclusion that the character was a fighter?

I'm not asking you to judge the other ones, I'm asking for what the fighter's would be.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you arguing that the Fighter doesn't have good enough "fluff" for the class, or are you arguing the class lacks the mechanical tools to solve the problem?

If it's fluff ("iconic solutions"):
... a cavalier ... challenges someone to a duel over the cow?
... an alchemist ... wonders why these farmers are such idiots and goes to work in his laboratory?
... a summoner ... scares everyone with her Eidolon and takes the cow?
... a barbarian ... gets really angry at the conflict and murders everyone?
... a monk ... recommends the farmers detach themselves from their possessions and then meditates on self-perfection?

Of course, each of these classes has methods of dealing with the Cow Crisis. I don't think they necessarily have "iconic solutions" to it though, and I also don't think that's a bad thing.

If you're arguing mechanics, I'm more sympathetic.


Irontruth wrote:

My example is not about what solutions are possible, my example is what solution is iconic.

What is the iconic solution to that situation that you would stereotypically consider to be "fighter"? What solution, if presented without the class, would immediately make you jump to the conclusion that the character was a fighter?

I'm not asking you to judge the other ones, I'm asking for what the fighter's would be.

Here's the thing, you don't have to actually debate my argument. You can just acknowledge my concerns and move on with your life. The fighter class as written, does not meet the criteria I'm putting forward. It's okay to admit that, express no interest in changing it and move on. If you don't care about this aspect of the fighter, or feel it expressly shouldn't have what I'm asking for, then don't "argue" with me about it. You aren't going to change my mind on how I approach and view game design, which fundamentally is the source of my issue with the class. I think it is missing a key element, which is the true source of frustration most people feel about the class.

The fighter is the equipment guy.. the arms & armor guy.

He'd probably trade a valuable weapon or use his handy new class features to whip up some armor for a consolation prize for the cowless farmer. Or negotiate a trade involving weapons or tools to be fair.

Unless that counts as being honorable, which means only paladins can do it? I'm lost in your fallacy, I genuinely don't know what counts.

Maybe he'll use his Handle Animal skill to tame a different cow? Wait, that's the ranger's thing.

I know, he'll plan on taking the cow by brute force for the farmer that he likes better, or is that too much like a rogue or a barbarian?

I think the issue here is a lack of imagination and a refusal to be pleased.


Tangent to my original tangent: if a fighter is the guy who can best use equipment, does this mean that he should be better at using magical items than every other class, wizard and rogue included?


Ventnor wrote:
Tangent to my original tangent: if a fighter is the guy who can best use equipment, does this mean that he should be better at using magical items than every other class, wizard and rogue included?

I believe that the Occultist has that covered.


The fighter is the guy who fights. His skills help him get into fights, his abilities carry him through the fight. He has the ability to master a wide variety of styles that help him in a wide variety of fights... but fighting is his thing. It's even in his class name.

I'm not saying he can't expand his repitoir, I'm not even saying he shouldn't... but if he signs up to be a fighter, then fighting is what he should expect. Sure, he relies on equipment, but at least the appropriate gear is available to him to use without CL checks or restrictions.

If he wants more out of life than fighting, then there are options that can add to his tool box.


Cheburn wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

My example is not about what solutions are possible, my example is what solution is iconic.

What is the iconic solution to that situation that you would stereotypically consider to be "fighter"? What solution, if presented without the class, would immediately make you jump to the conclusion that the character was a fighter?

I'm not asking you to judge the other ones, I'm asking for what the fighter's would be.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you arguing that the Fighter doesn't have good enough "fluff" for the class, or are you arguing the class lacks the mechanical tools to solve the problem?

If it's fluff ("iconic solutions"):
... a cavalier ... challenges someone to a duel over the cow?
... an alchemist ... wonders why these farmers are such idiots and goes to work in his laboratory?
... a summoner ... scares everyone with her Eidolon and takes the cow?
... a barbarian ... gets really angry at the conflict and murders everyone?
... a monk ... recommends the farmers detach themselves from their possessions and then meditates on self-perfection?

Of course, each of these classes has methods of dealing with the Cow Crisis. I don't think they necessarily have "iconic solutions" to it though, and I also don't think that's a bad thing.

If you're arguing mechanics, I'm more sympathetic.

I can see why you might be confused. I want mechanics and fluff to combine.

For example, the wizard is a spell caster who studies and learns magic. This gets represented mechanically, by them being able to learn new spells, and study to prepare their spells for the days. Sorcerers intuitively gain their spells from an internal source, they get their spells when they level and rarely change throughout their career. These are examples of fluff and mechanics combining.

Game design wise, I consider all mechanics to be connected to fluff of some sort, because mechanics alter our perception of the game world, and so are part of the story of that game world.

I see a problem, Fighters are bad problem solvers outside of combat. I am exploring options of how to do that. A good solution would be one that remains within the theme of the class. Giving them spells per day and transmutation spells would be a bad solution, because it's a huge change to the theme/fluff of the class.

You're right, other classes also sometimes don't have iconic solutions to problems. Just because two classes have the same problem does not mean that the problem doesn't exist. An iconic solution for the Fighter and Cavalier might end up being very similar, because the classes are in a lot of ways, very similar. Just because the solutions might be similar, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a solution.

I don't necessarily need people to provide me with a solution. At this point I would settle for people to stop telling me that I am not experiencing a thing that I know I am experiencing.

"Ouch, I stubbed my toe."
"Are you sure you stubbed your toe? I don't think you actually stubbed your toe."

I'd settle for that ending.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think everyone else basically covered it. But I'll just reiterate.
The fighter class should not have magical powers because this isn't a frickin' video game. It's a cooperative story-based roleplaying game.
It's a game where a player can choose to unfold the story of a character similar to one of the iconic ones from classic stories. Maybe similar to Aragorn (yes, I know he's a "ranger", but he was a fighter who roamed the woods. Ranger was based off of those stories. Thus, making my point).
A fighter should certainly be able to have magical powers. The fighter class should absolutely not have access to class-based magical powers. Those should come from items or abilities gained through play.


Ventnor wrote:
Tangent to my original tangent: if a fighter is the guy who can best use equipment, does this mean that he should be better at using magical items than every other class, wizard and rogue included?

He already is via Advanced Weapon Training -> Item Mastery feats picked up via Barroom Brawler + Abundant Tactics.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Tangent to my original tangent: if a fighter is the guy who can best use equipment, does this mean that he should be better at using magical items than every other class, wizard and rogue included?
He already is via Advanced Weapon Training -> Item Mastery feats picked up via Barroom Brawler + Abundant Tactics.

Not quite what I was asking. I know that due to some obscure tricks, the fighter can use random magic items to cast spell like abilities.

What I am asking is, should a Fighter with a pair of Boots of Striding and Sprining be able to use them to jump higher and run quicker than any other character who could try them on? Should a fighter with a Headband of Vast Intelligence be able to use it to analyze foes better than any other character who wore one? Should a fighter with a Flaming Sword be able to use that weapon in entirely unexpected ways because of his mastery of his equipment?

That's what I'm wondering about.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.

Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.

There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms & Armor.

You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.

We know you can be a fighter with magical abilities, you've said it like thirteen times in this thread alone.

Quote:
Fighters are good.
Not good enough for some people. But that doesn't even matter because that's not what the thread actually was meant to discuss.

It was meant to discuss whether or not fighters should have access to magical abilities... which they do... now with their class features.

"I don't have the book" or "I don't use the book" or "My DM doesn't want me to use the book" doesn't invalidate the option or prevent it from existing. I coined Marshmallow Fallacy on this very premise.

So, either we aren't talking about the point of the thread or the goal post has moved again.

How about, "The local card game store can't seem to order the book"?

What store in Philly carries the book?


Goth Guru wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.

Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.

There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms & Armor.

You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.

We know you can be a fighter with magical abilities, you've said it like thirteen times in this thread alone.

Quote:
Fighters are good.
Not good enough for some people. But that doesn't even matter because that's not what the thread actually was meant to discuss.

It was meant to discuss whether or not fighters should have access to magical abilities... which they do... now with their class features.

"I don't have the book" or "I don't use the book" or "My DM doesn't want me to use the book" doesn't invalidate the option or prevent it from existing. I coined Marshmallow Fallacy on this very premise.

So, either we aren't talking about the point of the thread or the goal post has moved again.

How about, "The local card game store can't seem to order the book"?

What store in Philly carries the book?

He asked, knowing full well not only that the internet exists but none the less whilst on the very website that publishes and sells said book and pdf...


Some people don't want to spend MORE money just to make something in the book they already own viable. There are more than a few GM's that don't allow material from books the GM doesn't own, and don't allow things from the PFSRD. Some people just don't have the extra money to spend on the book.

Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

I will admit I think the rogue could use some love as well, though they do have a whole suite of class abilities that apply to things like stealth, sleight of hand, perception and disable device. The skill is what lets them interact with the problem, but their class impacts what skills they choose and what kinds of situations they can apply them to.

Rangers also rely a lot on skills, but again, have class abilities that affect them (favored enemy, favored terrain), but also have a lot of interesting spells (many of which are only shared by the druid, though 10 are available only to the ranger).

What I would love to hear is why someone thinks the fighter SHOULDN'T have an interesting method of problem solving that is thematically appropriate to the class. Not why they shouldn't have a specific method, but shouldn't have ANY.

Not responding to individual points via quote and reply at your specific request.

So skills are a valid way in which to interact with the world and overcome problems. Here are a ranger's fixes: bonus to certain checks against favored enemy, bonus to survival, an assortment of other abilities that do and don't involve skills.

Re: Why fighters SHOULDN'T having interesting abilities
The start of the post was in response to me so I'm going to respond as if this was directed at me: you are literally arguing against someone who agrees with you and has provided houserules to help give fighters some abilities you are arguing they should have.

Fighting Prowess: This gives you a bonus to certain checks. This isn't tied to a specific skill, so it can appear in the relevant situation regardless of what skill the situation calls for. I'm mute as to whether or not it replaces bravery (IMO bravery should just be removed and give fighters will as a good save like Paladins, i which case fighting prowess would be an addition to the fighter class).

Improved Fighting Prowess: This is an additive ability and replaces nothing. At the moment spellcasters can overcome fairly mundane problems through magic. One example is Tiny Hut and Mage's Magnificient Mansion. Now both of these come online for a wizard at level 5 and 13 respectively. The only significant cost is a small amount of WBL (first to get the spell and then to scribe scrolls of it) and time (which is often available). A fighter doesn't need to spend any WBL or time, they just get to do it. On the other hand, there are other (combat related) benefits to a Tiny Hut and Magnificent Mansion that the fighter can't replicate.

The purpose of improved fighting prowess is to give fighters the option to also be able to overcome the same mundane problems that wizards and clerics can. Like a wizard, they don't need to succeed on a skill check. They simply need to expend a resource (they are limited in the number of improved fighting prowess abilities they get) and they then get the ability to say "my class let's me overcome this problem".

So rather than continue arguing with you irontruth when we seem to actually agree: what are your thoughts on the two homebrewed class features (fighting prowess and improved fighting prowess) I've proposed? Both of these are intended to help give a fighter thematic choices that say "yeah, I'm a fighting man. This is the way my class manifests itself within the story". Do they achieve that end goal? If yes, what do you think about how they achieve it?

master_marshmallow wrote:
Fighters are probably the best at leading armies, since they can get all the bonuses they want from armor and weapons...

How does "I have +1 to hit and damage" or "I use a tower shield" translate to "People follow my directions on the battlefield"?


John Lynch 106 wrote:

Not responding to individual points via quote and reply at your specific request.

So much easier to read :D

Yup, you and I do seem to be in agreement. My "why shouldn't" wasn't directed at you specifically.

I would generally agree that modifying skills is a good way to go, because it sticks within the realm of the "mundane," but adds some options and expertise.

I might consider those 3 level two options separate trees. Like the Renowned Hero gets the free lodgings. The Seasoned Combatant gets to apply their prowess bonus to skill checks against any creature/individual they successfully identify at level 6 (and maybe later grant the bonus to allies, for that teamwork feel, at level 13). Nothing comes to mind at the moment for the Battle scarred, perhaps some sort of Enthrall-like ability when telling stories of old battles, and later on he can have the effect of a Mass Suggestion (whipping the mob into a frenzy that quickly ends once they leave his presence though).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.

Stop putting forward the idea that being cheap and having an unreasonable lack of willingness to use the free rules needs to be paizo or anyone elses problem and that the game should change to make cheap people happy.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:


Stop putting forward the idea that being cheap and having an unreasonable lack of willingness to use the free rules needs to be paizo or anyone elses problem and that the game should change to make cheap people happy.

This is the homebrew forums. Not the suggestions for errata or the suggestions for Pathfinder 2nd edition forum.

Also saying "option A from book X solves all your problems. Thread closed." Is pretty poor form. Something mister marshmallow has done repeatedly. He could provide a link to the ability. Or copy paste it. Or summaries it. Instead his contribution has been to try to shutdown conversation and deride anyone who doesn't shut up.

@irontruth: I'm not a fan of that suggestion. The name of the class feature already suggests there is a connection between the two abilities. The reason I don't like it is Rangers. Their decision on favoured terrain would logically be connected to their favoured enemy. But they're independent, giving the Ranger PC maximum freedom. I'd argue in giving the fighter the same freedom. Otherwise you get locked into making 1 choice and no meaningful choices thereafter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


Stop putting forward the idea that being cheap and having an unreasonable lack of willingness to use the free rules needs to be paizo or anyone elses problem and that the game should change to make cheap people happy.

This is the homebrew forums. Not the suggestions for errata or the suggestions for Pathfinder 2nd edition forum.

Stop putting forward the idea that because a thread was posted in a forum that the question it asks is relevant to the forum.

This is pretty asked/answered, Moot question, fighters can have magic powers, there are archetypes and feats and even nonmagical options that address the weaknesses of the class OP is concerned about prompting the question of magic. Pathfinder isn't Exalted and setting neutral has always been shaky at best and a class whose niche is master of weapons and armor sticks pretty close to that.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
Stop putting forward the idea that because a thread was posted in a forum that the question it asks is relevant to the forum.

If it's not in the right forum it should be flagged for customer service to move the thread.

Acting like talking about homebrew options is tantamount to demanding the game be changed is a strange way to approach the conversation at hand.

The rest of your post doesn't address anything else I said nor does it pose a question for me to answer or respond to. Please let me know if you expected a response from me.


Irontruth wrote:

Some people don't want to spend MORE money just to make something in the book they already own viable. There are more than a few GM's that don't allow material from books the GM doesn't own, and don't allow things from the PFSRD. Some people just don't have the extra money to spend on the book.

Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.

Then quit complaining and leave, you're not helping anyone by refusing to be pleased.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.
Stop putting forward the idea that being cheap and having an unreasonable lack of willingness to use the free rules needs to be paizo or anyone elses problem and that the game should change to make cheap people happy.

Where did I say paizo has to change their rules?

Where did I say YOU have to change YOUR rules?

Seems like you might be mad about something you invented in your head, and not something that I said.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Some people don't want to spend MORE money just to make something in the book they already own viable. There are more than a few GM's that don't allow material from books the GM doesn't own, and don't allow things from the PFSRD. Some people just don't have the extra money to spend on the book.

Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.

Then quit complaining and leave, you're not helping anyone by refusing to be pleased.

It's an issue I feel like discussing. I'm willing to do so respectfully and without belittling others because they don't want to buy a book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Some people don't want to spend MORE money just to make something in the book they already own viable. There are more than a few GM's that don't allow material from books the GM doesn't own, and don't allow things from the PFSRD. Some people just don't have the extra money to spend on the book.

Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.

Then quit complaining and leave, you're not helping anyone by refusing to be pleased.
It's an issue I feel like discussing. I'm willing to do so respectfully and without belittling others because they don't want to buy a book.

And I NOBODY feels like discussing the progress on a class with someone who refuses to read up on the exact f*cking problems they keep complaining about.

Also: stop complaining about not spending money, the resources we've been talking about have been available for free, and legally, literally this entire time.

For real, find a better argument, you aren't even contributing anymore.


I mean, I had fun reading this thread, but this is going to end up locked if the arguing keeps going like this.


Sauce987654321 wrote:
I mean, I had fun reading this thread, but this is going to end up locked if the arguing keeps going like this.

This thread never needed to exist in the first place.


If you are looking for a system with no distinction between classes and everyone can do everything, then check out GURPS. D&D has always been about classes working together and each having their own defining characteristics.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
I mean, I had fun reading this thread, but this is going to end up locked if the arguing keeps going like this.
This thread never needed to exist in the first place.

Agreed. These "Convince Me" threads should be autolocked.


I'm very glad you determined yourselves as thread police, and think of yourselves as relevant to what should and should not be discussed on Paizo forums...oh wait, you're no-ones.


Frosty Ace wrote:
Well the real life mechanics of many things in the game don't make sense. You can Ricochet Toss a Greatsword.

Heh, that's certainly true. But I still don't think that means that sense shouldn't be anywhere among our considerations.

Especially when part of the argument to give the Fighter upgrades like that is that it doesn't make sense for them to be fighting high CR foes otherwise. In that sense, I think it's quite valuable to actually look at the various numbers in question, see how they relate to known physical effects. And my personal take after doing so is that no, Fighters don't actually need to be anywhere remotely near that scale of physical strength for it to make sense for them to hurt a high CR foe.

Ventnor wrote:

To be honest, I don't think "gritty" and "demon lord" can coexist in the same setting. The one exception being "the demon lord eats you."

If you want to fight demigods, you really do have to be a superhero. That's the way Pathfinder is set up.

"Gritty" and "superhero" are not mutually exclusive. I mean... I did spend the whole first five paragraphs of the very post you quoted laying out a case for why a high-level fighter is already a superhero.

To take a different example, Captain America from the Marvel movies is absolutely a superhuman superhero, capable of physical feats that no real-life human could even dream of approaching. But he's still very restrained as far as the "flashy" aspect goes, still carrying a very down-to-earth feel. He can throw a projectile many, many times harder and faster than any human ever could, and do vastly more damage... but his movies can still carry a markedly down-to-earth, gritty sort of feel to them in the combat. He's certainly nowhere near a sort of over-the-top, flashy, Dragonball Z style rearranging of the landscape with each blow.

And if you look at the actual numbers, and the rough sort of things those numbers represent, then I'd contend that if you drew a spectrum that stretches from Captain America to Son Goku, the kind of fighter who could plausibly deal substantive (yet not brokenly-overwhelming) injury to high CR Pathfinder foes would fall much closer to Cap's end of the spectrum than Goku's.

Hence why I think that the Fighter can still totally afford to be (relatively) "gritty", and doesn't really need any "flashy" adds, whether magical powers or mountain/continent/planet-smashing strength.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Some people don't want to spend MORE money just to make something in the book they already own viable. There are more than a few GM's that don't allow material from books the GM doesn't own, and don't allow things from the PFSRD. Some people just don't have the extra money to spend on the book.

Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.

Then quit complaining and leave, you're not helping anyone by refusing to be pleased.
It's an issue I feel like discussing. I'm willing to do so respectfully and without belittling others because they don't want to buy a book.

And I NOBODY feels like discussing the progress on a class with someone who refuses to read up on the exact f*cking problems they keep complaining about.

Also: stop complaining about not spending money, the resources we've been talking about have been available for free, and legally, literally this entire time.

For real, find a better argument, you aren't even contributing anymore.

I'm fully willing to drop this particularly line of discussion from the thread, cause I think berating people about this particular aspect is dumb. I'm not sure why you're insisting on continuing it.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If you think the thread is pointless, stop posting in it. By continuing to post in the thread, you are giving it value that you claim it doesn't have.


Irontruth wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Some people don't want to spend MORE money just to make something in the book they already own viable. There are more than a few GM's that don't allow material from books the GM doesn't own, and don't allow things from the PFSRD. Some people just don't have the extra money to spend on the book.

Basically, stop putting forward that people are at fault for not having the specific book you want to reference.

Then quit complaining and leave, you're not helping anyone by refusing to be pleased.
It's an issue I feel like discussing. I'm willing to do so respectfully and without belittling others because they don't want to buy a book.

And I NOBODY feels like discussing the progress on a class with someone who refuses to read up on the exact f*cking problems they keep complaining about.

Also: stop complaining about not spending money, the resources we've been talking about have been available for free, and legally, literally this entire time.

For real, find a better argument, you aren't even contributing anymore.

I'm fully willing to drop this particularly line of discussion from the thread, cause I think berating people about this particular aspect is dumb. I'm not sure why you're insisting on continuing it.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If you think the thread is pointless, stop posting in it. By continuing to post in the thread, you are giving it value that you claim it doesn't have.

I accept the Trump version of concession. Which is of course, deflection.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I accept the Trump version of concession. Which is of course, deflection.

Too bad deflection doesn't stack...


Brother Fen wrote:
If you are looking for a system with no distinction between classes and everyone can do everything, then check out GURPS. D&D has always been about classes working together and each having their own defining characteristics.

I fully accept and embrace this. My issue is that I think the Fighter is lacking definition/characteristics in a significant area of the game. I think the Fighter class benefits from noting that outside of combat, the class is woefully lacking in a "Fighter-esque" way of interacting with the game world. In combat it is fairly easy to figure out what the Fighter is capable of and how they can contribute to the success of the team. Outside of combat, the class is about on par with the Commoner and Warrior NPC classes. If you buy a specific Paizo product, and equip your Fighter with several specific feats and magic items, you can get him up to the level of an Expert. Even still though, like the Expert, his contributions are generic and follow no specific theme.

I just want to create a small niche for the Fighter that exists outside of combat, so that the Fighter has something to contribute to the team in regards to problem solving. Something that is specific to the class (ie, not readily available to members ALL other classes, maybe shared with a couple, but not ALL).


Define "fighteresque" way of interacting with the world


So if I am understanding correctly, what you want is something that improves the non-combat options for fighters, and only fighters, while still being appropriate thematically. Okay, my suggestion:

Use the stamina system from unchained. Use the option that only fighters get stamina. (Maybe include the option where other classes can get it with a feat, maybe not.) Then allow certain non-combat feats to work with it as well. For example:

Endurance: If you fail a constitution check that is effected by endurance, you may spend stamina points equal to the difference to turn the failure into a success.

Fast Healer: Spend 2 stamina points to immediately heal half your constitution bonus (minimum +1) to your hit points.

Great Fortitude: Spend 5 stamina points to re-roll a saving throw. You must take this result even if it is worse.

Skill Focus: Spend 5 stamina points to be able to use the skill unlock for one roll in the focused skill. You must have at least 5 ranks in the skill to be able to spend stamina in this manner.

Now fighters have non-combat options available if they are willing to invest in them. (Not all non-combat feats will have stamina options. If a fighter takes a non-combat feat, work with them to see what, if any, boosts are available for using stamina.)


Ryan Freire wrote:
Define "fighteresque" way of interacting with the world

I think that that is an interesting conversation to have. I've actually put some forward already several times in this thread, and I've commented on at least one other person's version of it as well. How about you? What do you imagine that would look like?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that fighters aren't allowed to have anything unique. It is a class that is supposed to be able to fill a multitude of in-game roles, from knight, to thug, to general, and more. This is opposed to practically every other class in the game, which has at least a semblance of a role baked into its mechanics. All rangers will be skillful. All wizards will be knowledgeable. All clerics will be perceptive.

This means that a class feature that, say, emphasizes a fighter's ability to get things done by being a leader of men will fall flat because some people want their fighters to be simple farmboys, and thus the "leader" abilities make no sense for their character. A class feature that banks on fighters as having the most brutal strength will make no sense for those fighters who prefer using archery or two weapons.

In short, the fighter being "the generic guy" is a part of the problem. In a class-based system, you have to have something that makes you unique. It doesn't help if other classes can be described as "your class + x."

Paladins are "fighter + righteous powers."
Rangers are "fighter + the ability to survive in nature."
Barbarians are "fighter + the ability to ruin casters."

What the fighter really needs is a niche beyond "good at fighting." Other classes are good at fighting too. What else does the fighter offer?


It's a good point Ventor, but simple additions can fix this... I don't necessarily see Fighters as leaders of men, but masters of tactics and strategies. In my homebrew, I use Concept Skill checks. This allows fighter to act more often in more varied ways throughout more varied scenarios. One example is allowing fighters to use their level check to socialize with other fighters or intimidate/ inspire civilians to follow them. Another would be land navigation (which the ranger could also do, but the Ranger would be able to forage and take advantage of other "ranger-ey" class features while doing it). But at the end of the day, the Fighter (or PC that has chosen to ply one) favors tactical combat over Social interaction.


Ventnor wrote:


This means that a class feature that, say, emphasizes a fighter's ability to get things done by being a leader of men will fall flat because some people want their fighters to be simple farmboys, and thus the "leader" abilities make no sense for their character. A class feature that banks on fighters as having the most brutal strength will make no sense for those fighters who prefer using archery or two weapons.

Yup, I think you're hitting the nail on the head. I do think that you could have a set of abilities, like being a leader, as a sort of place holder with archetypes that only replace these non-combat features. You then get the ability to layer two separate archetypes at all times, so for one campaign you might play the (a) Two-Handed (b)Leader Fighter, and then for another campaign someone plays a (a) Two-Handed (b)Folk Hero Fighter. Their in-combat roles and abilities will be pretty similar, but the characters will roleplay very different and contribute to roleplaying scenes very differently.

And while I think the Fighter could take a wide number of possible approaches to this, I don't necessarily think a specific character needs a lot of versatility. They can be kind of a one-trick pony, as long as that trick has some utility that will be present in a game.


Captain America, Wonder Woman, and Batman all have superior acrobatics. They can move through terrain that's coming apart at full speed.

So give them acrobatics as a class skill. Probably escape artist for bending bars and lifting gates. Perhaps perception. Why don't they have perception as a class skill?

They should also have a bonus to break down doors, like in 1st and 2nd edition.


Irontruth wrote:
Ventnor wrote:


This means that a class feature that, say, emphasizes a fighter's ability to get things done by being a leader of men will fall flat because some people want their fighters to be simple farmboys, and thus the "leader" abilities make no sense for their character. A class feature that banks on fighters as having the most brutal strength will make no sense for those fighters who prefer using archery or two weapons.

Yup, I think you're hitting the nail on the head. I do think that you could have a set of abilities, like being a leader, as a sort of place holder with archetypes that only replace these non-combat features. You then get the ability to layer two separate archetypes at all times, so for one campaign you might play the (a) Two-Handed (b)Leader Fighter, and then for another campaign someone plays a (a) Two-Handed (b)Folk Hero Fighter. Their in-combat roles and abilities will be pretty similar, but the characters will roleplay very different and contribute to roleplaying scenes very differently.

And while I think the Fighter could take a wide number of possible approaches to this, I don't necessarily think a specific character needs a lot of versatility. They can be kind of a one-trick pony, as long as that trick has some utility that will be present in a game.

Errata: Leadership

Prereq: Fighter 6
Text: as standard.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:

Errata: Leadership

Prereq: Fighter 6
Text: as standard.

See what happens when you actually contribute to the discussion at hand rather than berate people for having the discussion.

Opens up houserules document and makes an addition to the feat section

Seriously. This is golden in my book. It gets that old school vibe while giving the fighters something unique.


Cyrad wrote:
slachance6 wrote:
Except that it would be impossible for a fighter to replicate most of the the abilities that make casters so powerful without flavoring them as magical. No amount of sword swinging or nonmagical physical prowess can summon a demon, turn an enemy into a toad, create a demiplane, stop time, or teleport to another planet, just to name a few examples.
Don't limit your creativity by saying "it's impossible."

Fighter PC: I slice not at the monster with DR but at a seam in the fabric of space time to create a tear to the Ethereal Plane the will suck the monster in.

GM: ...roll to hit.

Fighter PC: *rolls nat 20*

GM: Mother $@#%er!!


Well, Starfinder does have Dimensional Slice weapons...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Indagare wrote:
This isn't meant to revive the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards thing. I see this more on the lines that there are magic-like abilities being given for Monks in the form of Ki and Panache for Swashbucklers. (Rogue Talents can also run along these lines).

TFWIW, being able to swim effortlessly in full plate armor seems pretty magical to me...


When I made my own version of rogue, I gave it an ability which let them do mythical-style stunts with the following wording:

Quote:
Unlocked Potential (Ex): At 13th level, a rogue can gain the benefits of a limited wish effect a number of times per day equal to a quarter her class level, though duplicating spells which have a material component cost more gp than your class level requires spending an equal amount of gold pieces towards materials, research or labour costs. This effect has a caster level equal to the ranks you possess in a skill that you have the skill unlock for, and must have a way to be justified as being a function of that skill (for example, dispelling magic by using Knowledge (Engineering) to prove it is mathematically impossible, removing blindness by using Heal, absorbing toxicity through your training in Craft (Alchemy), fabricating a sword instantaneously by using Craft (Weapon), blind enemies by stealing their sight with your sleight of hand, detecting thoughts through sense motive, creating illusions by amazing bluffs, taking on the shapes of others through disguise, etc.). This effect is extraordinary and thus cannot be counterspelled, dispelled, or detected through magic like arcane sight or detect magic.

Something similar could be given to the Fighter, where instead of being tied to skill unlocks is tied to a weapon or armour that you possess or a magic item that you are wearing. So you could be a fighter who cuts through dimensions to planeshift, but you might need an adamantine weapon to do it.


Milo v3 wrote:

When I made my own version of rogue, I gave it an ability which let them do mythical-style stunts with the following wording:

Quote:
Unlocked Potential (Ex): At 13th level, a rogue can gain the benefits of a limited wish effect a number of times per day equal to a quarter her class level, though duplicating spells which have a material component cost more gp than your class level requires spending an equal amount of gold pieces towards materials, research or labour costs. This effect has a caster level equal to the ranks you possess in a skill that you have the skill unlock for, and must have a way to be justified as being a function of that skill (for example, dispelling magic by using Knowledge (Engineering) to prove it is mathematically impossible, removing blindness by using Heal, absorbing toxicity through your training in Craft (Alchemy), fabricating a sword instantaneously by using Craft (Weapon), blind enemies by stealing their sight with your sleight of hand, detecting thoughts through sense motive, creating illusions by amazing bluffs, taking on the shapes of others through disguise, etc.). This effect is extraordinary and thus cannot be counterspelled, dispelled, or detected through magic like arcane sight or detect magic.
Something similar could be given to the Fighter, where instead of being tied to skill unlocks is tied to a weapon or armour that you possess or a magic item that you are wearing. So you could be a fighter who cuts through dimensions to planeshift, but you might need an adamantine weapon to do it.

This just boils down to giving them magic


Yeah, that's kind of an Ancient Aliens sort of thing going on there. I mean, you're basically giving them magic without actually giving them magic.

201 to 250 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Homebrew / Is there a good reason the Fighter should *NOT* have magical powers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.