Fighter Class Preview

Monday, March 19, 2018

Over the past 2 weeks, we've tried to give you a sense of what Pathfinder Second Edition is all about, but now it's time to delve into some details on the classes. From now until the game releases in August, we'll go through the classes one by one, pausing now and then to look at various rules and systems. Today, let's take a look at one of the most foundational classes in the game: the fighter.

The fighter was one of the first classes we redesigned, alongside the rogue, cleric, and wizard. We knew that we wanted these four to work well in concert with each other, with the fighter taking on the role of primary combat character, good at taking damage and even better at dealing damage. The fighter has to be the best with weapons, using his class options to give him an edge with his weapons of choice. The fighter also has to be mobile, able to get into the fray quickly and hold the line, allowing less melee-oriented characters time to get into position and use their abilities without have to fend off constant attacks.

Let's start by looking at some of the features shared by all fighters.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

First up is attacks of opportunity. This feature allows you to spend your reaction to strike a creature within your reach that tries to manipulate an object (like drinking a potion), make a ranged attack, or move away from you. This attack is made with a –2 penalty, but it doesn't take the multiple attack penalty from other strikes you attempt on your turn. Other classes can get this ability—and numerous monsters will as well—but only the fighter starts with it a core feature. Fighters also have feat choices that can make their attacks of opportunity more effective.

Next up, at 3rd level, you gain weapon mastery, which increases your proficiency rank with one group of weapons to master. Your proficiency rank increases to legendary at 13th level, making you truly the best with the weapons of your choice. At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!

The fighter gets a number of other buffs and increases as well, but one I want to call out in particular is battlefield surveyor, which increases your Perception proficiency rank to master (you start as an expert), and gives you an additional +1 bonus when you roll Perception for initiative, helping you be first into the fight!

As mentioned in the blog last week, the real meat behind the classes is in their feats and (as of this post), the fighter has the largest selection of feats out of all the classes in the game! Let's take a look at some.

You've probably already heard about Sudden Charge. You can pick up this feat at 1st level. When you spend two actions on it, this feat allows you to move up to twice your speed and deliver a single strike. There's no need to move in a straight line and no AC penalty—you just move and attack! This feat lets the fighter jump right into the thick of things and make an immediate impact.

Next let's take a look at Power Attack. This feat allows you to spend two actions to make a single strike that deals an extra die of damage. Instead of trading accuracy for damage (as it used to work), you now trade out an action you could have used for a far less accurate attack to get more power on a roll that is more likely to hit.

As you go up in level, some of the feats really allow you to mix things up. Take the 4th-level feat Quick Reversal, for example. If you are being flanked and you miss with your second or third attack against one of the flankers, this feat lets you redirect the attack to the other target and reroll it, possibly turning a miss into a hit!

We've talked before about how fun and tactical shields are in the game. To recap, you take an action to raise your shield and get its Armor Class and touch Armor Class bonuses, and then you can block incoming damage with a reaction while the shield is raised. At 6th level, fighters can take the feat Shield Warden, which allows them to use their shield to block the damage taken by an adjacent ally. At 8th, they can even get an extra reaction each turn, just to use shield block one additional time. (And yes, they can spend this extra reaction on another use of Shield Warden.) At 14th level, a fighter can use their shield to protect themself from dragon's breath and fireballs, gaining their shield's bonus to Reflex saves.

The fighter also has a wide variety of options with ranged weapons, allowing you to deal more damage up close or fire more than one arrow at a time. I foresee a lot of fighters taking Debilitating Shot, which causes a foe to be slowed if the attack hits (causing it to lose one action on its next turn).

And all this is a small sample. We've made a conscious effort to give fighters a number of paths they can pursue using their feats: focusing on shields, swinging a two-handed weapon, fighting with two weapons, making ranged attacks, and fighting defensively. These paths are pretty open, allowing you to mix and match with ease to create a fighter that matches your play style.

The goal here is to give you a variety of tools to deal with the situations and encounters you are bound to face. You might walk into a fight with your bow and open with Double Shot, allowing you to fire a pair of arrows into the two nearest foes, only to swap over to using a greataxe when the rest surround you, making an attack against all enemies in your reach with Whirlwind Strike! It all comes down to the type of fighter you want to play.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Fighters Pathfinder Playtest Valeros Wayne Reynolds
851 to 900 of 1,122 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The kinds of people who insist that "we need someone to play the Healer" are the perfect candidates for investing in some healing on their wizard, barbarian, or rogue.

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Darius Alazario wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's been mentioned repeatedly that some of those builds (including the Barbarian) heal through means that have nothing to do with their class's abilities. They're likely connected to the many non-class feature options we're getting in PF2.

Here's a relevant thought: Now that people don't have to be a certain class to heal, they instead select certain options to heal.

This changes the "Timmy the Cleric" paradigm to "Timmy the Healer of any other class". So if people just were sick of making Clerics mandatory, good job, it appears successfully done.

If people felt like having a healer whatsoever in a party was mandatory, they would still be unsatisfied and as such would not view this as a fix.

Because now instead of "Timmy, you need to play the Cleric," it's "Timmy, you need to play the Healer." To numerous players, these sentences are synonymous and change nothing.

This depends very extensively on how much one needs to invest to be a passable healer. If it is relatively easy to get some passable healing then people can play the characters and classes they want while some of them invest a little bit in healing options without having to build a healing dedicated and focused character. In which case, Sharon who is telling Timmy he needs to make a healer can instead use one of her feats to add healing options herself without really detracting all that much from her Beat 'em up Barbarian qualities. Especially if these options largely come from ancestry, skill, or general feats as it wouldn't affect her class options at all.

That's true. And to be fair, it's not just healing. If there's some aspect that the party needs as a public good and the whole group refuses to individually contribute to it, you will have a problem whether or not this is healing resources or something else, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation in that case with those individualistic players. For instance, anti-air is also something you want to have in Pathfinder (PF1 or PF2), but if the casters refuses to carry any grounding magic, long range effects, or flight magic and the martials refuse to bring a backup ranged weapon, and nobody will agree to help buy consumables to help either, there's going to be a problem.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
The kinds of people who insist that "we need someone to play the Healer" are the perfect candidates for investing in some healing on their wizard, barbarian, or rogue.

Ha! I love it. The one who complains that we need a resource is the one who volunteers to provide the resource. Reminds me of being in the army.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's been mentioned repeatedly that some of those builds (including the Barbarian) heal through means that have nothing to do with their class's abilities. They're likely connected to the many non-class feature options we're getting in PF2.

Here's a relevant thought: Now that people don't have to be a certain class to heal, they instead select certain options to heal.

This changes the "Timmy the Cleric" paradigm to "Timmy the Healer of any other class". So if people just were sick of making Clerics mandatory, good job, it appears successfully done.

If people felt like having a healer whatsoever in a party was mandatory, they would still be unsatisfied and as such would not view this as a fix.

Because now instead of "Timmy, you need to play the Cleric," it's "Timmy, you need to play the Healer." To numerous players, these sentences are synonymous and change nothing.

There are, I think, a few useful distinctions.

- Being the healer doesn't narrow your class selection any more.
- Similarly, your class selection doesn't stop you from being the healer.

It's a lot harder to force Timmy to be the healer if you can't hide behind the excuse of having already picked Wizard.

Plus, for people who want to play healers, theres a lot more choice now.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's been mentioned repeatedly that some of those builds (including the Barbarian) heal through means that have nothing to do with their class's abilities. They're likely connected to the many non-class feature options we're getting in PF2.

Here's a relevant thought: Now that people don't have to be a certain class to heal, they instead select certain options to heal.

This changes the "Timmy the Cleric" paradigm to "Timmy the Healer of any other class". So if people just were sick of making Clerics mandatory, good job, it appears successfully done.

If people felt like having a healer whatsoever in a party was mandatory, they would still be unsatisfied and as such would not view this as a fix.

Because now instead of "Timmy, you need to play the Cleric," it's "Timmy, you need to play the Healer." To numerous players, these sentences are synonymous and change nothing.

I personally think this is a fix. In PF1 one of my favorite parts of playing the healer is that for my gaming group it can be accomplished by a lot of classes. So when I've played the healer before it sometimes meant an Oracle or a Druid or an Inquisitor or a Skald or Bard and so on. But because all of the healing which we felt was needed was locked behind wand use/class features, it did mean I never brought a slayer or barbarian or similarly nonmagical class. Now wand use has been patched so a bucket of wands doesn't work as well, but it seems every class can heal with enough investment, without it being something forcibly tacked on to a class.


I'm reasonably confidant that what one needs to be an effective healer without magic are "healing feats" which can only be taken with "skill feats" presumably once one's heal skill proficiency is high enough.

So it's unlikely to eat into your class feats or your general feats, just somebody can just take skill feats for healing rather than intimidation or whatever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
The kinds of people who insist that "we need someone to play the Healer" are the perfect candidates for investing in some healing on their wizard, barbarian, or rogue.

Yeah. That's the general response in, say, Overwatch, too, when someone spams "We need a healer!" "Then play one." If you're not willing to do it yourself, you don't have much right to demand others do!

For me, I like playing "White Mage" characters, particularly the Final Fantasy-esque ones that also have some cool attacks and status effects. They don't have all the damaging spells, but they do have some offensive ones, and a variety of barrier, healing, and curative spells. I like that.

What I love is the idea that anyone can contribute healing. This is huge. It's a game-changer and in all the right ways. This opens more doors, gives more options and more agency to the players, particularly the non-caster characters. All of that is necessary for this to be an improvement over PF1, and also something I want to play.

So far, every single thing, Resonance included, has been a big plus for me. If things continue on like this, I'm so onboard, I'll do tons of gaming (including a lot of PBPs) and write up some of my (once) famous examples of play, like I did for Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. Show people how all of it works and looks in action. This is going to be amazing.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Darius Alazario wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's been mentioned repeatedly that some of those builds (including the Barbarian) heal through means that have nothing to do with their class's abilities. They're likely connected to the many non-class feature options we're getting in PF2.

Here's a relevant thought: Now that people don't have to be a certain class to heal, they instead select certain options to heal.

This changes the "Timmy the Cleric" paradigm to "Timmy the Healer of any other class". So if people just were sick of making Clerics mandatory, good job, it appears successfully done.

If people felt like having a healer whatsoever in a party was mandatory, they would still be unsatisfied and as such would not view this as a fix.

Because now instead of "Timmy, you need to play the Cleric," it's "Timmy, you need to play the Healer." To numerous players, these sentences are synonymous and change nothing.

This depends very extensively on how much one needs to invest to be a passable healer. If it is relatively easy to get some passable healing then people can play the characters and classes they want while some of them invest a little bit in healing options without having to build a healing dedicated and focused character. In which case, Sharon who is telling Timmy he needs to make a healer can instead use one of her feats to add healing options herself without really detracting all that much from her Beat 'em up Barbarian qualities. Especially if these options largely come from ancestry, skill, or general feats as it wouldn't affect her class options at all.
That's true. And to be fair, it's not just healing. If there's some aspect that the party needs as a public good and the whole group refuses to individually contribute to it, you will have a problem whether or not this is healing resources or something else, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation in that case with those individualistic players. For instance, anti-air is...

This is 100% true. I think people pick on the Healer example most as, in many gaming systems, if one is the healer they end up pretty dedicated to healing and support by the available classes that focused on this. And it sounds to me like this system will open that up more. It will let people have more options and so they're not just at the back keeping the martial players standing and bumping their stats to let them do more cool stuff. Your healer COULD be one of those guys, right up their in the thick of battle, using an action or two to heal while still getting off a hit of their own.

Also, in hopes that Mark or Jason see this.. thank you for being so involved in the discussions here. The insights into how some of these changes came about and the design principles and goals behind them have been inspiring. It has made at least me more intrigued by what else lies ahead and helped me understand the system as a whole a bit better.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Firebird wrote:


Yeah. That's the general response in, say, Overwatch, too, when someone spams "We need a healer!" "Then play one." If you're not willing to do it yourself, you don't have much right to demand others do!

The standard rule is that the only one allowed to complain about a lack of healers is the tank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Lady Firebird wrote:


Yeah. That's the general response in, say, Overwatch, too, when someone spams "We need a healer!" "Then play one." If you're not willing to do it yourself, you don't have much right to demand others do!
The standard rule is that the only one allowed to complain about a lack of healers is the tank.

Yes, that is acceptable. Fortunately, I love playing healers, but I don't love it when the Genjis and Reapers and Winstons keep diving me and my oblivious teammates don't do anything about it. Then they demand healing. And I say "Sure, when I get back from spawn, because you won't protect me, so that's why you're not getting healed."

My kingdom for a decent bodyguard.


Being a healer in a multiplayer game is like being the single mom to a group of screaming, oblivious children. No matter how much you scream at them about not walking into the blinking AoE circle, it's almost as if there's a magnet right at the center that only attracts stupid people. Even if you love them, you just can't help but wonder how someone could have such a dearth of self-preservation.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I like the idea that any class can be "the healer" with some investment.

But I wonder, does that only hold true for hit point healing, or will all classes have ways to cure ability damage/conditions/curses/etc?

In PF1, I feel like enough classes had access to cure spells that hp damage was never a huge problem. What you really needed to fill the 'healer' roll was access to the restoration spells.


What is resonance? I don't recall a blog post talking about it.


Tangent101 wrote:
What is resonance? I don't recall a blog post talking about it.

A resource to power magic items. It scales on Charisma, if memory serves.


So, when's the next blog post?

Silver Crusade

Tangent101 wrote:
What is resonance? I don't recall a blog post talking about it.

We heard about it in the Glass Cannon Podcast PF2 playtest. It is a charisma-based resource which is used to activate scrolls, potions, and wands. You start with your level + charisma in Resonance points. Each time you use wands, potions, or scrolls you use a Resonance point. After you reach 0, you can still use those items, but you have to make a check. If you fail, it doesn't work. If you crit fail, you can't use those items for the rest of the day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
*eyes that* Hmm. I wonder if there's a way to make some of that optional. This "resonance" aspect sounds suspiciously 4th Ed. D&D to me and I'd rather healing either be done through magic or bedcare, rather than some innate ability of classes.

I suspect it's either through a high heal/medicine proficiency or some sort of Prestige Class-esque thing that bolts onto his ordrinary class (Paragon Path perhaps?).

Something I am a little bit excited about is: Can I finally play a Dark Sun game in Pathfinder that doesn't require a magical healer? (healer's do far more than just heal HP).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's likely going to be difficult to remove Resonance, since the system exists in place of slotted magic items. So now you can wear 10 magic rings and 5 amulets and have them all function if you have enough resonance. I certainly prefer this approach to magic item slots.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's likely going to be difficult to remove Resonance, since the system exists in place of slotted magic items. So now you can wear 10 magic rings and 5 amulets and have them all function if you have enough resonance. I certainly prefer this approach to magic item slots.

I agree so much! And I find it funny that my friend that abused the most of the healing wands is one of the most excited for that change!


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
So, when's the next blog post?

That's what I want to know! I would really like more clarity on general on when we can expect PF2 blog posts.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
It's likely going to be difficult to remove Resonance, since the system exists in place of slotted magic items. So now you can wear 10 magic rings and 5 amulets and have them all function if you have enough resonance. I certainly prefer this approach to magic item slots.

I have no qualms with Resonance conceptually, considering it scales relatively quickly, gives more importance to Charisma as a magic-based stat, and makes happy-stick style wand healing obsolete, especially given that being a party-carrying healer is going to be relatively easier in P2e.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
caps wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
So, when's the next blog post?
That's what I want to know!

*cough*


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Now that anyone can have some healing skill, I would expect most players to pick up a little bit. Everyone should get to at least basic first aid, so they can stabilize someone who went down. That is what our GURPS group tended to do.


I dislike Starfinder, and so far I *strongly* dislike what I've seen of 2e Pathfinder. There was definitely an opportunity to clean up some rules and make them crisper, but they're just substituting new fluff for old -- and the new isn't any better in most cases. It's just different for the sake of being different.

Take resonance for example: in many ways a good idea. They could have just removed "item slots" and said that everyone gets a number of wearable items equal to X. But now all of a sudden I have to track a whole new subsystem -- "OK, I have 7 resonance, and I'm wearing 4 items, and I took three hits off the healing wand, or was it four, and I drank a potion, so what's my DC to use this magic hat we just found?" Also, resonance is 5e attunement by another name.

I listened to the GCP playtest and my conclusion is:

Pathfinder 1e > D&D 5e > Pathfinder 2e playtest (despite a high Charisma check from Troy Lavalle)

So, yeah, good luck with that. All I wanted was Pathfinder version 1.1 -- you can keep Pathfinder version 2.0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's up to you, Rico. However, you HAVE Pathfinder version 1.1. It's called Pathfinder Unchained.

And you're basing hate off of vague blog posts. Wait until the free downloads for the playtest is available. Then you can read it, see for yourself what works and what doesn't, and hate it at that point. You won't be spending any money so it's not even like it's that much of an investment. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RicoDetroit wrote:
Pathfinder 1e > D&D 5e > Pathfinder 2e playtest (despite a high Charisma check from Troy Lavalle)

See I see it as D&D 3.5 > Pathfinder 1e > Dungeons and Dragons 4e > Pathfinder 2e. From what I'm hearing I'm seeing a lot more 4th ed in Pathfinder 2e than I am D&D 5e.

RicoDetroit wrote:
So, yeah, good luck with that. All I wanted was Pathfinder version 1.1 -- you can keep Pathfinder version 2.0.

I'm working on some homebrew stuff. It builds off material I've done elsewhere along with some cleaning up, rebalancing and overall minor tweaking to create my Pathfinder 1.1 (Unchained looks more like a Pathfinder 1.5e in that it is a stopgap that kind of bridges 1e and 2e). But despite that I will still look at the free playtest rules and try to get more of what I want into 2nd edition than what I'm seeing. It may also just be how they're presenting 2e and our preconceived prejudices coming into play.


For what it's worth, I'd like to throw in my vote on ditching shields requiring an action every round to use. Shields are already kind of underpowered in my opinion, and having to sacrifice 33% of EVERYTHING I CAN DO IN COMBAT just to carry one is... baffling. I get that their ability to block specific things is supposed to offset that, but I'm not convinced it does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryschwith wrote:
For what it's worth, I'd like to throw in my vote on ditching shields requiring an action every round to use. Shields are already kind of underpowered in my opinion, and having to sacrifice 33% of EVERYTHING I CAN DO IN COMBAT just to carry one is... baffling. I get that their ability to block specific things is supposed to offset that, but I'm not convinced it does.

Well, we don't know how effective they are now. So before we vote to not need to use an Action to ready them... we should know what they can do. And for all we know, an unreadied shield may still give a +1 to armor or the like.

So wait and see :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, depending on how high you can stack hardness, considering a fighter eventually can get a 2nd reaction to block with their shield, you could be looking at mitigating a whole lot of damage with that one spent action.

I don't know about you, but "take 40 less damage" is probably preferable to "swing again at -10" a lot of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, depending on how high you can stack hardness, considering a fighter eventually can get a 2nd reaction to block with their shield, you could be looking at mitigating a whole lot of damage with that one spent action.

I don't know about you, but "take 40 less damage" is probably preferable to "swing again at -10" a lot of the time.

This is my guess as well. We don't know what the math is on "pure offense" builds like 2-hander or TWF is so it's quite possible Paizo found that letting sword and board characters take three attacks was giving them too much damage for the defensive bonuses they got.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, depending on how high you can stack hardness, considering a fighter eventually can get a 2nd reaction to block with their shield, you could be looking at mitigating a whole lot of damage with that one spent action.

I don't know about you, but "take 40 less damage" is probably preferable to "swing again at -10" a lot of the time.

Something frequently being overlooked in their value is the effect on being critted or inducing a fumble. For every point of AC you add you are adjusting those rates by 5%. This means, an average shield adding +2 to your AC for the cost of an action is not just making you a little harder to hit but is increasing the chance of a fumble by roughly 10% and similarly decreasing the chance of a critical. That is a substantial effect. Add to that being able to block some damage and who know what else the shield might open up on top of that.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Darius Alazario wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's been mentioned repeatedly that some of those builds (including the Barbarian) heal through means that have nothing to do with their class's abilities. They're likely connected to the many non-class feature options we're getting in PF2.

Here's a relevant thought: Now that people don't have to be a certain class to heal, they instead select certain options to heal.

This changes the "Timmy the Cleric" paradigm to "Timmy the Healer of any other class". So if people just were sick of making Clerics mandatory, good job, it appears successfully done.

If people felt like having a healer whatsoever in a party was mandatory, they would still be unsatisfied and as such would not view this as a fix.

Because now instead of "Timmy, you need to play the Cleric," it's "Timmy, you need to play the Healer." To numerous players, these sentences are synonymous and change nothing.

This depends very extensively on how much one needs to invest to be a passable healer. If it is relatively easy to get some passable healing then people can play the characters and classes they want while some of them invest a little bit in healing options without having to build a healing dedicated and focused character. In which case, Sharon who is telling Timmy he needs to make a healer can instead use one of her feats to add healing options herself without really detracting all that much from her Beat 'em up Barbarian qualities. Especially if these options largely come from ancestry, skill, or general feats as it wouldn't affect her class options at all.
That's true. And to be fair, it's not just healing. If there's some aspect that the party needs as a public good and the whole group refuses to individually contribute to it, you will have a problem whether or not this is healing resources or something else, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation in that case with those individualistic players. For instance, anti-air is...

The investment required to be anti-air is pretty darn low (buy a composite bow or, at the least, a sling). The investment to be a healer is pretty high.

It's not unreasonable to expect Bob's great sword swinging Fighter will buy a composite longbow and use it. It's unreasonable to think that Bob's Fighter will have a religious experience and start taking levels of Cleric or Oracle because the party needs healing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:


That's true. And to be fair, it's not just healing. If there's some aspect that the party needs as a public good and the whole group refuses to individually contribute to it, you will have a problem whether or not this is healing resources or something else, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation in that case with those individualistic
...

Well thankfully PF2E seems to me bringing the investment required on those things closer. Seems like there are multiple ways of investing in healing abilities without taking a level dip somewhere. You can just invest some of your skill feats into a skill that enables you to heal in someway (feats that aren't giving up something non skill related to get as you now get specific skill feats.) Meanwhile the investment into anti air might have gone up a bit, like investing proficiency into ranged weapon group categories in order to use them well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of healing being opened up, and I apologize that this is off-topic to fighters...

Is it possible to make a "Ki Mystic" monk in 2E based on ki manipulation to buff, heal, and debuff?

Because that would be sweet as hell and something I would play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Two-handed great axe and bastard sword do not beat out great sword.

Ignoring the bastard sword (it's a smaller great sword, ofc it will do less damage!), are you saying that two-handed great axe is going to remain inferior to a great sword? Or are they going to be comparable?

I'm reaaaally not interested in continuing to live in the "swords are always the best, suck it other weapons!" trope any longer. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

Ignoring the bastard sword (it's a smaller great sword, ofc it will do less damage!), are you saying that two-handed great axe is going to remain inferior to a great sword? Or are they going to be comparable?

I'm reaaaally not interested in continuing to live in the "swords are always the best, suck it other weapons!" trope any longer. :P

This quote was in a thread talking about magic weapons. A +1 weapon rolls an extra weapon die (so 2d8 damage for a longsword, for example). The poster was worried that a +1 greatsword (if it still does 2d6) would only do 3d6 on a hit. There was a whole lot of inferring going on, and Mark confirmed that the greatsword user wasn't left behind. Maybe that's because greatswords no longer do 2d6, or maybe that's because a +1 greatsword does 4d6. In any case, that's the context for Mark's quote, so I wouldn't read anything more than the above into it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're changing things for a new edition can we please change of the name of the Fighter class to Warrior? I know the name has been around since the 70s, but it really makes no sense. And if the only reason for keeping it is tradition, well your changing the name of "race" to "ancestry", which also goes back to the 70s; so if we can change that we may as well make a class name change that is heck of lot more appropriate for a fantasy world. At best a fighter sounds like a gladiator forced to fight for someone else's pleasure, and more likely it brings to mind UFC or some drunk guy in a bar. Have you ever seen a fantasy movie where the hero calls himself a "fighter". A knight, a warrior, a soldier, a mercenary, but never a fighter. Even in the classic fantasy literature is their a single character in Lord of the Rings or Conan to use the term "fighter?"--not that I recall. Heck even Munchkin (the parody game) gets this right. It's about time for the serious RPGs to follow suit.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
If we're changing things for a new edition can we please change of the name of the Fighter class to Warrior?

What would you call the NPC class?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
If we're changing things for a new edition can we please change of the name of the Fighter class to Warrior?
What would you call the NPC class?

Why, Fighter, obviously!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What would you call the NPC class?

Your saying that as if NPC classes were going to be a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
If we're changing things for a new edition can we please change of the name of the Fighter class to Warrior? I know the name has been around since the 70s, but it really makes no sense. And if the only reason for keeping it is tradition, well your changing the name of "race" to "ancestry", which also goes back to the 70s; so if we can change that we may as well make a class name change that is heck of lot more appropriate for a fantasy world. At best a fighter sounds like a gladiator forced to fight for someone else's pleasure, and more likely it brings to mind UFC or some drunk guy in a bar. Have you ever seen a fantasy movie where the hero calls himself a "fighter". A knight, a warrior, a soldier, a mercenary, but never a fighter. Even in the classic fantasy literature is their a single character in Lord of the Rings or Conan to use the term "fighter?"--not that I recall. Heck even Munchkin (the parody game) gets this right. It's about time for the serious RPGs to follow suit.

I've actually advocated for this before, myself, and would wholeheartedly support this. The thing is, "Warrior" carries many more connotations than simple "Fighter." Warriors are often skilled in noncombat pursuits, can be gifted leaders and shrewd tacticians, and can be wise on and off the battlefield. A Warrior can also be a fighter, but it sounds so much cooler and carries more weight than just simply being called a "Fighter."

A Fighter sounds like someone who is only good in a fight. A Warrior could be a queen or a king, a leader, a fighter, an inspiration, an artist, even a healer, all at once.

Milo v3 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What would you call the NPC class?
Your saying that as if NPC classes were going to be a thing.

Or would matter more than the vastly more important PC class.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What would you call the NPC class?
Your saying that as if NPC classes were going to be a thing.

Ah, I will fit right in with everyone else saying things about 2E with no frame of reference to speak from.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
If we're changing things for a new edition can we please change of the name of the Fighter class to Warrior?
What would you call the NPC class?
Why, Fighter, obviously!

Fighting-Man! And the NPC spellcaster can be called 'Magic-User!' :)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What would you call the NPC class?
Your saying that as if NPC classes were going to be a thing.
Ah, I will fit right in with everyone else saying things about 2E with no frame of reference to speak from.

I doubt I can find it, but I think I saw either Jason or Mark comment on a lack of NPC classes and instead focusing on more simplified NPC rules that have class templates or are built as PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Fighting-Man Wonder Woman! And the NPC spellcaster can be called 'Magic-User!' :)

Fixed that for you ;-)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What would you call the NPC class?
Your saying that as if NPC classes were going to be a thing.
Ah, I will fit right in with everyone else saying things about 2E with no frame of reference to speak from.

I like you TOZ sometimes I think your a little harsh but I fully support this statement. I'll have to remember your mean because you care.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are things I'm worried about 2e, but some of things they are trying to fix are things I want to see fixed so I really hope they don't end up changing their minds about it. Loving fighter changes so far

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
At best a fighter sounds like a gladiator forced to fight for someone else's pleasure,

That pretty much sums up the relation between Player and Player Character for Fighters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
At best a fighter sounds like a gladiator forced to fight for someone else's pleasure,
That pretty much sums up the relation between Player and Player Character for Fighters.

Or just about every pc ever.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
Heck even Munchkin (the parody game) gets this right.

Sorry, couldn’t help but notice this. I find it amusing since there’s nothing to get “right”. Fighter/Warrior are vague catchalls for someone who fights, neither one is more righter.

Imagery:

Fighter, someone who fights.

Warrior, someone who fights.

851 to 900 of 1,122 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Fighter Class Preview All Messageboards