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

1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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). So I wondered why someone might chose a Fighter over a Magus or if there was a good reason for Fighters not to have abilities that would help them keep on par with other classes.

I don't count feats here because there are a number of useful feats that have a long tree line or which do not quite seem to be equal.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Because that's their niche. They are the fighting guy. There are plenty of archetypes that change this up of course but I've always seen the fighter as the dude that just fights really good without need for magic.


Because Gary Gygax said so.:)
It's not a great reason. It's another thing Pathfinder inherited from 3.5.

Look at the bloodlines. Most have an aspect more suited to fighters.
3.5 had the option to offer bloodlines to all classes. That's part of the reason I started leveled mutations. Aside from the bonus spells, who can't use fire breath or claws? If your great, great, grand pappy was/is a celestial, smite is your birthright.


The answer is no. There is no good reason why a fighter, or really any player character in a high-magic world, should not have any magical or otherwise supernatural abilities.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because they don't need them? I've seen a lot of Fighters in play, I have yet to see one whose performance even remotely supports the "Fighters suck" claim.

Also, Panache/Grit isn't magic, per se, and Monks have always been their own unique thing, a kind of three-way Priest/Warrior/Rogue hybrid.


Dox of the ParaDox twins wrote:
Because that's their niche. They are the fighting guy. There are plenty of archetypes that change this up of course but I've always seen the fighter as the dude that just fights really good without need for magic.

I can understand that, I'm just curious because it makes something like a Magus very interesting. I just find it odd because it's very easy to imagine magical versions of a given class (Cavaliers could become Eldritch Knights or Knights Templars if they had magic powers that were either Arcane or Divine), so it always makes me wonder what lets the non-magic version stand out.

Goth Guru wrote:

Because Gary Gygax said so.:)

It's not a great reason. It's another thing Pathfinder inherited from 3.5.

Look at the bloodlines. Most have an aspect more suited to fighters.
3.5 had the option to offer bloodlines to all classes. That's part of the reason I started leveled mutations. Aside from the bonus spells, who can't use fire breath or claws? If your great, great, grand pappy was/is a celestial, smite is your birthright.

Sorcerers give me a headache and a half. The class makes no sense when there's things like Genie-kin walking around and the inheritance of bloodline powers you mentioned by non-Sorcerers just makes it even weirder.

Neurophage wrote:
The answer is no. There is no good reason why a fighter, or really any player character in a high-magic world, should not have any magical or otherwise supernatural abilities.

*nods* That's basically what I struggle with. I mean, even on a medium-magic world things are a bit iffy since magic is such an obvious tactical advantage. On low-magic worlds it makes sense because magic would be hard to come by anyway, though on those worlds it would suck to be an Arcane magic user since not only would one not gain great powers later, one would still be as squishy.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Because they don't need them? I've seen a lot of Fighters in play, I have yet to see one whose performance even remotely supports the "Fighters suck" claim.

Also, Panache/Grit isn't magic, per se, and Monks have always been their own unique thing, a kind of three-way Priest/Warrior/Rogue hybrid.

I wonder how many have gone without any sort of magical arms or armor regardless of level or opponent or who refuse spells that would boost their stats or heal them or so on.

Ki isn't magic per se either, but it still helps them do things that are a good way off standard operating procedures here in the 'real' world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because that kind of fuzzy blending of themes and roles makes a game suck a-la skills and powers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My long held belief is not that Fighters need new and mystical abilities to help them out in combat. Rather, they need a method of interacting with the campaign world that is unique to them. Right now there's basically nothing a Fighter can do that someone else can't do. Now, with so many classes in the game, you're always going to get overlap, but the Fighter doesn't have something that's special to them. They just get increased access to feats, which anyone can get access to.

Imagine if all spell casters used the Wizard spell list, and the Wizard's only special ability were that he could learn more of them (no specialists, just Universalists). The Wizard would feel kind of generic and people would be more drawn to classes that specialized in magic and got unique abilities.

I lean towards two basic paths: leadership (with a small L) and observation.

Leadership: fighters who go down this path are well known and respected. Even if they aren't high Charisma characters, every day people can understand what they do and respect it. People are more willing to trust and help a Fighter who engages with them. A fighter with a reputation can capitalize on it when asking for help from a village when they need it.

Observation: Being good at fighting means understanding your opponent. When you don't have your limitless rage, or a god watching over your back, you have to learn to rely on your wits and ability to understand what your opponent is going to do. Bonuses to identify monsters, identify stats of NPCs, predict actions, etc. An observant Fighter is a master strategist and tactician. In combat, it's represented by all the abilities they already have, outside they are capable of lending advice to their companions that otherwise might not be able to predict what the opposition is going to do (improved aid another type stuff).

Anyways, that's my thought. The Fighter doesn't need another +2 to damage, AC, or whatever. They need unique ways of interacting with the world around them that makes them useful and interesting to play.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a game design reason: Some players simply want a PC that picks up a weapon and starts kicking a**. No complicated point pools, no limited uses per day, no fancy magic, not real worry about skills. Just good damage output while being able to take a few hits.

Paizo has this tendency to create versatile 6th-level casters, often with point pools. While this turns out nice usually, it's not always what people want.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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). So I wondered why someone might chose a Fighter over a Magus or if there was a good reason for Fighters not to have abilities that would help them keep on par with other classes.

I don't count feats here because there are a number of useful feats that have a long tree line or which do not quite seem to be equal.

Fighters are picked over Magi for better beatstick potential, since they have full BAB, D10 hit dice, and can wear heavier armor quite well from the start. Not to mention full proficiencies up to and including Tower Shields. But, Magi have better nova/burst capabilities, and utility (spells can do more than just kill stuff).

For them not having magical powers, it is more of a flavor thing than anything. Fighters are viewed as the most mundane class in the game (barring Commoners and other NPC classes, of course), and as such giving them magical powers is a little silly, especially since Paizo's view is "Fighters can't have nice things in the RPG Rulebook line of content." And unfortunately, that evidence shows since they can't do some of the cool stuff (i.e. Pounce) that other martials (such as Monks and Barbarians) can.

That being said, there are some magical things that Fighters can do. Warrior Spirit is one example, where they can basically super-charge their weapon, even if only once a day for one minute. Great for when the big bad has to pay. It's just that it's so very limited when it's there (and it was probably meant to be that way).

Even without bringing up the Caster/Martial Disparity, Fighters not getting magic has never been the problem. The problems have always been that Fighters have little to no out-of-combat abilities, and don't get enough class abilities, magical or not, to bring them up to the same speed and versatility as other martial-based classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As it should be clear by this point. It is a matter of preference, and ONLY a matter of preference. If you see your gameworld as a place where everything is touched by magic, then your fighters are to. Honestly, some of their abilities are awfully hard to explain if you Don't posit some magic being involved.

Darksol finishes with the standard versatility lament. There is a core of reality to it, but it fails to point out that it is mostly a product of the Arms Race mentality Pathfinder and the Forums promote. If you cannot go at "Ludicrous Speed" at something, why bother moving at all. It affects the builds, it affects the play, and it completely affects the attitudes. If you cannot be the best at something, somehow you cannot do it at all. It makes a caster player insanely hostile to anything that even hints at interfering with his Rule-given infallibility. I would love to see someone be allowed to leverage those ridiculous feat trains to affect non-combat actions in some thematic ways. Combat styles, usable in the fog of battle, might reasonably be of use outside of combat.

Society play cannot function fairly and consistently across every table without strict adherence to the concept that nothing can be done unless it is explicitly allowed. Whyever would we accept those restrictions outside of the Society. If you are afraid your fellow players cannot be trusted with a little leeway...........


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only thing a fighter needs to function is one hit point.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember when Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords came out for 3.5

Half of the WotC forums pooped themselves in rage.

I never actually got to PLAY any of the classes from it, because while all the other crazy classes from other books were ok (True namer, sure, Incarnum, not popular but ok, caster with unlimited spells, Nice), suddenly, if you give a "Fighter" the ability to have flaming sword attacks without a 8000gp magic item suddenly it's "Game Breaking" and "Really stupid" and "How does Fighter magicz Wut?"

So, Fighters don't have magic attacks by default because SACRED COW and people who don't like the fighter will WAH WAH WAH loudly and not allow the game to go on, unless the fighter takes some massive nerf/trade-off to have a minuscule amount of wizard spell casting.


TiwazBlackhand wrote:

I remember when Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords came out for 3.5

Half of the WotC forums pooped themselves in rage.

I never actually got to PLAY any of the classes from it, because while all the other crazy classes from other books were ok (True namer, sure, Incarnum, not popular but ok, caster with unlimited spells, Nice), suddenly, if you give a "Fighter" the ability to have flaming sword attacks without a 8000gp magic item suddenly it's "Game Breaking" and "Really stupid" and "How does Fighter magicz Wut?"

I did, it marginalized pretty much the rest of the martials fairly well , but anything that closes the C/M gap at all is going to do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just design preference. Really tho, "magic" can be literally anything supernatural. Barbarian and Monk aren't casters, but can fly and teleport respectively.

The issue, I think, is not enough extraordinary options. Smash from the Air is probably the coolest thing a Fighter can do (Nothing says badass quite like parrying a boulder with a rapier). There just need to be a lot more of those extraordinary options for the Fighter, in class, from level 1-20.

People will always want the mundane badass, but mundane shouldn't equal bland or easily duplicated.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Indagare wrote:
so it always makes me wonder what lets the non-magic version stand out.

Basically that there's nothing that does so. Sometimes I simply prefer to play the mundane guy in a (highly) magical world and the fighter is the easiest (and nearly onliest) class that allows for that.

Just a matter of preference, because it's those people I'm mostly drawn to in any kind of novel or movie.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because sometimes a person wants to be Mad Martigan instead of Gandalf.

Game mechanics or who does the most damage at 18th level often has little to do with that.

As it should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Honestly there are plenty of options for Fighters and many that border on magical or flat out are magical if you really want them. Weapon and armor master books added aa lot, there are plenty of good archetypes and more and more combat feats every year.

beyond that there are plenty of rule options you can add to your game. Grouped Skills system does wonders for the Skill gap. The Stamina Combat system still needs a bit of work but it expands the Fighter's options a lot. If you really want to get crazy the Fighter is probably the one who sacrifices the least if you want to use Variant Multiclassing or chase down that Eldrich Heritage Feat tree.

The Fighter is about how you want to build him, If you want to chase down the Damage dealer you can do that but personally I find the class is really flexible and open to a lot of creative options.

Heck a month or so back there was a thread that brainstomed a really decent whip fighter. Actually looked pretty fun to play and could inflect real damage.


I'm just going to put this out there...
Non combat maneuvers.

All: It requires no feats or class abilities to do, but they cannot be fighting, casting, or performing at the same time (unless otherwise noted). Not magically dispellable.

1: Focused search: The searcher gets down on all fours and uses a magnifying glass to get +4 to search. While doing this they act as if they had search as a class skill.

2: Motivational speech: If the target audience fails to resist the speakers bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, or perform, they act as if the speaker has leadership or performed a bardsong. A target can fail to resist intentionally if they are not already being controlled by some one or thing else. It only lasts as long as the speaker is within sight or hearing range. They can otherwise perform any other action when they finish the speech.

3: Mind wall: The person thinks about one thing, a brick wall or a black door for example. As long as they concentrate, they gain +4 to resist any mental influence including; mind reading, scrying, possession, and even intimidation. They can use this while fighting, but only while not using any other maneuvers. They can also use this during an attempt to disbelieve, and add the +4.


Cavall wrote:
Only thing a fighter needs to function is one hit point.

Not even that, depending on how you build them. Sometimes, they just need to have more than -99 hit points. Diehard is a fun feat, when you know just what to mix with it to make it amazing.


I mean, if you're playing in a low-magic setting, then shouldn't full casters be banned by default to preserve the flavor of the setting? Maybe 2/3's casters too, depending on how rare you want magic to be.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

There's ways to make characters on par with spellcasters without resorting to magic. It's all about theming and flavor.


Cyrad wrote:
There's ways to make characters on par with spellcasters without resorting to magic. It's all about theming and flavor.

Without resorting to magic at all? Not even Use Magic Device? There are a boatload of things that magic does better, or that only magic can do, period. What do you mean exactly by "on par"?


Of coarse there are, ways to have them be on par. Just tack a level 15 fighter next to level 5 or so full caster.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Athaleon wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
There's ways to make characters on par with spellcasters without resorting to magic. It's all about theming and flavor.
Without resorting to magic at all? Not even Use Magic Device? There are a boatload of things that magic does better, or that only magic can do, period. What do you mean exactly by "on par"?

You're confusing mechanics with flavor.

You can make a class that's as powerful as a spellcaster and not have them be magical at all. All it would take is introducing a mechanic comparable to spells, but not flavored as magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.


Cyrad wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
There's ways to make characters on par with spellcasters without resorting to magic. It's all about theming and flavor.
Without resorting to magic at all? Not even Use Magic Device? There are a boatload of things that magic does better, or that only magic can do, period. What do you mean exactly by "on par"?

You're confusing mechanics with flavor.

You can make a class that's as powerful as a spellcaster and not have them be magical at all. All it would take is introducing a mechanic comparable to spells, but not flavored as magic.

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.


BadBird wrote:
The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.

See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.

Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization and other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.

Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power. Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.

Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).

So, just because Fighters get Bonus Feats doesn't make them any more special than any other class that does (and there are quite a few that do, I might add), nor is it an excuse to justify going it for a super-feat intensive build that is probably junk regardless of how soon you acquire it.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BadBird wrote:
The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.

See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.

Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization a(nd other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.

Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power. Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.

Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).

So, just because Fighters get Bonus Feats doesn't make them any more special than any other class that does (and there are quite a few that do, I might add), nor is it an excuse to justify going it for a super-feat intensive build that is...

Can any of those classes change their past combat feat when leaving up?

I currently play a fighter in our group some what involuntary, but have come to love it. lol Wanted to play wizard, but realized we had no strong man for melee or tanking in the group (everyone's Str was 10 or less...). In the end, it has been a blast and without having magical powers for healing and buffing, my character glued everyone in the party to work together by contributing to keep my ass alive to keep their ass alive.

So perhaps party dynamic should be factored in when it comes to the fighter, his purpose, and lack of magic.


MakuTheDark wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BadBird wrote:
The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.

See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.

Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization a(nd other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.

Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power. Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.

Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).

So, just because Fighters get Bonus Feats doesn't make them any more special than any other class that does (and there are quite a few that do, I might add), nor is it an excuse to justify going it

...

No, but it's not as relevant when there are Retraining rules.

Grand Lodge

Because if I wanted to play a magical fighter I'd play Magus or Bloodrager.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, because the class isnt meant to.

It is a simple class meant to be about just a completely normal guy, without any speacial powers, that is good at using weapons. That is it.

That is why it doesnt have ki or any other shenanigans.

Granted, it could have some other combat powers, like maybe being able to deflect hits and stuff like that, but it should NEVER and i do mean NEVER be like a caster, it should never be able to teleport, it should never be able to turn his sword on fire, it should never be able to send wind shockwaves or whatever...

It should remain mundane, that is the point, this is what the class offers.

Ofc, that is not to say there shouldnt be a magic swordsman, which PF has also, it just should never be the fighter.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BadBird wrote:
The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.

See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.

Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization and other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.

Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power. Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.

Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).

So, just because Fighters get Bonus Feats doesn't make them any more special than any other class that does (and there are quite a few that do, I might add), nor is it an excuse to justify going it for a super-feat intensive build that is...

Are any of those bonus feats other classes get as plentiful or unrestricted as with a Fighter? Are huge numbers of bonus feats common to all classes, or even to fighting classes? Is Cleric Casting not really an interesting or unique feature because of the Oracle or Warpriest? 'Other classes get bonus feats' is just a rehash of 'other classes get feats'; the point is that it's very obviously not the same thing in practice.

A Fighter doesn't need to grab weapon feats to 'remain relevant' in combat.

The position that there's nothing one can do with a stack of free, non-proscribed feats that's either interesting or useful is a sad place to be.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion 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). So I wondered why someone might chose a Fighter over a Magus or if there was a good reason for Fighters not to have abilities that would help them keep on par with other classes.

I don't count feats here because there are a number of useful feats that have a long tree line or which do not quite seem to be equal.

So why aren't you including Stamina combat for the fighter then?

Include it in you game at it's most basic; Fighter Bonus Feats only.

It increases the value of those bonus combat feats
gives the fighter a pool he can go to for extra oomph like the Swashbuckler, Gunslinger or Monk.
allows him access to combat feats that he doesn't normally meet the Prerequisets for.
and even gives him the ability to add a Compentence bonus to his attack rolls to help avoid those near misses.


BadBird wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BadBird wrote:
The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.

See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.

Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization and other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.

Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power. Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.

Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).

So, just because Fighters get Bonus Feats doesn't make them any more special than any other class that does (and there are quite a few that do, I might add), nor is it an excuse to justify going it for

...

No, but they're usually better quality (in the case of the Ranger) or usable in equal effectiveness (in the case of things like Warpriests and Slayers) in comparison. I find having all those feats to spend on things like Weapon Specialization and Iron Will are more like taxes to maintain the class' relevance in the combat party than they are ways to customize the character to do cool and unique things, and not having those options just makes the class worthless.


BadBird wrote:
The idea that 'everyone gets feats, so that's not really anything special for Fighters' comes up over and over again, and it's a little absurd. A Fighter can put together a build at any given level that no class with less feats could, and that's a unique class ability. People - often those with less knowledge of PF feats, who would be likely to just rack up banal combat bonuses - may consider this ability of the Fighter unimpressive, but it's still a unique ability by definition. A little exploration of the whole wide world of feats out there often ignored (often because they're too feat intensive for other classes) can turn up some very interesting options and combinations.

Here's the thing, this is entirely subjective. So you are correct, but I am also correct. We are both correct, even though our opinions are mutually exclusive to each other.

To me, the Fighter feels like a boring and generic class. The operative part of that sentence that you can't argue to change is "to me". It's MY opinion.

Your opinion is that the Fighter is a dynamic and exciting class.

The fact that your opinion exists doesn't change my opinion. Just like the fact that my opinion exists doesn't change your opinion.

Would you like to debate me on the whether or not I like the color blue next?


Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edward the Necromancer wrote:
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.

The issue with that is it means one class is forced to be limited to never be able to cover any character concepts which are level appropriate past level 6.


Milo v3 wrote:


The issue with that is it means one class is forced to be limited to never be able to cover any character concepts which are level appropriate past level 6.

Well that's not an issue of the "Archetype" but of design choices. This is evident by comparing the Fighter now and the "core" Fighter. Now a Fighter can remain relevant as long as any not full Caster! Woohoo!!


Here's 2 reasons. Antimagic fields and dead magic zones.

Also, the OP invited opinions, more or less.


Frosty Ace wrote:
Well that's not an issue of the "Archetype" but of design choices. This is evident by comparing the Fighter now and the "core" Fighter. Now a Fighter can remain relevant as long as any not full Caster! Woohoo!!

You're misunderstanding me. I'm talking about narrative, not numbers. There isn't really any new character concepts that is added by fighter past level 6.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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."


Edward the Necromancer wrote:
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.

Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
There isn't really any new character concepts that is added by fighter past level 6.

Well, there are some potential game changers scattered among higher fighter levels:

7: Armor training II (become the heavy armored lightning on the battlefield)
8: Imposing Bearing (bull rush, drag, overrun, and trip much larger foes)
8: Tower Shield Specialist (be one of the few who can actually work well with such a big shield)
10: Spellbreaker, Ray Shield, Teleport Tactician and Shatterspell (These casters outgrow me? OK I hunt them down!)
12 & 16: Penetrating Strike and its greater version (mock the paladin for cutting through some DR all day)
14: Critical Mastery (debuff your foes into oblivion, even if you don't deal much damage)
16: Martial Mastery (human only, sadly, but: become a master of an entire weapon group)
20: Weapon mastery (become even more brutal with crits)

But, more importantly: You don't need this. You don't need any class feature to make up an interesting story about your character, and to expand on it.


Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Neurophage wrote:
Edward the Necromancer wrote:
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.
Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?

Well, not every fantasy game needs a non-magical class. There are a few exceptions:

- Games where the setting itself doesn't contain any non-magical people. This could be a world where everybody can do magic, or a setting where simply being present has magic as a pre-requisite (for instance, a magical academy).
- Games where non-magical people are insignificant and can't amount to anything game-worthy no matter how hard they try (like in Exalted).

Pathfinder isn't either of those, so it needs non-magic classes like Rogue, Fighter, and Vigilante to represent what exceptional non-magic people can do. All of those classes can take options to do a little magic if they want, or grab archetypes for less limited casting.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
slachance6 wrote:
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.

If you want a fighter that can summon a demon take VMC - Summoner

Tadaa you now have a demon summoning fighter.

Just because you don't use the options that are there doesn't mean they don't exist


Goth Guru wrote:

Here's 2 reasons. Antimagic fields and dead magic zones.

Also, the OP invited opinions, more or less.

Yes, the OP did invite opinions. There's a difference between "here's my opinion" and "here's why your opinion is wrong." People on these boards spend a LOT of time on the latter.

You can look at my first post and see that I disagree with the OP about magical/supernatural abilities for Fighters, but agree with the concept of giving them more to do. I don't say "well, actually...." or some derivation of that, but just present the information for why I like what I like. I don't put anyone else down or say something negative about a different idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
Edward the Necromancer wrote:
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.
Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?

Well, not every fantasy game needs a non-magical class. There are a few exceptions:

- Games where the setting itself doesn't contain any non-magical people. This could be a world where everybody can do magic, or a setting where simply being present has magic as a pre-requisite (for instance, a magical academy).
- Games where non-magical people are insignificant and can't amount to anything game-worthy no matter how hard they try (like in Exalted).

Pathfinder isn't either of those, so it needs non-magic classes like Rogue, Fighter, and Vigilante to represent what exceptional non-magic people can do. All of those classes can take options to do a little magic if they want, or grab archetypes for less limited casting.

Pathfinder as a setting isn't either of those, true.

Pathfinder as a game, whose mechanics practically require magic to pull off, most certainly is, though.

And that's a major oversight with the system: Extreme magic dependancy while trying to emphasize that it's not a necessity.


Being "Right" is very important to a lot of people.
Since this is all preference and opinion, you can't ever be "Right".
A lot of people make the illogical step that they must then show that opposing opinions are Wrong. Note that there is less of this going on in this thread than I have seen elsewhere.

This is getting near very near some core beliefs about what the basis of fantasy role play is, people hold up the Fighter as the one of the last "Pure" classes left. Often the same ones that are so disappointed with them, or will never actually play one. Now this next bit is going to come off rather Snarky, but necessary. That "Pure" fighter has not existed since Feats were brought into the game. It really has never existed except in the lowest levels where magic items did not play a powerful role. (This is probably where a lot of interest in low magic settings comes from.). I have to mention, that in a game that demands higher and higher levels of specialization and optimization, the "Pure" fighter concept is really unplayable without additions to combat rules that take away from the "simple" feel of the fighter.

I fear that there is no real way to address this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Edward the Necromancer wrote:
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.
Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?

As long as there are players who want to play someone who doesn't use magic, there will be a need for such roles in game systems. You can make a game system where this isn't a case, but that will cost players. It really is that simple.

1 to 50 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.