Class identity: Why the fighter can't be just about fighting


Classes


12 people marked this as a favorite.

When I ask you "what is a pathfinder paladin about?" The answer is really easy. Its a "holy warrior." This gives a designer a lot of room to create cool abilities because that identity is a deep well of ideas that can be diverse but fit together and feel like a paladin. What about the other classes?

Barbarian -> Gets so angry that he can transcend human limits
Ranger -> Nature Warrior
Rogue -> Sneaky/Cunning Warrior
Monk -> Ascetic Warrior
Fighter -> ??? Warrior?

All of the martial classes are fundamentally about fighting. This is because pathfinder has easily ten times the page count dedicated to fighting then to non-combat interactions. In various incarnations of the game we've tried to make the fighter about being a "warrior warrior" by making him slightly better at combat then the other classes. This is unsatisfying because you can't actually do that without breaking the game. Most games of pathfinder are all about fighting, you can't have one class just be better then others at the same job.

P2 tried to fix this by giving the fighter his own unique feats, but because the fighter is not about anything there is no answer to "Why can't my barbarian power attack?" The reverse is not true though; if you ask "Why can't my fighter rage" the answer is "He is not angry enough!"

So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion:

Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:

When I ask you "what is a pathfinder paladin about?" The answer is really easy. Its a "holy warrior." This gives a designer a lot of room to create cool abilities because that identity is a deep well of ideas that can be diverse but fit together and feel like a paladin. What about the other classes?

Barbarian -> Gets so angry that he can transcend human limits
Ranger -> Nature Warrior
Rogue -> Sneaky/Cunning Warrior
Monk -> Ascetic Warrior
Fighter -> ??? Warrior?

All of the martial classes are fundamentally about fighting. This is because pathfinder has easily ten times the page count dedicated to fighting then to non-combat interactions. In various incarnations of the game we've tried to make the fighter about being a "warrior warrior" by making him slightly better at combat then the other classes. This is unsatisfying because you can't actually do that without breaking the game. Most games of pathfinder are all about fighting, you can't have one class just be better then others at the same job.

P2 tried to fix this by giving the fighter his own unique feats, but because the fighter is not about anything there is no answer to "Why can't my barbarian power attack?" The reverse is not true though; if you ask "Why can't my fighter rage" the answer is "He is not angry enough!"

So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion:

Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.

Well, Fighter is supposed to represent "every other warrior not already covered" and at least a generic "weapon and armor specialist". Just look at the PF1 Fighter archetypes: Viking, Aldori Swordlord, Taldane Falcata+Buckler duelist, Ustalav duelist, 1 Weapon Master, Archer, Druman blackjacket, etc.

So pretty much any sort of thematic/regional combat specialist/soldier falls onto this class. The way the class usually works is that they get dozens of combat feats, this means you can build any sort of combat style from history, fiction or fantasy by using the fighter chassis.
They don't need to just be "best at fighting", but should be the best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees". They've done this just fine since forever and for the most part the PF2 can kinda do this, but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats.


ChibiNyan wrote:

Well, Fighter is supposed to represent "every other warrior not already covered" and at least a generic "weapon and armor specialist". Just look at the PF1 Fighter archetypes: Viking, Aldori Swordlord, Taldane Falcata+Buckler duelist, Ustalav duelist, 1 Weapon Master, Archer, Druman blackjacket, etc.

So pretty much any sort of thematic/regional combat specialist/soldier falls onto this class. The way the class usually works is that they get dozens of combat feats, this means you can build any sort of combat style from history, fiction or fantasy by using the fighter chassis.
They don't need to just be "best at fighting", but should be the best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees". They've done this just fine since forever and for the most part the PF2 can kinda do this, but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats.

To me, at least until we get all the supplements that cover those PF1e archetypes, something I think would be useful would be to make those generic feats pickable independent of class (so long as you meet certain prerequisites), but give the fighter more unique feats that call back to the 1e non-setting-specific archetypes, like how the Crossbowman got benefits for readying an attack, and what not, as well as advanced weapon and armor training stuff, because part of what I think the key of it is, that 2e falls short on, is that yes the fighter is best at realizing those combat style concepts, but I think part of the thing is that I think all martially oriented characters need to be able to invest somewhat in any given combat style, for the fighter's ability to be the best at realizing the concept of that style to be that impressive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Once again, Spheres of Power is a good source of inspiration. The Conscript is a good example of what a fighter should be. There's a massive pool of combat talents, which anyone can take, that are comparable to feats (especially with 2e's class feats). But whereas most people get 10-15, or possibly 20 (plus 4 from their martial tradition), the conscript gets 30, with the possibility of taking another 10 from class features alone, if they always take Extra Combat Talent with their bonus feats.

Other classes might specialize in particular spheres, but if you just want variety and raw martial power, you want the conscript.


I think the fighter has an identity. Too much of an identity, even. :o The fighter is the weapon specialist. They pick one weapon and excel at it. They then get some secondary weapons, that rarely get used by are nice in corner cases. And they pack it up in heavy armor. This is the fighter focus: weapon specialization. With magic weapons working they do and have done (they are becoming more, not less, important in PF2), a character can only have a few maxed-out magic weapons. This fits the fighter hand in glove.

I find this get boring quickly. I want more weapon-neutral warrior classes. The ranger, barbarian, and paladin do that in PF2, but are tied to peculiar concepts. The cavalier was one of the best things that happened in PF1, even if I feel it was a bit under-powered and locked into a leader concept that I could do without. But challenge as a mechanic was a great way to get out of the 'one fighter - one weapon' paradigm. As was smite. favored enemy less so, but it did try. But you still suffered because your weapons would lag if you used many weapons. PF2 actually has a ring that works around that, allowing you to make whatever weapon you are wielding into a magic weapon.

Now if the non-fighter warrior classes just worked as well as the fighter and the fighter got some more non-combat utility to match, this would be good. Add a few more warrior classes and it might be perfect.


RazarTuk wrote:

Once again, Spheres of Power is a good source of inspiration. The Conscript is a good example of what a fighter should be. There's a massive pool of combat talents, which anyone can take, that are comparable to feats (especially with 2e's class feats). But whereas most people get 10-15, or possibly 20 (plus 4 from their martial tradition), the conscript gets 30, with the possibility of taking another 10 from class features alone, if they always take Extra Combat Talent with their bonus feats.

Other classes might specialize in particular spheres, but if you just want variety and raw martial power, you want the conscript.

Conscript also has the option to trade some or even all of his bonus feats for other abilities like Favored Terrain, Martial flexibility, Loyal Mount or even Sneak attack.

It's a great Build-it-yourself warrior class.....Just wish it had better starting cash (1d6x10)


Hmm. I don't really agree with the premise at all. In their playtest form, I'd happily fold all the other martial classes into sub-classes (or feat-chains) or archetypes for fighters.

They bring nothing to the table beyond a meaningless coat of paint, and separate out fairly generic things (crossbows, shielding allies, punching, being able to use small damage die weapons in a functional way) and try (and fail) to build an entire class around them.

In my view, fighter is one of the few playtest classes in good shape.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually agree with this. Regardless of the current state of mechanics, I've always found it hard to get excited about the Fighter class because on a thematic level they are just "generic fighting guy." This probably worked well back in early D&D when their closest companions were "generic magic guy" and Cleric, but now that we have multiple martial classes which can fight comparable well and do something else unique, it feels a bit lacking.

I actually have similar complaints about the Wizard class, as I feel that they don't focus enough on their unique elements (arcane focus, specialty schools) and end up slipping back into their thematic origin of "generic magic guy." Considering we had a multitude of casters which did casting + some other element, the generic option started to lose appeal (especially in my group), even if they were mechanically "best."

Overall, I want to see classes with some sort of unique thematic identity which I can use as a jumping off point when creating a character. Doing the same thing as nearly everyone else, except better, just doesn't fill that niche for me.


ChibiNyan wrote:

Well, Fighter is supposed to represent "every other warrior not already covered" and at least a generic "weapon and armor specialist". Just look at the PF1 Fighter archetypes: Viking, Aldori Swordlord, Taldane Falcata+Buckler duelist, Ustalav duelist, 1 Weapon Master, Archer, Druman blackjacket, etc.

So pretty much any sort of thematic/regional combat specialist/soldier falls onto this class. The way the class usually works is that they get dozens of combat feats, this means you can build any sort of combat style from history, fiction or fantasy by using the fighter chassis.
They don't need to just be "best at fighting", but should be the best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees". They've done this just fine since forever and for the most part the PF2 can kinda do this, but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats.

P1 archetypes did give the fighter more identity. I am actually a big fan of the Dragonheir Scion for example. But you'll notice they did this by trading in all of the fighter's class features...

I also think that

Quote:
best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees".

is not compatible with

Quote:
but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats

I think its really hard for a designer to meet both these goals in a satisfying way. If they give the fighter sword slashes that shoot wind-blades, some fans will complain that that is too "anime" or "wuxia" but give the same thing to a paladin or barbarian and it all makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Hmm. I don't really agree with the premise at all. In their playtest form, I'd happily fold all the other martial classes into sub-classes (or feat-chains) or archetypes for fighters.

They bring nothing to the table beyond a meaningless coat of paint, and separate out fairly generic things (crossbows, shielding allies, punching, being able to use small damage die weapons in a functional way) and try (and fail) to build an entire class around them.

In my view, fighter is one of the few playtest classes in good shape.

You could boil it all down to 4 classes I guess; Fighting Guy, Skill Guy, Holy Guy and Magic Guy. Then use Archetypes for all the fine details.

which might not be a bad idea. You could then break all the class feats down into Combat, Skill, Holy and Arcane. With Ancestry and General feats as side options.

Paladin Archetype for the Holy guy gives you access to the Combat feats. Ranger Archetype for the Fighting Guy gives you access to skill feats, etc....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
Voss wrote:

Hmm. I don't really agree with the premise at all. In their playtest form, I'd happily fold all the other martial classes into sub-classes (or feat-chains) or archetypes for fighters.

They bring nothing to the table beyond a meaningless coat of paint, and separate out fairly generic things (crossbows, shielding allies, punching, being able to use small damage die weapons in a functional way) and try (and fail) to build an entire class around them.

In my view, fighter is one of the few playtest classes in good shape.

You could boil it all down to 4 classes I guess; Fighting Guy, Skill Guy, Holy Guy and Magic Guy. Then use Archetypes for all the fine details.

which might not be a bad idea. You could then break all the class feats down into Combat, Skill, Holy and Arcane. With Ancestry and General feats as side options.

Paladin Archetype for the Holy guy gives you access to the Combat feats. Ranger Archetype for the Fighting Guy gives you access to skill feats, etc....

That wasn't really where I was aiming. The problem is the playtest ranger, paladin, monk and barbarian are far too specific and narrow concepts mostly focused on what you can do with tiny bonuses to one piece of kit (big weapons, crossbows, shields or none). There isn't a class there. Classes need to be broader ideas, like the fighter.

Alchemists have a similar problem, they can just be replaced by anyone with gold and access to an alchemy shop.

Rogues actually have a different problem (that I glossed over by lumping them in with the above)- they're buried in a deluge garbage in the form of skill increases and (especially) skill feats. Too many non-interesting things to keep track off.


Knight Magenta wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Well, Fighter is supposed to represent "every other warrior not already covered" and at least a generic "weapon and armor specialist". Just look at the PF1 Fighter archetypes: Viking, Aldori Swordlord, Taldane Falcata+Buckler duelist, Ustalav duelist, 1 Weapon Master, Archer, Druman blackjacket, etc.

So pretty much any sort of thematic/regional combat specialist/soldier falls onto this class. The way the class usually works is that they get dozens of combat feats, this means you can build any sort of combat style from history, fiction or fantasy by using the fighter chassis.
They don't need to just be "best at fighting", but should be the best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees". They've done this just fine since forever and for the most part the PF2 can kinda do this, but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats.

P1 archetypes did give the fighter more identity. I am actually a big fan of the Dragonheir Scion for example. But you'll notice they did this by trading in all of the fighter's class features...

I also think that

Quote:
best at "realizing all concepts based around weapon/armor/style" without needing to tack on "gets angry" or "hugs trees".

is not compatible with

Quote:
but they could do with more varied and less-generic feats
I think its really hard for a designer to meet both these goals in a satisfying way. If they give the fighter sword slashes that shoot wind-blades, some fans will complain that that is too "anime" or "wuxia" but give the same thing to a paladin or barbarian and it all makes sense.

That last comment was for Pathfinder 2 only. Instead of stuff like Power Attack and Sudden Charge that are super generic, they should get things that compliment the character concepts you can make with Fighter. I feel that right now all they get is "generic tank and spank" and you can't build a lot of concepts with their feat selection.

Using Advanced Weapon Training and later-released combat feats, the Fighter's limit was your imagination. (look at Warrior Spirit AWT) As long as you didn't just spam power attack, there were so many fun specific feats to work with.


The fighter in the PF2 incarnation is the combo guy. He attacks inflicting you with some disability, then follows that up with something exploiting that disability. The archery and two weapon fighting feat chains don't really work within that theme though.

Monk is designed to not stand in base to base contact with their target, moving in, striking twice and moving back out again leaving some hampering effect on his target.

Barbarian is built to ignore tactical considerations and supports staying in base to base contact and engaging multiple enemies.

Rogue is built for skill based support abilities such as intimidate and distraction. He shouldn't be attacking an unhampered foe.

Paladin is supposed to be a pseudo tank with powerful counter attacks if his allies are engaged, but the range on his ability is too limited for his kit to be a reliable main pillar.

Ranger I don't know. I honestly don't get it at all. At this point, I'd play a rogue or a fighter with the druid dedication if I wanted a ranger.

You can reduce the concept of the classes to something less specific, but these are pretty well defined mechanically.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

The fighter in the PF2 incarnation is the combo guy. He attacks inflicting you with some disability, then follows that up with something exploiting that disability. The archery and two weapon fighting feat chains don't really work within that theme though.

Monk is designed to not stand in base to base contact with their target, moving in, striking twice and moving back out again leaving some hampering effect on his target.

Barbarian is built to ignore tactical considerations and supports staying in base to base contact and engaging multiple enemies.

Rogue is built for skill based support abilities such as intimidate and distraction. He shouldn't be attacking an unhampered foe.

Paladin is supposed to be a pseudo tank with powerful counter attacks if his allies are engaged, but the range on his ability is too limited for his kit to be a reliable main pillar.

Ranger I don't know. I honestly don't get it at all. At this point, I'd play a rogue or a fighter with the druid dedication if I wanted a ranger.

You can reduce the concept of the classes to something less specific, but these are pretty well defined mechanically.

You could make a game where classes are defined by their mechanical niche (see strong hero, fast hero, etc.. in d20 modern) but Pathfinder 1 and 2 are not that game.

First, we already have baggage attached to classes. We have canon paladins of Erastil that are not about tanking at all, but about being light armor-wearing archers. Second, you are supposed to get 11 class feats in P2. Since we expect the ability to pick from new options every level, you need at least 33 feats per class. I challenge you to come up with 33 unique abilities around the theme of "mobile skirmisher."

Finally, Paizo is already not using your approach. Look at the monk's ki powers. Why does a mobile skirmisher get magic? That makes no sense. But it does make sense if the monk's theme is "ascetic, self-sufficient warrior"


Knight Magenta wrote:

When I ask you "what is a pathfinder paladin about?" The answer is really easy. Its a "holy warrior." This gives a designer a lot of room to create cool abilities because that identity is a deep well of ideas that can be diverse but fit together and feel like a paladin. What about the other classes?

Barbarian -> Gets so angry that he can transcend human limits
Ranger -> Nature Warrior
Rogue -> Sneaky/Cunning Warrior
Monk -> Ascetic Warrior
Fighter -> ??? Warrior?

All of the martial classes are fundamentally about fighting. This is because pathfinder has easily ten times the page count dedicated to fighting then to non-combat interactions. In various incarnations of the game we've tried to make the fighter about being a "warrior warrior" by making him slightly better at combat then the other classes. This is unsatisfying because you can't actually do that without breaking the game. Most games of pathfinder are all about fighting, you can't have one class just be better then others at the same job.

P2 tried to fix this by giving the fighter his own unique feats, but because the fighter is not about anything there is no answer to "Why can't my barbarian power attack?" The reverse is not true though; if you ask "Why can't my fighter rage" the answer is "He is not angry enough!"

So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion:

Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.

I don't dislike the concept of your idea here though for me the Fighter has never lacked an identity. He's always been the more trained, learned, or disciplined style of warrior. A student of the art of war rather than, say, an instinctual and emotional fighter like the Barbarian. And I think their feats and features reflect that, with a higher base of skill with equipment (their proficiency), the ability to make the most out of more complex styles (for example anyone can WF by wielding a normal weapon and an agile one and switching which one they attack with but the Fighter can refine the style with things like Double Slice and twin parry. Anyone can do a free-hand style to keep an open hand for manipulating things or using combat maneuvers but the Fighter can refine it with Duelist's Parry and Two-Handed Assault. They also have more complex combat tricks in general, like Combat Grab, Power Attack, etc.)

The answer I'd give to why a Barbarian can't, say, Power Attack without Fighter Multiclass is that it's a more learned technique than what the standard Barbarian path treads (granted with that specific example Power Attack does seem kinda Barbarian-y but the general point still stands).

But anyway, yeah. The Fighter for me has always taken the identity of not just being a good fighter or having a special quirk or style for combat but for being the more direct student of war who doesn't so much have a gimmick like rage or nature as he does a deeper understanding of combat and the perks that come from it.

Exo-Guardians

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always seen Fighter as a Master of the Battlefield, whether through experience, or study a Fighter can take stock of a situation, take a breath, and punch a hole clean through his foe's weakest point, then at the drop of a hat he can pick up his bow and fend off waves upon waves of determined foes with arrow and blade while watching for an opportune moment to lead his allies in a glorious charge that smites down their villainous enemy, then when the fighting is done he can return to the tavern with his comrades and share a pint and a song or two before going out and doing it all again tomorrow.

For me the joy of playing a Fighter has always been in the simplicity of it, being simply a student of battle, one who makes use of no special blessings or innate talent to command the field of battle with skill and courage.

I find that often the best games I've had as a Fighter are not when I ask, how do I fight, but more about Why do I fight? For the other martial classes it's pretty straightforward.

Barbarians fight because it's in their blood.

Rangers fight to protect the wild, or people from the wild.

Paladins fight because their god commands them to.

Fighters fight, for any reason really, I find I'm less thematically limited by Fighter than almost any other class, only Monk holds almost as much thematic flexibility for me. And even then it is still more limited than fighter.


Knight Magenta wrote:

When I ask you "what is a pathfinder paladin about?" The answer is really easy. Its a "holy warrior." This gives a designer a lot of room to create cool abilities because that identity is a deep well of ideas that can be diverse but fit together and feel like a paladin. What about the other classes?

Barbarian -> Gets so angry that he can transcend human limits
Ranger -> Nature Warrior
Rogue -> Sneaky/Cunning Warrior
Monk -> Ascetic Warrior
Fighter -> ??? Warrior?

All of the martial classes are fundamentally about fighting. This is because pathfinder has easily ten times the page count dedicated to fighting then to non-combat interactions. In various incarnations of the game we've tried to make the fighter about being a "warrior warrior" by making him slightly better at combat then the other classes. This is unsatisfying because you can't actually do that without breaking the game. Most games of pathfinder are all about fighting, you can't have one class just be better then others at the same job.

P2 tried to fix this by giving the fighter his own unique feats, but because the fighter is not about anything there is no answer to "Why can't my barbarian power attack?" The reverse is not true though; if you ask "Why can't my fighter rage" the answer is "He is not angry enough!"

So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion:

Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.

We have different point of view. My wife built her paladin for The Lost Star playtest as an armored diplomat. Still I will give you Holy Warrior for the paladin. Barbarian would, of course, be Berserker Warrior, but since a berserker does not fit well into a party, they mixed in a lot of Noble Savage. If a rogue is played as a warrior rather than a skill monkey, Stealth Warrior is great. We would love for monk to be Ascetic Warrior, but we never figured out how to model "ascetic" in tabletop roleplaying, so he is really Unarmed Warrior.

I disagree on ranger as Nature Warrior. That class that starts with an animal companion at 1st level in Pathfinder 1st Edition and later shapeshifts into animals to fight--the druid is the Nature Warrior. Nature and survival is what the ranger does in his non-combat time. In Pathfinder 1st Edition, with archery or two-weapon fighting, ranger is the Nimble Warrior.

I had a player play a fighter as a Scholar Warrior in my Iron Gods campaign. I directed him to the Student of War prestige class to further this vision, but he eventually rebuilt his character more simply as a fighter/investigator multiclass to add the scholar aspect to the warrior. It is a viable roleplaying build, but it feels like an addition to the fighter rather than central to the fighter concept. Tactician Warrior rather than Scholar Warrior sounds more like what Knight Magenta is after.

I used to play a lot of Magic: The Gathering, with its five-color system of traits. Green started as the creature color, with the best creatures for attacking. But Wizards of the Coast realized that the game was more fun when all colors had good creatures on the battlefield. Before they clarified their vision to give green a better role, green got marginalized as the color of big, bland creatures, because no-one was allow to have the best creatures all around. And that would be the problem with fighter as Warrior Warrior. So long as the fighter stands shoulder to shoulder with other classes on the battlefield, then the fighter cannot be the best on the battlefield. Not even if the other warriors on the battefield are the Nature Warrior druid or the Spell Warrior magus or the Bomb Warrior alchemist. It wouldn't be fair.

So Pathfinder ended up in the same boat as Magic: The Gathering and fighter became the big, bland creature.

Fighter in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest seems to be the Master of Many Techniques (except for high-dexterity melee, which fighter does not support). Outside of combat, page 87 of the Playtest rulebook suggests that in exploration mode the fighter can be the big, strong guy who breaks down doors and lifts heavy objects. Boring. In downtime, he can be a manual laborer--which suggests lowly unskilled labor--or a craftsman. Hey, that last one has potential. The Blacksmith background and the Warrior background (with the Quick Repair feat) both fit the fighter. Fighter could be the Craftsman Warrior, keeping his armor and weapons in repair and maybe helping to design fortifications and keep the local army well equipped and well trained.

Thus, Tactician Warrior or Craftsman Warrior would be my goals for fighter class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
I used to play a lot of Magic: The Gathering, with its five-color system of traits. Green started as the creature color, with the best creatures for attacking. But Wizards of the Coast realized that the game was more fun when all colors had good creatures on the battlefield. Before they clarified their vision to give green a better role, green got marginalized as the color of big, bland creatures, because no-one was allow to have the best creatures all around.

I didn't know that about green, but that is exactly what I was trying to say :)

Mathmuse wrote:
Thus, Tactician Warrior or Craftsman Warrior would be my goals for fighter class.

I like imagining that the fighter could be split into 3 classes: a Wisdom focused, Charisma focused and Intelligence focused one. The int-fighter is the warrior scholar who fights by knowing his enemy. The wis-fighter is the disciplined mystic swordsman. The cha-fighter is the battle-field commander. Unfortunately, the monk is already the wis-fighter, and the bard is the cha-figher. So I only had an int-fighter to suggest.


Knight Magenta wrote:


You could make a game where classes are defined by their mechanical niche (see strong hero, fast hero, etc.. in d20 modern) but Pathfinder 1 and 2 are not that game.

First, we already have baggage attached to classes. We have canon paladins of Erastil that are not about tanking at all, but about being light armor-wearing archers. Second, you are supposed to get 11 class feats in P2. Since we expect the ability to pick from new options every level, you need at least 33 feats per class. I challenge you to come up with 33 unique abilities around the theme of "mobile skirmisher."

Finally, Paizo is already not using your approach. Look at the monk's ki powers. Why does a mobile skirmisher get magic? That makes no sense. But it does make sense if the monk's theme is "ascetic, self-sufficient warrior"

It appears to me that PF2 does attempt to define classes by their mechanical niche. I don't like it, but it's obviously there. Monk has how many non-skirmishing feats, 5? If your argument is that the fighter being defined by its mechanical niche has forced other classes to become too defined by a mechanical niche as well, then I agree with you. If a class is defined solely by mechanics than mechanics are weirdly restricted, and if they are defined solely by fluff, then classes are mostly interchangeable.

The erastil paladin is a good example of the problem. They sound like a ranger mechanically but with some paladin fluff. You could build classes that way, cut out most of the mechanical combat abilities and give them fluff and downtime packages, but I don't think people would find that satisfying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
It appears to me that PF2 does attempt to define classes by their mechanical niche. I don't like it, but it's obviously there. Monk has how many non-skirmishing feats, 5? If your argument is that the fighter being defined by its mechanical niche has forced other classes to become too defined by a mechanical niche as well, then I agree with you. If a class is defined solely by mechanics than mechanics are weirdly restricted, and if they are defined solely by fluff, then classes are mostly interchangeable.

So I am not actually sure what you mean by "skirmisher," so forgive me if I appear to be straw-manning you. It seems to me that at least half of the monk's class feats are encouraging him to stand still.

- Stances all take an action, which suggests that your first round is supposed to go: stance > move > flurry.

- the monk gets an option of 2 action strike every 4th level that adds a rider effect (and encourages a turn of 2-action strike > flurry)

- Tangled forest stance straight-up makes it hard for enemies to move away from you

- There is a grappling feat chain.

Also, most of the possible unarmed strikes are all agile. That means that your 3rd and 4th attacks are at a higher chance to hit. This again encourages you to stand still and make strikes.

ErichAD wrote:
The erastil paladin is a good example of the problem. They sound like a ranger mechanically but with some paladin fluff. You could build classes that way, cut out most of the mechanical combat abilities and give them fluff and downtime packages, but I don't think people would find that satisfying.

The ranger has no bow synergy :( The fighter has all the bow feats.


Knight Magenta wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
The erastil paladin is a good example of the problem. They sound like a ranger mechanically but with some paladin fluff. You could build classes that way, cut out most of the mechanical combat abilities and give them fluff and downtime packages, but I don't think people would find that satisfying.
The ranger has no bow synergy :( The fighter has all the bow feats.

I think Hunt target effectively making Bows agile is synergistic, since you have to worry less about movement, meaning you get a greater chance to make use of a second or third attack, but it is true that a number of the ranger's ranged feats are crossbow specific (though still most are agnostic about bow or crossbow and Impossible volley even is solely Bow). I don't think it's that the ranger has no bow synergy, it's just that they don't have as good bow synergy as a fighter, who gets better bow feats, namely the double shot line and point-blank shot


Knight Magenta wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
It appears to me that PF2 does attempt to define classes by their mechanical niche. I don't like it, but it's obviously there. Monk has how many non-skirmishing feats, 5? If your argument is that the fighter being defined by its mechanical niche has forced other classes to become too defined by a mechanical niche as well, then I agree with you. If a class is defined solely by mechanics than mechanics are weirdly restricted, and if they are defined solely by fluff, then classes are mostly interchangeable.

So I am not actually sure what you mean by "skirmisher," so forgive me if I appear to be straw-manning you. It seems to me that at least half of the monk's class feats are encouraging him to stand still.

- Stances all take an action, which suggests that your first round is supposed to go: stance > move > flurry.

- the monk gets an option of 2 action strike every 4th level that adds a rider effect (and encourages a turn of 2-action strike > flurry)

- Tangled forest stance straight-up makes it hard for enemies to move away from you

- There is a grappling feat chain.

Also, most of the possible unarmed strikes are all agile. That means that your 3rd and 4th attacks are at a higher chance to hit. This again encourages you to stand still and make strikes.

ErichAD wrote:
The erastil paladin is a good example of the problem. They sound like a ranger mechanically but with some paladin fluff. You could build classes that way, cut out most of the mechanical combat abilities and give them fluff and downtime packages, but I don't think people would find that satisfying.
The ranger has no bow synergy :( The fighter has all the bow feats.

I see, sorry for my sloppy language. I mean someone who fights using cover, terrain and distance to gain advantage being able to maintain constant pressure on the target regardless of their tactics.

Stances take an action, but after the first round you're good to go. Move in, flurry, move out. Later on you get feats that remove the cost of activating the style.
The two action strikes appear to be disengaging or engaging strikes, like flying kick or knock back strike. Their grappling chain is grab/hamper/toss, so while you aren't moving you're still putting a good distance between you and the target.

Lashing branch is interesting in that it lets you lock opponents down and move them around fairly easily. It could be used to lock down ranged attackers and casters and can also be used to make an opening for escape if surrounded. Since the natural enemy of the skirmishing style is a strong ranged attacker, having a way to reverse their normal technique is pretty valuable. It is an odd man out though.

My comment about the Erastil paladin was refering to PF1. You're right, since fighters got all the good bow feats in PF2, they'd end up being fighters. Hopefully that situation is changed shortly. Naming the speculative archer dedication "deadeye" is probably a good sign for Erastil followers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

I see, sorry for my sloppy language. I mean someone who fights using cover, terrain and distance to gain advantage being able to maintain constant pressure on the target regardless of their tactics.

...

Ya, that makes sense.

I guess my complaint is that I would prefer a broader fluff-defined class identity instead of A tighter mechanical identity. I think its easier to write content for the fluffier classes; leads to more player customization. That being said, you may be right that Paizo is going in the opposite direction. Then new books won't contain new class feats for the fighter, but might contain new classes, like "Marksman" or something to that effect.


I saw the fighter as the "professional" warrior. The paladin has the divine power, the barbarian has rage and aggressiveness, the ranger has skirmishing ability and (often) an animal companion, but what does the fighter have? The answer is training. Lots of it, in weapon groups, in multiple types of armor, and in several combat styles. Nobody but the fighter could afford the kind of feat investment in PF1 to have weapon specialization, all the cleaving feats, a bunch of other battlefield utility feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

Once again, Spheres of Power is a good source of inspiration. The Conscript is a good example of what a fighter should be. There's a massive pool of combat talents, which anyone can take, that are comparable to feats (especially with 2e's class feats). But whereas most people get 10-15, or possibly 20 (plus 4 from their martial tradition), the conscript gets 30, with the possibility of taking another 10 from class features alone, if they always take Extra Combat Talent with their bonus feats.

Other classes might specialize in particular spheres, but if you just want variety and raw martial power, you want the conscript.

Saga Edition is also an option. It condensed 9 classes down to 5 (and frankly could have done with only 4 by combining Scout and Scoundrel) and had the new classes absorb the options of the cut classes. If martials are all one class and can learn special abilities like "rage" or "ki strike" you don't need to figure out what the Fighter is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:


Saga Edition is also an option. It condensed 9 classes down to 5 (and frankly could have done with only 4 by combining Scout and Scoundrel) and had the new classes absorb the options of the cut classes. If martials are all one class and can learn special abilities like "rage" or "ki strike" you don't need to figure out what the Fighter is.

Saga Edition is fantastic, because it only had five base classes and never added any more, but each one got to choose from such a wide variety of talents and feats that they were infinitely customizable; you could have four PCs of the same class in a party and every one of them would play entirely differently.

When Paizo started talking about getting to pick class feats in PF2, I thought they were moving in a similar direction, so I'm rather disappointed that they're making the classes much more restrictive than they were before instead of more open.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that the figther is vague enough in its description so I can take the mechanics presented and make the character I have in mind. (or at least it was in pf1 i suspect it will take some time before pf2 is there.)


Aside from their in-combat identity, what can be claimed as the Fighter's definitive out-of-combat identity?


Lucas Yew wrote:
Aside from their in-combat identity, what can be claimed as the Fighter's definitive out-of-combat identity?

Whatever seems appropriate for the character? A fighter when there isn't a battle going on might be a hired guard, the local blacksmith, a city watchman, the bouncer at the local inn, the innkeeper of that same inn, or the lord of a small holding.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I find the idea that class gives 'identity' to be really weird.
Class gives mechanics. Backstory (not backgrounds, which are also mechanics) gives identity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Yeah, I find the idea that class gives 'identity' to be really weird.

Class gives mechanics. Backstory (not backgrounds, which are also mechanics) gives identity.

Class identity is how easy it is to identify the class when you are playing with/as it. take a P1 monk for example: it has a lot of identity as a lightly armored, slightly mystic martial artist. You can tell someone is playing even an archetyped monk based on what they do and how they fight (most of the time).

P2 backgrounds have almost zero identity. Consider: can you tell me the background of your last character without looking it up? I know I can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Voss wrote:

Hmm. I don't really agree with the premise at all. In their playtest form, I'd happily fold all the other martial classes into sub-classes (or feat-chains) or archetypes for fighters.

They bring nothing to the table beyond a meaningless coat of paint, and separate out fairly generic things (crossbows, shielding allies, punching, being able to use small damage die weapons in a functional way) and try (and fail) to build an entire class around them.

In my view, fighter is one of the few playtest classes in good shape.

You could boil it all down to 4 classes I guess; Fighting Guy, Skill Guy, Holy Guy and Magic Guy. Then use Archetypes for all the fine details.

which might not be a bad idea. You could then break all the class feats down into Combat, Skill, Holy and Arcane. With Ancestry and General feats as side options.

Paladin Archetype for the Holy guy gives you access to the Combat feats. Ranger Archetype for the Fighting Guy gives you access to skill feats, etc....

That wasn't really where I was aiming. The problem is the playtest ranger, paladin, monk and barbarian are far too specific and narrow concepts mostly focused on what you can do with tiny bonuses to one piece of kit (big weapons, crossbows, shields or none). There isn't a class there. Classes need to be broader ideas, like the fighter.

Alchemists have a similar problem, they can just be replaced by anyone with gold and access to an alchemy shop.

Rogues actually have a different problem (that I glossed over by lumping them in with the above)- they're buried in a deluge garbage in the form of skill increases and (especially) skill feats. Too many non-interesting things to keep track off.

I disagree. All of the other classes you mentioned actually DO have strong flavours to them and a solid idea behind their objectives, progression and sense of purpose.

Generally speaking, in every d20 rpg like this I have tried the fighter feels as generic as they get. Given the way in which it is usually implemented, I personally wouldn't even consider it a class. It's more akin to a "heavy armored soldier npc". That's why it has never really piqued my interst (as a PC choice).
I would give it clear themes to chose from when you build it (gladiator, mercenary, commander-strategist leader, etc.), maybe then I will be interested in playing one.


Knight Magenta wrote:

(...)

So give the fighter something to call his own. A random suggestion:

Warrior Scholar: The fighter knows his enemy. He can seamlessly change up his style; switching weapons quickly and gaining unique benefits from different weapon groups. He can also direct his allies to best attack the enemies' weak-points.

I love your suggestion. I'm thinking also: military leader >> something akin to a bard but focused more on combat play, like "military knowledge" (give buffs if you pass an enemy identification check), know or even create weak spots in your foes, or even "summon" npc hirelings due to their military connections (could work differently depending on the setting: city guards/hunters/trappers/scavengers)... the possibilites are endless


LotsOfLore wrote:
Voss wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Voss wrote:

Hmm. I don't really agree with the premise at all. In their playtest form, I'd happily fold all the other martial classes into sub-classes (or feat-chains) or archetypes for fighters.

They bring nothing to the table beyond a meaningless coat of paint, and separate out fairly generic things (crossbows, shielding allies, punching, being able to use small damage die weapons in a functional way) and try (and fail) to build an entire class around them.

In my view, fighter is one of the few playtest classes in good shape.

You could boil it all down to 4 classes I guess; Fighting Guy, Skill Guy, Holy Guy and Magic Guy. Then use Archetypes for all the fine details.

which might not be a bad idea. You could then break all the class feats down into Combat, Skill, Holy and Arcane. With Ancestry and General feats as side options.

Paladin Archetype for the Holy guy gives you access to the Combat feats. Ranger Archetype for the Fighting Guy gives you access to skill feats, etc....

That wasn't really where I was aiming. The problem is the playtest ranger, paladin, monk and barbarian are far too specific and narrow concepts mostly focused on what you can do with tiny bonuses to one piece of kit (big weapons, crossbows, shields or none). There isn't a class there. Classes need to be broader ideas, like the fighter.

Alchemists have a similar problem, they can just be replaced by anyone with gold and access to an alchemy shop.

Rogues actually have a different problem (that I glossed over by lumping them in with the above)- they're buried in a deluge garbage in the form of skill increases and (especially) skill feats. Too many non-interesting things to keep track off.

I disagree. All of the other classes you mentioned actually DO have strong flavours to them and a solid idea behind their objectives, progression and sense of purpose.

Generally speaking, in every d20 rpg like this I have tried the fighter feels as...

How about the PF1 implementation of: "All of them"? Just need to be creative and Fighter can be anything you want. It's just not a class that says "this is how you RP this guy" since it could be many things.


LotsOfLore wrote:


I disagree. All of the other classes you mentioned actually DO have strong flavours to them and a solid idea behind their objectives, progression and sense of purpose.

Is it.. in a different document? These supposed flavors certainly aren't apparent to me

The ranger can juggle a bunch of feats and actions to get better damage on crossbows, or alternately, someone can play a cleric, worship Abadar and take the feat that makes the favored weapon (crossbows) better all the time. I don't see a lot of strong flavor there. And it doesn't even work well with the class ability, since you have to punctuate attacks with reloads (lessening the value of hunt target).

Alternately, it can juggle a bunch of different feats and actions, and have a juvenile bear spontaneously mutate over several levels. I have no idea how this relates to crossbows, or two weapon fighting or any sense of progression or purpose.

Really, what's the purpose and objective of lay on hands and the multiple feats to make it vaguely functional (but still bad), when the paladin can just take up the cleric's very superior healing ability as a 4th level feat? Their other abilities aren't even worth mentioning.

--
For your own problems with the fighter, I can't really empathize. Not having a tacked on theme always makes me more interested in a class, as I can make my own thing out of it, not just produce another mechanical copy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter is the martial Wizard. They don't have special fiddly class features for a reason, just as a Wizard can optionally not have weird fiddly class features either (Universalist).

The reason I play a Fighter is because there is incredible flexibility with how he fills his role. And while many may think "fighting" is a narrow role, they forget the fact that over history there has been hundreds of ways of fighting for various reasons.

The Fighter is meant to embody that and allow for all kinds of play in the space of combat. You can play a fencer, an archer, a crossbowman, a sword and board, switch hitter, pikeman, knight, hussar, etc.

List any historical warrior or combatant and a Fighter can readily exemplify them. So the idea that the Fighter is just... a Fighter is a shallow way of looking at it. Character concepts aren't linked only to their mechanics, and just as Wizard can be an illusionist, a necromancer, or a evocation specialist a Fighter can be so many different things. It's the whole purpose of the class.

I think Fighters will truly shine when we have a full list of Archetypes and Multiclasses out. If you want to specialize your Fighter and make him more unique beyond the selections bound to the class you have plenty of class feat slots to dump on multiclassing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter doesn't represent these warriors though. It represents shallow archetypes of them. The fighter's problem hasn't been fighting things and that the various combat feats and fighting styles keep getting brought out as the solution to the fighter's identity problem is baffling.

It's even more confusing since unfortunately that's the route Paizo seems to have reinforced in the playtest so far. Again, all of the Fighter's class features are dedicated towards fighting. His extra feats are all dedicated to combat. There is next to no definition for a Fighter as is now or even in most of PF1 unless the only depth you sought to try and improve upon or replicate was combat related. The fighter's bonus feats in PF1 weren't a catch all after all, they were required to be combat feats and nothing else.

Warriors of past and present are not dumb, unintelligent or uncharismatic. They can serve as diplomats without needing to resort to intimidate. They CAN and have solved detailed problems that required extensive study in the fields of medicine and logistics, despite what the playtest rulebook seems to think.

The Pathfinder fighter embodies none of these things RAW and 2nd edition doesn't seem to be helping in trying to define the fighter as anything other than a wargaming miniature pidgeonholed into an RPG.


Knight Magenta wrote:
Voss wrote:

Yeah, I find the idea that class gives 'identity' to be really weird.

Class gives mechanics. Backstory (not backgrounds, which are also mechanics) gives identity.

Class identity is how easy it is to identify the class when you are playing with/as it. take a P1 monk for example: it has a lot of identity as a lightly armored, slightly mystic martial artist. You can tell someone is playing even an archetyped monk based on what they do and how they fight (most of the time).

P2 backgrounds have almost zero identity. Consider: can you tell me the background of your last character without looking it up? I know I can't.

My wife, a grandmaster of roleplaying, says that we can see class identity when our character enters a tavern alone. Al the tables are taken but each has an empty seat or two. Do you sit at the table of people in heavy armor discussing the different theological principles of the gods? Do you sit at the table of people in robes passing around a wand and examining it in details? Do you sit at the table of people in colorful clothes strumping on lutes and teaching each other tunes?

Or you could imagine you are an artist. A Pathfinder fan commissions you to draw a group of 12 people who represent the 12 core classes, without using the iconic characters. How do you distinguish the fighter from the barbarian? How do you distinguish the monk from the sorcerer?

My wife has made the PF2 backgrounds into identity elements. Her barbarian for In the Shadow of Pale Mountain is a nomad deeply immersed in Mountain Lore. Her skill feats are about climbing. Her paladin for The Lost Star is a mind quake survivor. When he was a goblin boy picking through garbage, he suffered a mind quake after finding a tossed out Dark Tapestry item, and was tended by a compassionate cleric of Alseta. He now serves the clinic where the cleric works, and Alseta granted him the powers of a hospice paladin.

In contrast, both wizards I have seen in the two chapters were Scholars. The rogue in Lost Star and the ranger in Pale Mountain are Scouts. The players chose backgrounds that would stay in the background.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree completely with the OP. a "fighter" that is all about combat wont contribute much outside it, and for more rp-focused campaigns, that is a drag. almost all the archetypes for a figher in pf1 are shallow, and are potentially not high level concepts, but something you should be able to do with a feat or two. You need a concept that scales to high level, with unique abilities, and a clear out of combat role. I usually dont play fighters anymore, because i feel they limit my roleplaying and makes me drag down the party too much these days.

The second issue is loot. Making the fighter a weapon expert means that you lose a LOT of class features by going for the shiny new weapon you looted in that crypt, making that new shiny weapon potentially useless to the entire party. D&D 5e has no weapon mastery probably for this very reason.


ParcelRod wrote:

The fighter doesn't represent these warriors though. It represents shallow archetypes of them. The fighter's problem hasn't been fighting things and that the various combat feats and fighting styles keep getting brought out as the solution to the fighter's identity problem is baffling.

It's even more confusing since unfortunately that's the route Paizo seems to have reinforced in the playtest so far. Again, all of the Fighter's class features are dedicated towards fighting. His extra feats are all dedicated to combat. There is next to no definition for a Fighter as is now or even in most of PF1 unless the only depth you sought to try and improve upon or replicate was combat related. The fighter's bonus feats in PF1 weren't a catch all after all, they were required to be combat feats and nothing else.

And I don't see that as a problem. I can make a similarly narrow comparison for the Monk, or the Ninja. Both those classes were dedicated to being renditions of cheesy Chinese Kung-Fu movies.

I think what we're forgetting here is that combat to the fighter is magic to the mage. It's religion to the cleric. It's music to the bard. And there's nothing wrong with that unless for some reason you think that being deeply immersed in your art (combat) as the Fighter is somehow a negative. Just because the fighter doesn't rage, or smite evil, or throw down mystic totems or lurk in the shadows (most of the time) doesn't mean he needs some "unique" thing about him. There comes a point where everyone being unique becomes boring, and the most of all limiting to a player's creativity.

ParcelRod wrote:
Warriors of past and present are not dumb, unintelligent or uncharismatic. They can serve as diplomats without needing to resort to intimidate. They CAN and have solved detailed problems that required extensive study in the fields of medicine and logistics, despite what the playtest rulebook seems to think.

There is nothing stopping the Fighter from doing any of those things. Especially not in Pathfinder 2e where the Fighters get even more skills than they did in Pathfinder 1e. This already allows them to be more versatile in out of combat situations should you so choose them to be.

The ability score system also allows for more varied attribute fighters. Charismatic ones, Intelligent ones, Wise ones. Heck, even Pathfinder 1e had an archetype which allowed for an Intelligence based Fighter. That said, nothing in the playtest prevents fighters from doing what you've stated. They just aren't going to be the absolute best at it.

ParcelRod wrote:
The Pathfinder fighter embodies none of these things RAW and 2nd edition doesn't seem to be helping in trying to define the fighter as anything other than a wargaming miniature pidgeonholed into an RPG.

Personally, I find this complaint similar to complaining that the Bard is simply the party jukebox. Or the cleric is just a walking medpack. Sure, you can dilute each class to such descriptions but at the end of the day the liveliness and detail of a character often comes from a player, not the rulebook. If you can't see the fun or interest in making different kinds of combatants and flavor through them then perhaps it's more likely that the class is just not for you?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The design place for the fighter is meant to be analogous to it's presentation in PF1, where they introduced all the critical feats for effects fighters get to activate on crits. Now fighters are designed to have close to exclusive access to critical hits with weapons and are the only class that can switch weapon groups maintaining proficiency. This allows them access to all critical specialization effects. It's not inaccessible to the other classes, but it's much more ala cart for the fighter. Later on the fighter gets a few flexibility slots for taking those really situational feats with niche application. There's also a mechanic around the fighter getting extra reactions to be able to use all his cool tactics at least once per turn. It's basically the only class that gets this. This is your PF2 fighter right now.

Given the supplements in PF1, the fighter was intended more to have an equipment specialization class. The fighter could add any weapon quality with warrior spirit, so long as their weapon training was high enough. They could craft their own armor, and got magic armor built right into the class features. Then, they got stamina which opened them up to skip silly feat prerequisites, and gave them a pool ability to boost their combat. As if skipping feat prerequisites, and being able to boost any attack up by +5, this class feature also had an upgrade for almost every combat feat in the role playing line of feats. When combining some choice feats with a special item specifically for fighters, they could swap around like 4 combat feats, enough to grab an entire feat chain.

All of this was enhanced by magic items, this may seem controversial, but a class that functions like a Tony Stark class and can get feats to craft runes and armor could be the ultimate martial class. The weapon and armor mastery stuff could really serve as true class feats, and the combat style identity feats could be openly accessible. That's my ideal PF2 fighter. Open feats, plus access to crafting and equipment expertise. I'll the the "weapon style archetype" feat chains as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want a forced flavor for the fighter myself. I want to be able to use it to play a viking, a knight, a mercenary etc.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I don't want a forced flavor for the fighter myself. I want to be able to use it to play a viking, a knight, a mercenary etc.

But should still make some flavorful feats for them to take! Gimme them Blackjacket Tactics.


Oh yeah I agree.


I would rather see fighter class removed from the game.

Then you can split it into:

Champion/weapon master; martial class focused on offence with weapons without magic tricks with average armor skills.

Knight/guardian: martial class focused on improving armor abilities without magic tricks and protecting others.

Anything outside that look at: ranger, barbarian, monk, rogue


Fighter (supposedly) doesn't have enough identity so split it into more classes with even less?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fighter is simply a PROPER FIGHTING warrior. No divine mystics, no idealistic law-abiding, and rogue's cunning doesn't usually work where one needs to be tough, strong and straightforward.

Fighters are special, outstanding warriors that make their side win in a clash of other warriors, that are not SO outstanding (be it warrior NPCs or pal/rang/monk/ etc.). They are always the lads and lasses that do the job while some paladin are busy drowning in their divine pathos (barbarians in their rage obsession, rangers in nature bond, etc).


I decided to ask an expert, my wife. She said that the fighter is the Versatile Warrior. I argued that since the fighter's versatility is from selecting feats, an individual fighter has no extra versatility once the feats are in place. She counterargued, "He's what you make him to be." We gradually reached a consensus: the fighter class is designed to fill the martial niche that the party needs.

In the classic four-member party of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard, the fighter is the solid front line. His attacks of opportunity protect the squishy wizard behind him.

Replace the wizard with a bard, and the wizard's ranged spells will be missed. The fighter equips a bow and practices archery. Next replace the cleric with an alchemist specializing in healing potions and bombs, and the party no longer has a front line. Everyone is skirmishing all over the battlefield and the fighter needs mobility. He swaps his heavy armor for something more flexible. The rogue retires and a druid with a bear companion takes his place. The fighter now finds himself providing flanking for a bear.

If at any point during this campaign, the other players say, "Hey, give up on the fighter. We need a barbarian/monk/paladin/ranger or some other martial class instead," then the fighter class has failed in its mission. The stretch goal would be when the players say, "What new character should you bring when you join the game? Fighter is always good."

For the design of the fighter class, this means that the fighter should have a lot of options even without retraining and new gear. If respecifying the fighter requires changing both feats and gear, then the versatility has too high of a cost. Also, changing ability scores should not be necessary. There needs to be a way for a high-Strength low-Dexterity fighter be make effective ranged attacks (maybe a feat for double range on thrown weapons so that he can exploit his Strength to damage more?) and for a low-Strength high-Dexterity fighter to deal martial-level damage in melee. The fighter who has invested heavily into heavy armor needs a way to be mobile despite the speed penalty.

And if the fighter needs a skill feat for that versatility, then he needs to qualify for the feat. I recommend giving the fighter a few extra skill increases. The rogue gets one per level, all other classes get one every odd level, why not compromise on the fighter and give him one for 3/4 of the levels: 2nd, 3rd, skip 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, skip 8th, 9th, etc. That will also give the fighter some options outside of combat.

The fighter's motto will be, "I trained for that."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the fighter is definitely good as a frame for building a lot of different warrior types, but I think it needs more budget for building its out of combat identity. Fighters could be lots of things out of combat - thugs, officers, smiths, knights, raiders.

The problem I see with the PF1 fighter is that just about all the "budget" he gets, can be spent on more combat-role components. He gets lots of feats, all of which can be spent on combat stuff. He doesn't get a whole lot of skill points, and after paying the "necessary" Perception tax there's little left.

Now, you don't have to spend your "class feature budget" on combat; but you'll be compared to other people who do. Envy of combat monster powergamers, or people saying "APs need tougher fights to challenge optimized melee characters" happen. And it goes against the idea of having a class-based game engine in the first place.

Class/level based game engines always force you to divide your budget; you can't just spend all your XP just on BAB or one particular saving throw. You progress in multiple aspects of your character. This kind of protects players against themselves, curbing some overspecialization that would unhinge the game.

The problem the fighter has is that because it does not have a canonical out of combat identity, it also doesn't claim a good separate budget for out of combat stuff.

I think in PF2 the fighter should get a minimum % of class features devoted to non-combat stuff, but with a lot of leeway on what to spend it on. You can use it to become a crafter who ensures the party's gear is always up to snuff; or become the officer who optimizes the party's exploration tactics, or the aristocrat who opens doors of powerful NPCs.

TL;DR - embrace the versatility of the fighter's non-identity, but enforce every fighter actually picking up some form of non-combat role as well.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Class identity: Why the fighter can't be just about fighting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes