Advanced Class Guide Preview: Brawler

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The monk is a disciplined martial artist who spends years of practice to perfect his body and mind. A lawful paragon, the monk has strange and mysterious ki powers. But sometimes you don't want to play Bruce Lee. Sometimes you want to be Chuck Norris. No rules, no discipline, just a headbutt, a kick in the face, and a sucker punch. Bloody, ugly, but effective. If that's what you want, the Advanced Class Guide has the class you've been waiting for.

From the very first playtest version, the Brawler has also possessed some key features. She had full base attack bonus and rocked the monk's unarmed strike damage. She kept all her abilities in light armor (so appropriately, she is brutal in brawling armor). And she had a unique key feature all her own, martial maneuvers, now with a new name in the final version that better carries the awesomeness of the ability—martial flexibility. Martial flexibility is the brawler's answer for the disciplined abilities that the monk learns from all those years of study and perfection. With her flexible mind and intuitive grasp of close-quarters combat, the brawler has seen pretty much every trick in the book throughout her many bar brawls, arena fights, and adventuring combats. Martial flexibility allows her to spontaneously gain access to just the right combat feat (or later feats!) for her situation. Did someone splash ale in your eyes? Gain Blind-Fight. A spellcaster giving you the blues? Try Disruptive and Spellbreaker, maybe with an added dash of Step-Up. Giant enemy archer? Just take Deflect Arrows and they can kiss their Manyshot goodbye (after which you hit their weak point for massive damage).


Illustration by Ramon Puasa Jr

During the playtest, we were all out on the forums bringing back our data, which revealed a few things. Mainly, we all discovered that martial flexibility was awesome, but the brawler could use some more tricks that she could rely on consistently and that are unique to her. Have you ever wished you could hit that weakling wizard right beneath the jaw in just the right spot to knock him out in one hit? As of the second playtest version, the brawler gained the ability to dish out an instant knockout blow starting at level 13 with a devastating DC based on the brawler's Str or Dex score (your choice!). Furthermore, she gained the ability to use Awesome Blow without being size Large, eventually gaining the ability to dropkick the tarrasque 10 feet, knocking it prone, despite being size Medium.

As of the end of the playtest, the brawler was already awesome, and she seemed to have found a good place, but there were still a few observations from playtesters that led to some tweaks for the final version. First of all, the final brawler can deal increased damage with the close weapon group (growing at a slightly reduced rate from her unarmed damage), letting her brawl with everything at her disposal. Second, the knockout ability appearing at level 13 and then growing to 3 uses per day at level 16 seemed rather late and sudden. So the final version? She can start her instant knockout attacks at level 4! And just wait until you see the frankly mind-boggling feat novas you can pull off with her new capstone!

If standard brawler flavor isn't enough, brawler has some of the most evocative archetypes in the book. Instead of using unarmed strikes, the Exemplar can inspire allies like a bard and teach them teamwork feats. If you want a brawler like Bane who is at her best due to chemical enhancements, the Mutagenic Mauler has your back. And the Shield Champion throws her shield like Captain America. I mean look at that Shield Champion. It seems like she's about to punch you in the face right after the shield hits you and leaves you reeling. How cool is that? And that's only the first half of the archetypes in the book!

So to recap, the brawler is the monk's rowdy cousin, more interested in kicking ass than contemplating koans. The brawler is the Chuck Norris base class, and she's not afraid to get her hands dirty. Are you?

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Brawler Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ramon Puasa Jr
101 to 150 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Ross Byers wrote:
Tels wrote:
Azten wrote:
Now we just need a way to make returning a better property so Brawlers aren't carrying their shields on blinkback belts.
Wasn't there a magic item that you could attach to a weapon that allowed it to teleport back to you? I could swear someone mentioned something like this in one of the many 'thrown weapon build' threads.
I think that's the blinkback belt he's referring to.

I might be misremembering someone's homebrewed item, but I thought there was some sort of talisman you could attach to a weapon to allow it to return to you after throwing it. It might be a 3.5 item too.

But yeah, it would suck for all of the Captain Andoran builds to be forced into wearing the Blinkback Belt, especially since they're also really going to want the Belt of Hurling (strength to thrown attack rolls).

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Chuck Norris is a terrible person, and I am saddened to see him referenced here :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magicdealer wrote:
Chuck Norris is a terrible person, and I am saddened to see him referenced here :(

Agreed, they should have gone with Teddy Roosevelt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magicdealer wrote:
Chuck Norris is a terrible person, and I am saddened to see him referenced here :(

Yeah, I'd rather see JCVD.


Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:
Chuck Norris is a terrible person, and I am saddened to see him referenced here :(
Agreed, they should have gone with Teddy Roosevelt.

Chuck Norris was referenced before because it's pretty hard to quote a Bull Moose.

Liberty's Edge

Ryan. Costello wrote:
Wow, I thought I would try rolling up one of each ACG class before rolling the same one twice, but Mutagenic Mauler? Are you kidding me? Gimme!

I was planning on an Investigator, but yeah...

MUTAGENIC MAULER!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Screw Bane, there's a white haired man the mutagenic mauler reminds me of :)


Hmm... an Investigator/Brawler (Mutagenic Mauler) Gestalt might be fun...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe you meant to type "r" instead of "st". A common mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
I believe you meant to type "r" instead of "st". A common mistake.

Assuming that is a Witcher reference... *fist bump*


I've never played any of the Witcher games or read any of the books... so that reference doesn't work for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Geralt is the name of the main character in The Witcher.

A witcher is a combination of alchemist, mage, herbalist, and fighter. Oh and they've had animal parts spliced into them from surgery and magic.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Geralt is the name of the main character in The Witcher.

A witcher is a combination of alchemist, mage, herbalist, and fighter. Oh and they've had animal parts spliced into them from surgery and magic.

Yeah, I used Tinkergoth's post as reference for a quick Google search.

Designer

Scavion wrote:
Brawler Preview wrote:
Giant enemy archer? Just take Deflect Arrows and they can kiss their Manyshot goodbye (after which you hit their weak point for massive damage).

Oh?

Did fights like that happen in ancient Golarion history?

Actually, ancient Minkai history. Little known fact, that.


i just want an item that allows you to have a +10 enchantment to unarmed attacks not natural strikes


Interesting at least. I'll reserve full judgement till I see the changes made and how they actually work I suppose.

That being said, I think I'm most interested in the Mutagenic Mauler. I may have to go into MoMS and pick me up some dragon style to make my heavy hitter. I guess I could just get it normally, but waiting is hard and I'm not wasting the Martial Flexibility on it. I'll save that for... well, something else that could be useful in combat. (I don't really know, I don't martial very often...)


I am also reserving judgement, but I'm excited about the Brawler options now much more than I was after only a cursory playtest read-through. (I had a lot more interest in other classes - Swashbuckler and Warpriest, mainly.) Captain Andoran seems like the most obvious and awesome build for a Shield Champion. With each new blog post, I get more and more excited to get my hand on this book!

MoMS side rant:
Am I the only one that feels like the Master of Many Styles archetype actually takes away from the monk class as a whole? I feel that it gives away too much at low levels and scales poorly. Perhaps it's my selective perception, but it seems I see more people on the forums talking about dipping a few levels into MoMS than any other single reference to the monk class... Also, I know that it's partially just the forums - 75% of the players in my three gaming groups don't visit the forums at all and I'd wager that none of them are even aware of the MoMS archetype's existence.


Because MoMS + another class makes more of a good, flavorful (and mechanically sound) martial artist than the hot mess the Monk class is.

Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Scott 139 wrote:
Can you do tricks with the shield, like ricochet it back to you?

Without revealing the full extent of the archetype (or indeed, any details), I will say that I wouldn't have compared her to Captain America if you couldn't do some really awesome tricks with the shield. You can do some really awesome tricks with the shield, and it's even better than free returning.


So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?


WOOOOOO!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?

If we're speaking just mechanics, why would you play a non-archetyped monk before?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?

To dip MoMS.


Prince of Knives wrote:
Wasted wrote:
So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?
If we're speaking just mechanics, why would you play a non-archetyped monk before?

EDIT: Whoops. Misread. Good Question.


Wasted wrote:
So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?

You generally wouldn't. That is because several classes are bad, including Monk. Fortunately they are rewriting the Monk in PF Unleashed.


Neat preview.

Was the brawler given a way to meaningfully interact with the non-combat portions of the game over their whole range of levels? This was one of the issues raised during the playtest and I never saw any responses indicating the developer's thoughts on the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think the book will have archetypes that give martial flexibility to fighters and monks.

I was always excited about the Brawler, it was much closer to my personal image of a martial artist than the more mystical monk. Awesome blow being useful against humanoid opponents rather than monstrous ones hardly bothered me, but perhaps they've altered it so you can suplex a train in the final version?

Also my character sheet is going to call Martial Flexibility "Blitz".

Suddenly lamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tetori "Sabin".

I dunno man. Could he live up to the name? I bet trains have a really high CMD.


I've never played a monk, archetyped or otherwise. But this looks like it's just taken the monk's more effective class features and backed it up with the "Best" aspects of a fighter.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think the book will have archetypes that give martial flexibility to fighters and monks.

I was always excited about the Brawler, it was much closer to my personal image of a martial artist than the more mystical monk. Awesome blow being useful against humanoid opponents rather than monstrous ones hardly bothered me, but perhaps they've altered it so you can suplex a train in the final version?

Also my character sheet is going to call Martial Flexibility "Blitz".

Suddenly lamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tetori "Sabin".
I dunno man. Could he live up to the name? I bet trains have a really high CMD.

Well a tank has pretty low CMD, and really, if you were Sabin, you would only be suplexing the front car. Besides, that poor engine car wasn't even immune to Phoenix Down, so you could one-hit it!


Adam B. 135 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think the book will have archetypes that give martial flexibility to fighters and monks.

I was always excited about the Brawler, it was much closer to my personal image of a martial artist than the more mystical monk. Awesome blow being useful against humanoid opponents rather than monstrous ones hardly bothered me, but perhaps they've altered it so you can suplex a train in the final version?

Also my character sheet is going to call Martial Flexibility "Blitz".

Suddenly lamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tetori "Sabin".
I dunno man. Could he live up to the name? I bet trains have a really high CMD.

Well, I could suplex the Tarrasque on a 10 if I wanted (unbuffed, and I have access to True Strike, Mythic Power, etc.), so I feel pretty confident.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think the book will have archetypes that give martial flexibility to fighters and monks.

I was always excited about the Brawler, it was much closer to my personal image of a martial artist than the more mystical monk. Awesome blow being useful against humanoid opponents rather than monstrous ones hardly bothered me, but perhaps they've altered it so you can suplex a train in the final version?

Also my character sheet is going to call Martial Flexibility "Blitz".

Suddenly lamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tetori "Sabin".
I dunno man. Could he live up to the name? I bet trains have a really high CMD.
Well a tank has pretty low CMD, and really, if you were Sabin, you would only be suplexing the front car. Besides, that poor engine car wasn't even immune to Phoenix Down, so you could one-hit it!

Ha! Too true. Slaying major undead with phoenix feathers and potions is the best thing. If that worked in Golarion, a lot of major problems could get solved by peasants.

Serious response: Problem is that the 18 is a CMD modifier. Vehicles add their driver's check modifier to that 18. So Craft (Alchemy) or Knowledge (Engineering) in a mechanical vehicle's case. That CMD could get pretty crazy.

@Rynjin: I take back my words. You can suplex whatever you want man.

Designer

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think the book will have archetypes that give martial flexibility to fighters and monks.

I was always excited about the Brawler, it was much closer to my personal image of a martial artist than the more mystical monk. Awesome blow being useful against humanoid opponents rather than monstrous ones hardly bothered me, but perhaps they've altered it so you can suplex a train in the final version?

Also my character sheet is going to call Martial Flexibility "Blitz".

Suddenly lamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tetori "Sabin".
I dunno man. Could he live up to the name? I bet trains have a really high CMD.
Well a tank has pretty low CMD, and really, if you were Sabin, you would only be suplexing the front car. Besides, that poor engine car wasn't even immune to Phoenix Down, so you could one-hit it!

Ha! Too true. Slaying major undead with phoenix feathers and potions is the best thing. If that worked in Golarion, a lot of major problems could get solved by peasants.

@Rynjin: I take back my words. You can suplex whatever you want man.

Serious response: Problem is that the 18 is a CMD modifier. Vehicles add their driver's check modifier to that 18. So Craft (Alchemy) or Knowledge (Engineering) in a mechanical vehicle's case. That CMD could get pretty crazy.

True, but it's easier than a tarrasque!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think the book will have archetypes that give martial flexibility to fighters and monks.

I was always excited about the Brawler, it was much closer to my personal image of a martial artist than the more mystical monk. Awesome blow being useful against humanoid opponents rather than monstrous ones hardly bothered me, but perhaps they've altered it so you can suplex a train in the final version?

Also my character sheet is going to call Martial Flexibility "Blitz".

Suddenly lamenting I didn't name my Mythic Tetori "Sabin".
I dunno man. Could he live up to the name? I bet trains have a really high CMD.
Well a tank has pretty low CMD, and really, if you were Sabin, you would only be suplexing the front car. Besides, that poor engine car wasn't even immune to Phoenix Down, so you could one-hit it!

Ha! Too true. Slaying major undead with phoenix feathers and potions is the best thing. If that worked in Golarion, a lot of major problems could get solved by peasants.

@Rynjin: I take back my words. You can suplex whatever you want man.

Serious response: Problem is that the 18 is a CMD modifier. Vehicles add their driver's check modifier to that 18. So Craft (Alchemy) or Knowledge (Engineering) in a mechanical vehicle's case. That CMD could get pretty crazy.

True, but it's easier than a tarrasque!

Only if they put in the right commands.


Mark Seifter wrote:

*snip*

True, but it's easier than a tarrasque!

Indeed so. I am glad to have been proven wrong on this matter. Now I wanna hear all about people grappling trains in people's game summaries.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
I've never played a monk, archetyped or otherwise. But this looks like it's just taken the monk's more effective class features and backed it up with the "Best" aspects of a fighter.

Monk and Fighter are both classes with deep-seated problems. Monk has identity and schizophrenia issues where it keeps trying to be four different classes at once and dropping the ball on all of them. Fighter practically cannot participate in the game outside of combat, and in combat struggles against a large number of very classic enemies such as devils, golems, gargoyles, and big-ass dinosaurs.

Melding the best of the two together probably won't produce anything as effective as, say, Magus or Paladin. But it's not going to hurt anything that isn't already wounded beyond saving.


Prince of Knives wrote:
Wasted wrote:
I've never played a monk, archetyped or otherwise. But this looks like it's just taken the monk's more effective class features and backed it up with the "Best" aspects of a fighter.

Monk and Fighter are both classes with deep-seated problems. Monk has identity and schizophrenia issues where it keeps trying to be four different classes at once and dropping the ball on all of them. Fighter practically cannot participate in the game outside of combat, and in combat struggles against a large number of very classic enemies such as devils, golems, gargoyles, and big-ass dinosaurs.

Melding the best of the two together probably won't produce anything as effective as, say, Magus or Paladin. But it's not going to hurt anything that isn't already wounded beyond saving.

That made me tear up a bit...but at least the fighter and the monk have archetypes that saves them from some of those design flaws, rogues don't even have that.


Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
Wasted wrote:
I've never played a monk, archetyped or otherwise. But this looks like it's just taken the monk's more effective class features and backed it up with the "Best" aspects of a fighter.

Monk and Fighter are both classes with deep-seated problems. Monk has identity and schizophrenia issues where it keeps trying to be four different classes at once and dropping the ball on all of them. Fighter practically cannot participate in the game outside of combat, and in combat struggles against a large number of very classic enemies such as devils, golems, gargoyles, and big-ass dinosaurs.

Melding the best of the two together probably won't produce anything as effective as, say, Magus or Paladin. But it's not going to hurt anything that isn't already wounded beyond saving.

That made me tear up a bit...but at least the fighter and the monk have archetypes that saves them from some of those design flaws, rogues don't even have that.

Maybe so, but rogue was my starting class back in 3.5... I love it so and gladly would play it as is if my wife didn't literally claim it like the one ring, hehe, but it was her's too so I understand the feels.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, all this Fighter-hate should hear some counterpoint. The Fighter class works well enough for me. A Fighter specializing in archery is a perfectly effective party member. Grab Iron Will, maybe Half-Elf, Clustered Shots, other archery feats, you're set.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly.

I haven't played a melee Fighter before, but I suspect I'd find the same thing.

Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

Eh, the Fighter class works well enough for me. A Fighter specializing in archery is a perfectly effective party member. Grab Iron Will, maybe Half-Elf, Clustered Shots, other archery feats, you're set.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly.

I haven't played a melee Fighter before, but I suspect I'd find the same thing.

Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)

Of a kindred mind good sir, +1


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

Eh, all this Fighter-hate should hear some counterpoint. The Fighter class works well enough for me. A Fighter specializing in archery is a perfectly effective party member. Grab Iron Will, maybe Half-Elf, Clustered Shots, other archery feats, you're set.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly.

I haven't played a melee Fighter before, but I suspect I'd find the same thing.

Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)

I'm not looking to be 'the best'. Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and to a lesser extent Cavalier and Barbarian all make wonderful balance points. At the end of the day your archer fighter still isn't participating unless something needs to be brutally murdered. What if you need to make an impression at a royal ball to garner allies? Track a villain through sewers? Infiltrate a prison? How are you doing anything but leech resources from the rest of your party while they give you the capabilities to not hinder their efforts?

Fighter doesn't need a comparison to another class to be bad, he just needs to be checked against the stuff adventurers do.


Joe M. wrote:

Eh, the Fighter class works well enough for me. A Fighter specializing in archery is a perfectly effective party member. Grab Iron Will, maybe Half-Elf, Clustered Shots, other archery feats, you're set.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly.

I haven't played a melee Fighter before, but I suspect I'd find the same thing.

Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)

Archery's probably the most effective Fighter. It gets past all the problems that Fighters tend to have.

The thing is that Fighters have good damage but they get nothing else to help apply that. No way to bypass spells, no great mobility options, and they don't learn anything that's ever better than full attack. Since archery's all about full attacking and can full attack pretty well all the time, it gets around some of the problems Fighters have. It also helps that archery is feat intensive and Fighters get a lot of feats.

Though I actually think the Brawler does the Fighter niche better. In terms of mechanics, Fighters are characters for feats. But unfortuately, the way they do that is they just get a bunch of feats, and that's it. They don't get to bypass feats like Rangers or other classes do, they don't get increased effects on feats, and they also can't apply feats on the fly or change up feats. That's why I think the Brawler is really good for the being the class for feats. They get to pick and choose and learn feats on the fly. It really helps to make them feel as if they have mastery over feats, whereas Fighters only get a lot of feats, and that's it in how they can use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prince of Knives wrote:

I'm not looking to be 'the best'. Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and to a lesser extent Cavalier and Barbarian all make wonderful balance points. At the end of the day your archer fighter still isn't participating unless something needs to be brutally murdered. What if you need to make an impression at a royal ball to garner allies? Track a villain through sewers? Infiltrate a prison? How are you doing anything but leech resources from the rest of your party while they give you the capabilities to not hinder their efforts?

Fighter doesn't need a comparison to another class to be bad, he just needs to be checked against the stuff adventurers do.

How can a fighter not do those things? A human fighter gets at least 2 skill points per minimum. They can put that in any skill and participate just as well outside of combat. I don't see how any of that stuff is a function of class features and not skill levels.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Prince of Knives wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Eh, all this Fighter-hate should hear some counterpoint. The Fighter class works well enough for me. A Fighter specializing in archery is a perfectly effective party member. Grab Iron Will, maybe Half-Elf, Clustered Shots, other archery feats, you're set.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly.

I haven't played a melee Fighter before, but I suspect I'd find the same thing.

Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)

I'm not looking to be 'the best'. Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and to a lesser extent Cavalier and Barbarian all make wonderful balance points. At the end of the day your archer fighter still isn't participating unless something needs to be brutally murdered. What if you need to make an impression at a royal ball to garner allies? Track a villain through sewers? Infiltrate a prison? How are you doing anything but leech resources from the rest of your party while they give you the capabilities to not hinder their efforts?

Fighter doesn't need a comparison to another class to be bad, he just needs to be checked against the stuff adventurers do.

Sure, my guy's best when someone needs brutal-murdering (or, with my merciful bow, hasty-subduing?). And that's fine! I still participate plenty and have plenty of fun at the table when we aren't in combat-mode. :-)

And I would never say "leeching" for the situation you're describing! This game is a team sport (at least the way my groups play it). Different characters shine at different times. :-)

Which is to say: it works okay for me and my groups. Sure, I'd like a few changes (more skill points would be great, e.g.), but it's still workable as-is. If it doesn't work so well for your play style, that's okay. Sorry that it doesn't work for you. I can see where some of your frustration is coming from. But, as I am attesting, your experience is not universal here. :-)


I hope the Mutagenic Mauler has an ability called Roid Rage.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, on-topic, I'm excited to see if the Brawler will win my heart for the base class on which to build the Living Monolith I want to play.


It's nice to look at a preview and find yourself more excited for a class than you where before. I needed this after the brutal beat down the Warpriest got. That one was just brutal...

Two thumbs up, especially happy with the archetypes. I WILL make a Mutagenic Mauler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Eh, all this Fighter-hate should hear some counterpoint. The Fighter class works well enough for me. A Fighter specializing in archery is a perfectly effective party member. Grab Iron Will, maybe Half-Elf, Clustered Shots, other archery feats, you're set.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly.

I haven't played a melee Fighter before, but I suspect I'd find the same thing.

Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)

I'm not looking to be 'the best'. Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and to a lesser extent Cavalier and Barbarian all make wonderful balance points. At the end of the day your archer fighter still isn't participating unless something needs to be brutally murdered. What if you need to make an impression at a royal ball to garner allies? Track a villain through sewers? Infiltrate a prison? How are you doing anything but leech resources from the rest of your party while they give you the capabilities to not hinder their efforts?

Fighter doesn't need a comparison to another class to be bad, he just needs to be checked against the stuff adventurers do.

Sure, my guy's best when someone needs brutal-murdering (or, with my merciful bow, hasty-subduing?). And that's fine! I still participate plenty and have plenty of fun at the table when we aren't in combat-mode. :-)

And I would never say "leeching" for the situation you're describing! This game is a team sport (at least the way my groups play it). Different characters shine at different times. :-)

Which is to say: it works okay for me and my groups. Sure, I'd like a few changes (more skill points would be great, e.g.), but it's still workable as-is. If it doesn't work so well for your play style, that's okay. Sorry that it doesn't work for you. I can see where some of your frustration is coming from. But, as I am attesting, your experience is not universal. :-)

First off, you use way too many smiley faces. Makes you look like you're either condescending someone (which I don't think was your intent), or you're just waaaaay too happy right now.

As for the rest, I would definitely say "leeching" describes it perfectly.

Most other classes bring resources to the table, and/or are generally self-sufficient. The Paladin has Lay on Hands and Smite, making him eat less party buffs and healing. The Barbarian has Rage and DR, making him eat less party buffs, and require less healing (not counting the myriad out of combat uses for Rage). The Ranger has Favored Enemy which, you guessed it, makes him eat less party buffs.

Move on to every caster class: They provide resources in the form of spells (and for 6 level casters, in the form of other useful abilities like Judgement, the Eidolon/Summon Monster SLA, and so on).

Even the Monk has some self-buffing capability with Ki, though admittedly not much.

However, the Fighter (and Rogue) does not. The Fighter brings no resource to the table. He has nothing he can spend to make himself more self-sufficient, or provide another member of the party with an ability or boost.

So, while the Fighter may indeed do his job (beating s%%* with a stick), he does it while being more of a drain on resources than any other class...and he doesn't do it better than the any of the alternatives enough to justify being the giant resource sink he is. A Fighter simply eats more resources than any other class in the game, being the only frontliner with absolutely NO way to help himself or others.

The main argument people generally bring up in relation to the Fighter is that he's "always on", trying to spin his lack of resources as some kind of boon...but it's not. He's "always on", yes, but only if he has other party members to act as batteries for him, whereas every other class in the game sans one has their own power source to bring along.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:

I'm not looking to be 'the best'. Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and to a lesser extent Cavalier and Barbarian all make wonderful balance points. At the end of the day your archer fighter still isn't participating unless something needs to be brutally murdered. What if you need to make an impression at a royal ball to garner allies? Track a villain through sewers? Infiltrate a prison? How are you doing anything but leech resources from the rest of your party while they give you the capabilities to not hinder their efforts?

Fighter doesn't need a comparison to another class to be bad, he just needs to be checked against the stuff adventurers do.

How can a fighter not do those things? A human fighter gets at least 2 skill points per minimum. They can put that in any skill and participate just as well outside of combat. I don't see how any of that stuff is a function of class features and not skill levels.

You have 2 skill points; most people are going to want a maxed Perception, and if you want to contribute socially, you're picking up Diplomacy or Intimidate.

What about when it comes time to scale that cliff or clamber over the parapets of a castle? You need that climb skill. How about crossing that underground lake that no one brought a boat for? Need to have that Swim skill.

Foraging for food or tracking creatures? Need that Survival.

what about having a profession? Or say you want to make your own armor?

How about if you want to be a 'scholarly fighter'? You need knowledge skills then.

The thing is, with 2 skill points, you are only doing 2 of the above, unless you play a human or have a high Int. Intelligence tends to be on the lower end of the scale when it comes to the 'must have' stats. You need your strength, dexterity and constitution to fight, and you absolutely must have a good wisdom or else you're basically an enemy that hasn't turned yet.

Basically, with the Fighter as is, he really doesn't do much more than fight things. You have to jump through hoops to be able to do anything else.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

@Rynjin: posting from my phone here, so it'll be a bit sketchy.

On smileys. Yes, I recognize the downsides. But overall, in negotiating familiar difficulties with internet communication with anonymous avatars, I find it helps me, at least, remember that I'm posting in good faith and good humor and it helps a little bit in keeping me from the temptations of unhelpful "someone on the internet is wrong" negativity. I guess you can look at it as a self-help strategy to keep myself from taking these things too seriously, from the temptation to debate for points instead of discuss in good faith.

And I see a *lot* of depressingly unhealthy discussion dynamics on these forums that I don't want to participate in or contribute to (though of course I don't always live up to that ideal). So smileys it is! Deal with it. :-)

On fighter. My objection to "leeching" is mostly that it implies a relationship in which the non-Fighter party members *resent* the Fighter. Even if we accept, arguendo, your characterization of the self-sufficiency problem, we don't need to attach that negative valence to the situation. A group can respond to that situation not with a "leeching!" accusation but instead with a more team-spirited vibe. Which has been my general experience, thankfully. :-)

On your self-sufficiency characterization. Other than wands of CLW that I purchase for myself and the occasional status heal that I can pay for myself, I'm not immediately thinking of resources my fighter's "draining" from anyone—and even if I were, so what? As long as the setup works for the group, it's fine. There may be more efficient or effective ways to get the job done, but that doesn't matter.

NB that this claim *in no way* depends on whether or not some other class may be better, slightly or significantly. Don't need to be the very very best to be workable and enjoyable. :-)


I'm sort of hoping that the Brawler actually gets a Style Chain Archetype and a Grapple archetype now that I think about it. Granted most styles may not fit the feel for a brawler, but you could limit a player to the ones that do (dragon style, boar style and tiger style all seem fitting). Of course these may not come into existence as the monk already has similar archetypes (MOMS and Tetori respectively), but I feel brawler archetypes could fit along the same vein and still be effective.

I am really glad to see the increase in close combat damage though. Even my DM was confused as to why a monk would hit less hard when wearing brass knuckles. So, while you're still going down in damage compared to their unarmed damage, at least the damage of those weapons is increased to some extent.

1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: Advanced Class Guide Preview: Brawler All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.