It seems the Fighter was nerfed too

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too. The number of attacks is less and the feats are much weaker. Power attack gives you an extra damage die but it counts as two actions and you get multiple attack penalties. Seems to me you are better off swinging twice as that will give you your STR modifier and statistically you are more likely to hit at least once. This gets fixed at 6th level with another feat in that you don't have the multiple attack penalty but it still takes two actions meaning you could still make two strikes.

S power attack was the go to damage feat for fighters nerfing it does hurt them. Overall it seems the took feats everyone could take and instead just made them only for the fighter but overall it seems they toned down the feats.

I don't know maybe this is good too.

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

I don't know yet, what have they upped for the fighter that gives them more benefits.

Really the balance of the game has changed around the fighter. While you can't charge the giant in your example to deal 200 damage necessarily, you can do an equivalent job if that is your focus as a fighter.

The fighter is the class of martial versatility from my reading. Like 1e they can be built to be a tank, a melee striker or a high AC defender.

At least that's my $.02. I haven't played a fighter in 2e or had a player in a game play one so your mileage may vary.

They didn't "nerf" anything. PF2 is a new game, it has new rules, comparing damage numbers to PF1 is just as fallacious as comparing them to 5e.

They're different systems based on different rules and gameplay assumptions, you can't directly compare numbers and gain any useful information because the damage is relative to the challenges/monsters of each game.

Yes Power Attack is different, it's no longer mandatory and often not the best option, as intended.

Fighters however are in no way weak.

Fighter is in my opinion the class they took care of the most.

It is fun to play and balanced around everything, allowing you to play whatever role you like.

I suggest you to try different classes in terms of balance and versatility, in order to compare them to the fighter.

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too. The number of attacks is less and the feats are much weaker. Power attack gives you an extra damage die but it counts as two actions and you get multiple attack penalties. Seems to me you are better off swinging twice as that will give you your STR modifier and statistically you are more likely to hit at least once. This gets fixed at 6th level with another feat in that you don't have the multiple attack penalty but it still takes two actions meaning you could still make two strikes.

S power attack was the go to damage feat for fighters nerfing it does hurt them. Overall it seems the took feats everyone could take and instead just made them only for the fighter but overall it seems they toned down the feats.

I don't know maybe this is good too.

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

I don't know yet, what have they upped for the fighter that gives them more benefits.

Which 1E feat allowed a fighter a full attack on the charge? I ask because that is news to me. I know the barbarian had a way of doing it...

Also something I hate with these nerf threads is they invariably focus on the level range that sees least actual playtime.

Like stating the fighter gets to make less attacks. Well that is true at the high levels, but at the low levels pf2e characters get to make more attacks. It's TRUE in some circumstances but basically never when you have to move more than 5ft.

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too.

...why would you ever compare numbers directly between two systems, instead of comparing 2E classes to other 2E classes?

I have a tough time seeing how the only class that gets Expert proficiency with nearly all weapon attacks at 1st level can be considered "nerfed".

Fighter is one of the better classes in 2e. If you're looking at the Fighter edition by edition, 2e Fighter far surpasses 1e Fighter. It's not even a contest.

Quote:

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too.

...why would you ever compare numbers directly between two systems, instead of comparing 2E classes to other 2E classes?

Because when you put the same name on something, you create certain expectations. Why do sequels get compared to their predecessors? Why is software compared to the previous version? Or last year's model car to this year's model?

If you want to cash in on brand recognition, you have to accept that you're inviting comparison to previous entries.

HammerJack wrote:

Quote:

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too.

...why would you ever compare numbers directly between two systems, instead of comparing 2E classes to other 2E classes?

Because when you put the same name on something, you create certain expectations. Why do sequels get compared to their predecessors? Why is software compared to the previous version? Or last year's model car to this year's model?

If you want to cash in on brand recognition, you have to accept that you're inviting comparison to previous entries.

Yeah, maybe, but it's different here: in-game balance is another thing.

HammerJack wrote:

Quote:

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too.

...why would you ever compare numbers directly between two systems, instead of comparing 2E classes to other 2E classes?

Why is software compared to the previous version? Or last year's model car to this year's model?

This isn't really the same, since cars a generally compared based on their ability to drive and the definition of driving doesn't change year to year.

PF1 to PF2 would be like comparing CarA and CarB and complaining that CarB can't go as fast as CarA while ignoring that roads are now covered in fire and CarB can fly.

Same with games/software. Do I care that in GTA V it takes 3 shots to blow up a certain vehicle while in GTA IV it only took 2?

No. Why? because I'm playing GTA V so only the rules that pertain to the game I'm playing matter.

This isn't really the same, since cars a generally compared based on their ability to drive and the definition of driving doesn't change year to year.

PF1 to PF2 would be like comparing CarA and CarB and complaining that CarB can't go as fast as CarA while ignoring that roads are now covered in fire and CarB can fly.

Same with games/software. Do I care that in GTA V it takes 3 shots to blow up a certain vehicle while in GTA IV it only took 2?

No. Why? because I'm playing GTA V so only the rules that pertain to the game I'm playing matter.

You can compare cars based on whatever criteria are important to you: Gas mileage, looks, comfort, power, storage space, hauling tonnage. That they all perform the same basic function might be all you care about, but when comparing different vehicles you decide what features are important to you.

The definition of table top RPG did not change between editions of Pathfinder. They both 'drive'. Unless you think it doesn't, but that's not here or there.

When Hollywood reboots a film franchise, the new product is compared to the old. Saying that you shouldn't compare two products with the same name in the same niche is silly.

If the decision is 'What do I invest my time in' then comparing two different editions makes perfect sense. Coming to the Paizo forum and complaining about it might not.

Vlorax wrote:

This isn't really the same, since cars a generally compared based on their ability to drive and the definition of driving doesn't change year to year.

PF1 to PF2 would be like comparing CarA and CarB and complaining that CarB can't go as fast as CarA while ignoring that roads are now covered in fire and CarB can fly.

Same with games/software. Do I care that in GTA V it takes 3 shots to blow up a certain vehicle while in GTA IV it only took 2?

No. Why? because I'm playing GTA V so only the rules that pertain to the game I'm playing matter.

You can compare cars based on whatever criteria are important to you: Gas mileage, looks, comfort, power, storage space, hauling tonnage. That they all perform the same basic function might be all you care about, but when comparing different vehicles you decide what features are important to you.

The definition of table top RPG did not change between editions of Pathfinder. They both 'drive'. Unless you think it doesn't, but that's not here or there.

Cars do not get a complete system overhaul inbetween models in how they basically function.

P2 from P1 did.

We're not talking about video game sequels (which also don't always work exactly the same, the Borderlands series for example has the numbers go wildly back and forth between games).

If the decision is 'What do I invest my time in' then comparing two different editions makes perfect sense. Coming to the Paizo forum and complaining about it might not.

Comparing editions in terms of their overall system structure and how fun they are to play makes sense.

But trying to do a number by numbers comparison and drawing conclusions from them when the entire system math is different isn't really that and doesn't give us any meaningful answers.

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too. The number of attacks is less and the feats are much weaker. Power attack gives you an extra damage die but it counts as two actions and you get multiple attack penalties. Seems to me you are better off swinging twice as that will give you your STR modifier and statistically you are more likely to hit at least once. This gets fixed at 6th level with another feat in that you don't have the multiple attack penalty but it still takes two actions meaning you could still make two strikes.

S power attack was the go to damage feat for fighters nerfing it does hurt them. Overall it seems the took feats everyone could take and instead just made them only for the fighter but overall it seems they toned down the feats.

I don't know maybe this is good too.

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

I don't know yet, what have they upped for the fighter that gives them more benefits.

Let me put it simply: You're approaching this new game from a wrong perspective.

The entire game mechanical environment changed. The design paradigm changed. Power attack became just another tool in your belt, not a crutch that you must have with every martial character.

There's no more mandatory feats to make your character keep up with the game, now every feat choice is something you'll pick to either allow you to do something you couldn't before, something better than before or to enhance your fighting style (archery, dual-wielding, etc).

As soon as you get this idea in your head, you will see that things are really good, you're just thinking about them with your Pathfinder 1st edition googles. They do NOT apply here.

Yeah, if using a car comparison, it would be like if car make/model had their own unique "speed/distance" unit, making direct comparison irrelevant, just as direct comparison of "damage points" between system is irrelevant.

I think people are attracted to that partly because they may not be familiar with many other systems, and thus concieve of things mostly from "operating perspective" of one particular system paradigm, where relevance of particular mechanical consructs have consistent relevance.

But also because they believe the simplicity of 1:1 comparison makes it valid, or in other words, the fact they are making the comparison makes it valid. Assessing broader system dynamics isn't quite as reducible to linear comparison, so they pick one simple comparison and assume it therefore must be relevant. The lure of false concreteness.

Similarly, it would be silly to compare value of a skill rank in 2E to a skill rank in 1E.

This is more like comparing your car's speed in MPH to another car's speed in Km/h and complaining the MPH number is smaller so the car must be worse.

It's like complaining that your 3.5 fighter is stuck with a 23 AC when your AD&D fighter had a -2 AC at the same level. AC comparison makes sense. Comparing the fighters effectiveness against the things they fight makes sense. Comparing those 2 numbers directly does not.

Anyhow, other mechanics may share name with older mechanic yet have fundamentally different role... Like now staple of magical healing, Heal spell, which is roughly on par with old Cure Wounds without condition removal etc.

More constructive might be if people could share the situational benefit or strengths of Power Attack in 2E. This was something that confused many people's expectations in Playtest, so perhaps actively unlearning assumptions to focus on it's actually new role could be beneficial to OP and others.

The OP compares it deterimentally to making 2 attacks, but in fact that doesn't account for normal "full attack" turn where choice is making 3 attacks or 2 attacks with one being Power Attack. An attack at -10 has weak chance to hit, so Power Attack is valuable there even without Furious Focus. Again, isolated comparison less relevant than taking system context into account.

My PF2 fighter's THAC0 is too high, or too low. Whichever the bad one is.

Power attack gives you an extra damage die but it counts as two actions and you get multiple attack penalties.

It's looking like you might think that you take a penalty on the attack roll for Power Attack even if it's your first attack on this turn.

That's not how it works. Despite being two actions and counting as two attacks for multiple attack penalty, it doesn't have a larger penalty to itself than a Strike would have.

so you can Power Attack, then make another Strike at a -10 penalty (or just a -5 penalty if you've got the other feat), or Strike and then Power Attack at a -5 penalty.

They didn't "nerf" anything. PF2 is a new game, it has new rules, comparing damage numbers to PF1 is just as fallacious as comparing them to 5e.

They're different systems based on different rules and gameplay assumptions, you can't directly compare numbers and gain any useful information because the damage is relative to the challenges/monsters of each game.

Thank you! I came here to say EXACTLY this.

Vlorax wrote:

They didn't "nerf" anything. PF2 is a new game, it has new rules, comparing damage numbers to PF1 is just as fallacious as comparing them to 5e.

They're different systems based on different rules and gameplay assumptions, you can't directly compare numbers and gain any useful information because the damage is relative to the challenges/monsters of each game.

Thank you! I came here to say EXACTLY this.

PF2 is a new game, those few words are the only way to accept swallowing that pill. But because it's the same brand, they did really nerf EVERYTHING. That explain pretty well that gut feeling of anyone with a trace of expectation coming in. That's the idea conveyed by OP.

Having one arm tied in the back and both feet in a bag is the new way to try overcoming already hard challenges (growing almost faster than you).
Cheers !

P1E's Fighter started on Core Rulebook page 55. P2E's Fighter starts on Core Rulebook page 140. That's a 250% buff.

Fighter is in my opinion the class they took care of the most.

It is fun to play and balanced around everything, allowing you to play whatever role you like.

I suggest you to try different classes in terms of balance and versatility, in order to compare them to the fighter.

I would agree. I think fighter might actually be the strongest class in terms of in combat ability. And the rogue is the best in terms of skills, with the bard slightly behind.

To me, the really showed their love to the fighter and rogue.

Can't help to feel somewhat offended by this thread, seems like a parody of the "Wizard nerfed" threads, which I find to have actual legitimate concerns. This kinda ridicules people who actually want improvements for their class.

Anyways, I do believe Fighter is the most powerful class in the game while in-combat, much like many others. If anything, they are only an issue because of how everyone compares other classes to them and can rarely measure up.

They didn't "nerf" anything. PF2 is a new game, it has new rules, comparing damage numbers to PF1 is just as fallacious as comparing them to 5e.

They're different systems based on different rules and gameplay assumptions, you can't directly compare numbers and gain any useful information because the damage is relative to the challenges/monsters of each game.

This!!! Exactily what i think! A new game!

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

Fighters haven't been nerfed, giants have been uped!

The game expectations have changed. Combat in P1E was trivial past low levels. Now, giants are strong, and you won't kill them before they even had the right to play.

Just sharing some play experience here:

I'm running Age of Ashes, and the party fighter is incomparably the absolute combat beast - and this is in a party with a greatsword-wielding Gorumite battle cleric and a fairly murderous rogue. I've had two different encounters end with "and the fighter crits twice in a row, killing the monster from nearly full health".

Not to mention "this guy's AC is pretty high, so the fighter only hits on a six or better" has become a running joke.

Fighters are without question the most powerful they've ever been, in any d20 game.

And you can still crit for pretty massive damage. Especially with the correct weapons / runes.

A cir with a maxed out a Greatpick Fighter with +3 Striking, Grievous, Power Attach, Weapon Spec, two elemental runes, and Str 24 (plus I'm sure there's more you could add I forgot) that's an AVERAGE 189 damage, max 282.

That's a full third of even Treerazor's health on one average crit, or more than half on a maxed out one, with a chance to crit on 16+ if there's no modifiers.

I'll take that kind of damage any day.

Cars do not get a complete system overhaul inbetween models in how they basically function.

P2 from P1 did.

We're not talking about video game sequels (which also don't always work exactly the same, the Borderlands series for example has the numbers go wildly back and forth between games).

At the risk of continuing this derail, I want to see if my tortured metaphor can bend a bit more before it breaks:

Pathfinder 2E is essentially the same game Pathfinder is.

The Player makes a choice, the GM adjudicates that choice based on rules and if necessary asks for the player to roll a D20, add relevant modifiers and compare the result to a target number.

That's how D20 systems work. That's the car.

Is Pathfinder 2e a switch to electric engines or the introduction of the catalytic converter, or the standardization of seat belts? I don't know. I enjoyed the notion that Pathfinder's Magic system was a fuel guzzling V8 that provided too much power for the everyday use of cars so Pathfinder 2's engine is something more modern and efficient.

By most accounts, the new Fighter is pretty sweet. I think he's the back up camera. Or an automatic parallel parking feature. You can get by without it, but boy do you not want to go back.

In terms of the overall balance of the game Martial characters with the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Champion at the forefront were raised in relative strength to what they had compared to other characters.

Casters were generally flattened in their growth curve to move more in line with the rest of the characters in the game, but were relegated to a more of a utility/debuff/area damage role.. Though they're capable of doing just fine in other circumstances.

Balance is very different in this game so it will just take some time to get your bearings.

Yeah, PF2 is best played by forgetting (almost) everything you knew about PF1 beyond the basics of how d20 systems function.

Once you eschew those baggage and expectations, the game gets better.

At 9th level a fighter can leap 30 straight up and smash a flying enemy out of the sky. All the talk of DPR tends to overlook that the fighter has made huge gains in mobility and battlefield control while still being the premier damage dealer of the game. They've also gained a huge increase in versatility through skill feats. Given how much the fighter struggled with these things before, I feel like the class has gained a lot more power relative to the system.

Yeah, PF2 is best played by forgetting (almost) everything you knew about PF1 beyond the basics of how d20 systems function.

Is the difference between PF1 and PF2 bigger than the difference between 5e D&D and 4e D&D? Or 4e and 3.x D&D? Or 3.0 vs. AD&D 2e?

It seems like other than the transition between AD&D and the 2nd edition thereof, all of the numerical edition jumps in this family of games were major in terms of "how many assumptions you have to drop."

Not even just in the DnD lineage. In every RPG I've played an edition change is best served by not assuming anything from the past and learning from scratch.

Now familiar mechanics will sink in quickly, but assuming nothing is truly best.

And you can still crit for pretty massive damage. Especially with the correct weapons / runes.

A cir with a maxed out a Greatpick Fighter with +3 Striking, Grievous, Power Attach, Weapon Spec, two elemental runes, and Str 24 (plus I'm sure there's more you could add I forgot) that's an AVERAGE 189 damage, max 282.

That's a full third of even Treerazor's health on one average crit, or more than half on a maxed out one, with a chance to crit on 16+ if there's no modifiers.

I'll take that kind of damage any day.

Just out of curiosity, how is a level 20 fighter hitting Treerazor on a 6 and thus getting a critical hit on a 16+. Treerazor's AC is 54.

Level 20 fighter gets +20 (level) + 8 (Legendary) + 6 (strength) + 3 (weapon) = +37 to hit.

54-37 = 17.

I believe a fighter needs to roll a 17 to hit tree razor at all (assuming no other buffs/debuffs). They have a critical hit only on a natural 20. I think the expected damage in that case is 0.15*66.5 + 0.05*167.5 = 18.35 expected damage for 2 action melee attack.

(4d12 base dice + 3d12 power attack dice + 8 specialization + 6 strength +2d6 elemental) x 2 + 1d12 fatal + 7*4 grevious critical effect = 167.5 average on a crit.

For comparison, a sorcerer with dangerous sorcerery, using a 7th level magic missile slot and 2-actions deals 8d4+15=35 damage, or not quite twice as much expected damage. Obviously more expected damage could be done by using 8th, 9th, and 10th level slots with damage spells, or using 3-action magic missile.

There's also the fact that Tree Razor has AoO and with its +47 to hit critical hits a max AC fighter (10 + 20 (level)+6 (master) + 9 (armor) = 45) on an 8+ with their first attack, and with a 13+ on their second, dealing ~110 on each crit and stunning 2 (no save). Melee characters are likely to go down in 1-2 rounds.

Against extremely high level bosses (APL+5), crit fishing fighters are not the best choice. However, against an on level opponent, like a Pit Fiend (AC 46), that same fighter now hits on a 9 and critical hits on a 19 or 20. Expected damage in that case jumps a lot, up to 0.5*66.5 + 0.1*167.5 = 50 expected damage per power attack. Assuming a silver weapon. Thats about 7 power attacks to take down a Pit Fiend.

Don't get me wrong, fighters are good in PF2, but you might be overselling them a little too much at high level.

*Stuff*

Even acounting for extra buffs and debuffs (Heroism, +2 circunstance, -2 from flanking him.)

My PF2 fighter's THAC0 is too high, or too low. Whichever the bad one is.

Lower is better

PossibleCabbage wrote:

My PF2 fighter's THAC0 is too high, or too low. Whichever the bad one is.

Lower is better

Depends on whether higher AC or lower AC is better though.

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

Not sure what you mean. My 10th-level fighter just mowed through a cabal of giants like they were stalks of wheat.

How do I get those numbers? Pre-coffee math mostly. I should know better.

OP has yet to reply

assuming he does

fighters are the best damage dealers in the game, most consistent, crit the most often, one of the best for multiple attacks, etc.

so...no

How do I get those numbers? Pre-coffee math mostly. I should know better.

I assumed you mentioned Treerazer’s HP as a reference point rather than basing the maths off of actually attacking him

I can see how that is misleading though. And would like to know where 189 comes from

Equally the OP mentioned a fighter that could do a charging full power attack for average 200+ damage. To the best of my knowledge that was not possible , notably because I am not aware of a pounce like ability for the fighter . And even if there was that damage would not have happened against a CR25 enemy (using the Treerazer example) not least because power attack and multiple attacks combine to become hilariously inaccurate against anything with “appropriate” AC in 1E

Indi523 wrote:

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

Not sure what you mean. My 10th-level fighter just mowed through a cabal of giants like they were stalks of wheat.

Interesting. What types of giants ? And what build?

I do like how there isn’t a one true weapon anymore that you have to gravitate towards. Some of my favourite characters were fighters one of whom was a farmer with a scythe and the other a coal miner with a pick. Both would probably be great now! And backgrounds mean not spending one of my two skills on a thematic ability !

Claxon wrote:

Yeah, PF2 is best played by forgetting (almost) everything you knew about PF1 beyond the basics of how d20 systems function.

Is the difference between PF1 and PF2 bigger than the difference between 5e D&D and 4e D&D? Or 4e and 3.x D&D? Or 3.0 vs. AD&D 2e?

It seems like other than the transition between AD&D and the 2nd edition thereof, all of the numerical edition jumps in this family of games were major in terms of "how many assumptions you have to drop."

PF2 is very different from PF1.

The difference is larger than 3.x to 5E. Arguably even larger than either of those two to AD&D.

PF2 is in many ways a whole new branch of the D&D tree, since it is so very rebalanced. A stat block may look familiar but doesn't play like it. If the "main" branch is AD&D > 3.x and PF1 > 5E, PF2 is a new branch much like 4E was.

Just for reference. I am not arguing or wanting to start a debate

A Lv 20 Mobile Fighter could "pounce" at high level, but that was actually "move + full attack". So the only way is if he has a Fighter/Barbarian, Fighter/Monk, or not a Fighter at all. Then again pounce was never part of the Fighter, it was not being as constrained by feats (2e gave them martial versatility which is awesome).

Uchuujin wrote:

How do I get those numbers? Pre-coffee math mostly. I should know better.

I can see how that is misleading though. And would like to know where 189 comes from

+3 Striking Greatpick has a base 4d10 damage. Power attack pushes that to 7d10. Fatal Crit makes 7d12. Average of 7d12 is 45.5

Pick’s specialization effect with grievous rune adds +4 per die, so plus (7x4) = 28.

Weapon specialization adds +4 damage at legendary proficiency.

Strength of 24 (Start at 18, add +1 at 5, 10, 15,and 20, then add Belt of Giant Str) adds +7.

Elemental (or holy) runes add 1d6 damage each, so 2d6 with two. Average is 7.

45.5 + 28 + 4 + 7 + 7 = 91.5

91.5 x 2 = 183

Then fatal adds another d12, 6.5 average. 183 + 6 = 189.

Of course the system is still pretty new and I'm still learning all of it, so I might have multiplied something I shouldn't have.

Ravingdork wrote:

Indi523 wrote:

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

Not sure what you mean. My 10th-level fighter just mowed through a cabal of giants like they were stalks of wheat.

Interesting. What types of giants? And what build?

I am hoping the stalks of wheat comment means scythe fighter!

I believe they were level 3 ogres. I was playing my battle oracle, Jensen.