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
901 to 950 of 1,122 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Did you use righter because it ryhmnes with fighter?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did not, consciously anyway, but I noticed it and kept it anyway :3

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
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.

Warrior, someone who wars!

Silver Crusade

Something else that just occurred me, the other poster said the term Fighter doesn’t appear in most literature, that’s actually a boon I’d say in writing the setting. You could say a group of warriors are coming... and it could be anything. A group of knights, and you think it would be Paladins, Cavaliers, Fighters, etc.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

Warrior, someone who wars!

Well now the Soldiers and Mercenaries are pissed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, it's about a self identifying label.

"I am a cleric." That makes sense. A cleric is a proper title. We all know what one is. Same for paladin, cavalier, wizard/mage, alchemist, bard, and pretty much every other class out there. Even a Rogue can be a title and identifying label, albeit not one anyone would attribute to themselves, you rogue you.

But when a group of people are mingling over some cocktails, and they're giving short descriptions of what they do, when one guy says, "I'm a fighter," the rest of them are going to look at him like he's missing something up in the brainpan.*

Warrior. Soldier. Merc. Combat specialist. Weapons master. A ton of titles are better than Fighter.

*And yes, it always irks the hell out of me whenever I see a character actually do that in a novel. Please, people who with D&D/PF novels, please stop doing that. Please stop using game terms as if they were common speech in the characters' world (unless you're writing a parody).

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Except none of those are more or less accurate than “fighter”. A person who introduces themselves as any of those titles will not confuse anyone as to what they do, they’ll know they fight.

“Please stop using game terms as if they were common speech”

Uh, fighter is a common word, it’s not something made up by DnD or Pathfinder. If I say I’m a fighter, you know I’m someone who fights, in real life or in game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gendry/Edric Storm is a fighter, he calls himself so.

He's also a blacksmith.

Sovereign Court

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

There are people with Professional Fighter in their job description.


Supposing that the haste spell will give me an extra attack action per turn in PF2, can I sacrifice two of my four actions and strike two power attacks in a given round?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:
Supposing that the haste spell will give me an extra attack action per turn in PF2, can I sacrifice two of my four actions and strike two power attacks in a given round?

All indications are that you will be able to, but the second strike will be made with -5 to hit.

Dark Archive

Bruno Mares wrote:
Supposing that the haste spell will give me an extra attack action per turn in PF2, can I sacrifice two of my four actions and strike two power attacks in a given round?

That would depend on a number of factors. For example, if it gives an email transmission attack or stroke action those actions have specific uses and would not include power attacking. But if it gives you a blanket extra action then I don't see why not... It could then also be used to move... Or potentially to allow a spellcaster to get off an extra spell building action.


Count me in on renaming the Fighter. It simply has too vague of an identity (ie: not much of one at all).

A Barbarian is a Fighter.
Some Bards are Fighters.
Clerics are largely Fighters too.
So are many Druids.
And Monks.
And Paladins.
Rangers.
Rogues.
Even some spellcasters (Wizard, Sorcerer, Other) like to mix it up in a fight with more than just spells (Gish is what, THE most popular character type evar? lol...)

Heck, it'd be easier to identify who *isn't* a Fighter than to identify who *is.*

A Cleric is a warrior-priest. Not every worshiper/believer is that, so it works.
A Barbarian is a savage warrior more concerned with offense than defense/self-preservation.
A Rogue is also vague, but not as vague as Fighter; it's someone who works in underhanded methods, whether that's theft or assassination or something else, you still can paint a picture of who you're dealing with based on "Rogue."
You can't do that with "Fighter."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its suppose to be vague thats a feature that way you can take the same class and play a gladiator, knight, mercenary, or what have you. As long as the central theme is fighting things with weapons. (occasionally fists but mostly weapons)

Silver Crusade

Vagueness is a good thing, given how customizable the class is.


I think vagueness works best when *everything* is equally vague. Something like how 1st and 2nd edition AD&D did it.
That's simply not the case in 3.0+/PF though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

I think vagueness works best when *everything* is equally vague. Something like how 1st and 2nd edition AD&D did it.

That's simply not the case in 3.0+/PF though.

Speaking of vagueness I'm going to need you to explain that better. The classes are about as equally defined in PF as they were in AD&D just the rules have been refined. However paladins are essentially still the same idea druid fighters etc. Thief's name changed but we all know its a rogue now.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

I think vagueness works best when *everything* is equally vague. Something like how 1st and 2nd edition AD&D did it.

That's simply not the case in 3.0+/PF though.

Yeah, 'fighter' was a perfectly cromulent word back when the wizard was called a 'magic-user' and the rogue was called a 'thief.'

These days, I want something a little sexier, and, amusingly, since the word was snagged for an NPC class, *Warrior*, sounds like a stronger name to my ear.

That said, 'monk' calls to my mind tonsured dudes in robes who make wine and get up at 5 AM for morning prayers, not high-kicking martial artists with mystical ki powers, and 'cleric' is associated in the modern day with Islamic priests and feels as weird to me as someone saying their character is a rabbi of Thor, so cultural baggage is a thing. :)

Potayto, potahto, let's call the whole thing off!

Some tiny part of me misses the old titles one gained by level back in first edition. 'Yes! My cleric is 7th level, he's no longer Canon Hazen, now call me Lama Hazen!' So silly!


Yeah can't argue that doesn't warrior sounds better then fighter. And yes english monks should just hang out in their monkeries and write their books all day. Its really eastern inspired monks who would do the martial arts.

(Yeah I miss the tittles to) Grand master of flowers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darius Alazario wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Supposing that the haste spell will give me an extra attack action per turn in PF2, can I sacrifice two of my four actions and strike two power attacks in a given round?
That would depend on a number of factors. For example, if it gives an email transmission attack or stroke action those actions have specific uses and would not include power attacking. But if it gives you a blanket extra action then I don't see why not... It could then also be used to move... Or potentially to allow a spellcaster to get off an extra spell building action.

Isn’t an email transmission attack something that belongs in d20 modern?

Heh,

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Darius Alazario wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Supposing that the haste spell will give me an extra attack action per turn in PF2, can I sacrifice two of my four actions and strike two power attacks in a given round?
That would depend on a number of factors. For example, if it gives an email transmission attack or stroke action those actions have specific uses and would not include power attacking. But if it gives you a blanket extra action then I don't see why not... It could then also be used to move... Or potentially to allow a spellcaster to get off an extra spell building action.

Isn’t an email transmission attack something that belongs in d20 modern?

Heh,

Wow, good ol' autocorrect. I was responding from my phone and failed my proofread check. I meant attack or strike action. I really have no idea how it made those massive leaps in 'correcting' my typing.


When in character, just "fighter" is a bit vague and game-y, so
sword fighter
polearm fighter
bow fighter archer
...
Weapon Master for someone with a bunch of different weapons ...


whew wrote:

When in character, just "fighter" is a bit vague and game-y, so

sword fighter
polearm fighter
bow fighter archer
...
Weapon Master for someone with a bunch of different weapons ...

Is a Paladin who fights with a sword not also a "sword fighter?"

Etc and so on...


I'm watching 300 right now.

As a Fighter, will I be able to rend limbs from my enemies with a single swing of my sword or thrust of my spear? Will I be able to block spells with my shield?

That's what I want to do.


I think the blocking spells with shield thing was mention somewhere.


Set wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

I think vagueness works best when *everything* is equally vague. Something like how 1st and 2nd edition AD&D did it.

That's simply not the case in 3.0+/PF though.

Yeah, 'fighter' was a perfectly cromulent word back when the wizard was called a 'magic-user' and the rogue was called a 'thief.'

These days, I want something a little sexier, and, amusingly, since the word was snagged for an NPC class, *Warrior*, sounds like a stronger name to my ear.

That said, 'monk' calls to my mind tonsured dudes in robes who make wine and get up at 5 AM for morning prayers, not high-kicking martial artists with mystical ki powers, and 'cleric' is associated in the modern day with Islamic priests and feels as weird to me as someone saying their character is a rabbi of Thor, so cultural baggage is a thing. :)

Agreed, if Magic User can be Wizards, Fighters should be Warriors. Really, their pitiful name may have played role in losing out to casters so much in 3.x. Whereas a proud, valiant Warrior would never allow scrawny scribes to steal his glory... ;-)

Yeah, I think your cultural baggage is kicking in re: Monk/Cleric. :-) But really, it just reminds us how multi-cultural Gygax et al were... I mean, a setting of not-Europe but with Islamic polytheists running around with Tibetan kung-fu monks around every corner. I bet their Bards were Reggaeton singers too but they forgot to write that part down.

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
thflame wrote:

Bad new devs:

Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.

I assumed that a zero penalty attack would need a 5 to hit.

I assumed a d12 damage dice with no added damage from STR (I can do this if you think it matters.)

3 straight attacks at a progressive -5 penalty did 20 damage on average per turn.

Your new Power Attack + one normal attack at -5 did 25 damage on average per turn. That's good at least.

Old Power attack (-1 attack, +3 damage) with a progressive -5 on attacks did 27 damage per turn on average. (I assumed the bonus damage would double on a crit.)

If I up the old Power attack penalty and damage(for higher levels), the gap get's HUGE(40+damage per round).

I checked my code repeatedly, and I can't find any errors. I accounted for the +/- 10 critical system and nat 1s and 20s being fails/crits.

If you want me to check specific scenarios, I can do that.

I can also send someone my code (C++) if you want.

EDIT: Thflame has fixed a bug in his program he posts about it here. As I expected, PF1 Power Attack is worse in all but extreme edge cases where you can barely hit at all or where you hit by a mile.

Minions where you hit on a 5 are one thing. Try it when you need a 9 to hit before the penalty. Either way, you'll need to add back in something like a +4 Strength bonus, as eliminating that undersells the damage you are losing for missing (when you deal with higher levels, you need to add in all the damage you expect to deal at that level for the same reason).

If you run those numbers, you will find that PF1-style -1/+3 Power Attack nets you roughly 1 expected damage over an entire round compared to not even doing anything special, and PF2-style Power Attack dramatically increases your damage.

L O L

This is why I ask people if they argue with their brain surgeon.


While I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the 2E take, I do think Fighter is a good name for the class in light of how customizable it was/is.

Also, no more vague than Cleric, Wizard, or especially Rogue (even vaguer than 'Thief')

Grand Lodge

I think Attack of Opportunity belonging to the fighter class as a base ability is great and hearkens back to how fighters should be- they should have an advantage over all the other classes. That being said, it's also a great thing to have AoP be available to anyone else who wants it, but at a cost. I think this will help fighters shine and excel and allow characters to further separate their "sameness." This does not make fighters "samey" as others have stated. The devs have said explicitly that they made fighters and all of the fighters were different.

The new systems for shield use is extremely well done and needed, although 14th level for an additional Reflex bonus seems awfully high.

EJDean wrote:
Charles Dunwoody wrote:
Power Attack and Quick Reversal both sound really useful. And the 14th level shield ability oddly specific. Maybe it has more applications.
Yeah, +1 or +2 to Reflex saves requiring an action to activate. Not exactly thrilling for a 14th-level ability.

Well, actually this would be a huge bonus for a fighter who's Reflex save is already probably lower than average.

F. Castor wrote:


What? It is not like I mentioned any drow elves, did I now?
:-P

I wonder if any of the Drow PC fans are complaining about the Goblins as a core race?

knightnday wrote:
Hmm. Does any of this (or what we haven't seen) go towards addressing the complaint that fighters/martials have limited narrative control?

They should have some limited narrative control. A good fighter build will include one social or non-combat component (although this is difficult to maintain in a 1-fighter party) in PF 1e. Also, if you want some social skills, maybe don't be a fighter (that's what other classes are for)!

Dead Phoenix wrote:


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that a new player would rather pick feats that let him do cool new stuff then get a +1 on thier sword swing. I know it sounds way better to me, and not at all hard to understand.

I agree. There's nothing worse then being a level 1-3 fighter that only attacks one time per round, meaning if you miss, you sit there until you get to roll another die.

Kelsier Palance wrote:
Hi, I am a PF1 fighter. My player gave up on me when he realized that, despite having a multitude of options in combat (just look at the arsenal of weapons in my inventory), I am dead weight in most non combat encounters. In fact, in some encounters I even drag the party down. What will PF2 do to make it easier for my player to make a fighter with utility outside of combat?

Hi, I'm PF-2e. I'f you'd like to do everything better then everyone else, you're free to find another game. If you'd like to stick around while my system is presented, you'll see the fighter will have many more options for combat. If you'd like your fighter to still be the main melee and still be at least viable in non-combat encounters, I'll be making slight adjustments to your abilities so you can then focus some energy via feats, skills, etc. on social aspects. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Don't forget, folks, that the PF-1e Power Attack is designed with the PF-1e system, to be used by monsters also designed around the PF-1e system. PF-2e monsters will be designed around the PF-2e system. Comparing these things to PF-1e will only give you heart burn, because the two systems are entirely different. There's no point to comparing the numbers of two entirely different systems.

Dαedαlus wrote:


Have you.... ever fought with a sword and shield? Because that's really not true. Holding a shield is about as intuitive as it gets. Almost immediately after picking one up and learning proper shield stance, it becomes more of a subconscious thing. It required more effort to drop the thing than it is to block with it.

Pretty sure you've never been in actual combat with a sword and board, and I mean combat, not sparring, where your life is on the line. None of us have. That being said, a trained fighter in a time when life was on the line would have a shield become his own arm. But I'm pretty sure that shield needed to move around your core to protect you from hits, hence the "action" in PF-2e it takes to give you an AC bonus.

On top of that, I don't think you'd ever swing your sword and raise your shield at the same time; that would be quite the visual.

And for the record, I'm a fencer and have been competing for almost 10 years since college. Everything a combatant does requires focus. Using the shield as an action is smart developing; your shield doesn't just hang out statically in front of you.

Just watch this video of the competitors to see how much a shield moves around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUZNJ7ES2pQ

Matt2VK wrote:

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.

Is it possible to get this changed to "Allows the fighter to target a creature and impose their shield to block an attack dealt to a ally.

Are you saying this ability should be allowed to target an ally 15 feet away?!

TriOmegaZero wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Oh, okay, so you still need rules mastery, only now you can choose to do it yourself or burden it on someone else. Gotcha. :)
Or you can not worry so damn much about following the letter of the rules when it gets in the way.

If a rule gets in the way of having fun, don't use it, but make sure everyone at the table knows this and agrees with this. Some people build their character based on the rules, and it's only fair they know about house rules before making them.


nogoodscallywag wrote:

Pretty sure you've never been in actual combat with a sword and board, and I mean combat, not sparring, where your life is on the line. None of us have. That being said, a trained fighter in a time when life was on the line would have a shield become his own arm. But I'm pretty sure that shield needed to move around your core to protect you from hits, hence the "action" in PF-2e it takes to give you an AC bonus.

On top of that, I don't think you'd ever swing your sword and raise your shield at the same time; that would be quite the visual.

And for the record, I'm a fencer and have been competing for almost 10 years since college. Everything a combatant does requires focus. Using the shield as an action is smart developing; your shield doesn't just hang out statically in front of you.

I have in theory. Not exactly swords like D&D or PF, but with long knives (what some might consider short swords, but these were definitely Knives) and even blades as long as two or three feet themselves (and guns too). Yes, life was on the line in these instances. It happens when you are in a war zone at times (which I have also unfortunately been in).

Not fun stuff to be truthful...at least I didn't find it fun. More scary than fun in truth.

Not that this has anything to really do with the topic.


nogoodscallywag wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:


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.

Is it possible to get this changed to "Allows the fighter to target a creature and impose their shield to block an attack dealt to a ally.

Are you saying this ability should be allowed to target an ally 15 feet away?!

That would be quite cool if the Fighter is standing directly between (ranged) attacker and target


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A reactive ability where you could dash 15 feet to protect an ally would also be pretty cool.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm... weapon mastery already at 3rd level, and then you have to wait for 10 levels to upgrade it? It seems to be a long wait, and I suspect that gaining 'legendary' ranks at 13th and 19th level will be likely irrelevant in most campaigns. Personally, I think 5th/10th/15th would be a better advancement rate; perhaps it's just me, but IMO 10th level fighters aren't that common, either as PCs or NPCs. Then again, I don't know how the ancestry or class feats really work in the game... it may be that low-level (3rd to 5th) mastery feats are in fact comparable to 3E/PF low-level fighter features + feats.

I wonder if mastery works differently for NPCs and monsters, since it was already hinted at on some thread that usually it's not worth it to use PC classes or class abilities when designing them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

best solution here

Class name is fighter

Character profession is whatever the player wants: warrior, mercenary, bodyguard, gladiator etc

Scrap the notion that class name = character profession, that is dumb as hell

You're welcome =)


I agree. If your fighter kills for money, he is an assassin. If he goes around in wilderness, he is a ranger, and if he explores and checks enemy armies, he is a ran


Yossarian wrote:

I would use that as a definition for 'better' in this case, not 'slightly less damage on average than the previous edition's version of the feat'.

I kind of agree. Power attack was such an obvious first feat to take that it might as well have been a core part of the fighter class. Altering it in this way creates a situation where different fighter builds will actual be different.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I agree. If your fighter kills for money, he is an assassin. If he goes around in wilderness, he is a ranger, and if he explores and checks enemy armies, he is a ran

no clue how 'scout' became 'ran' ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I agree. If your fighter kills for money, he is an assassin. If he goes around in wilderness, he is a ranger, and if he explores and checks enemy armies, he is a ran
no clue how 'scout' became 'ran' ...

And here I thought I was about to learn a new word. :(

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I agree. If your fighter kills for money, he is an assassin. If he goes around in wilderness, he is a ranger, and if he explores and checks enemy armies, he is a ran

In the last game I DMed, I made a NPC Magus that called himself "Paladin of Nethys". :O

Dark Archive

Andy Brown wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Matt2VK wrote:


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.

Is it possible to get this changed to "Allows the fighter to target a creature and impose their shield to block an attack dealt to a ally.

Are you saying this ability should be allowed to target an ally 15 feet away?!
That would be quite cool if the Fighter is standing directly between (ranged) attacker and target

Personally, I am fine with it as is.. but I think the idea here is that the fighter is not necessarily putting the shield up in front of his ally but just getting it in the way of the ranger attacker's shot in any way.. or banging it into said attacker and causing them to miss.

Personally, while thematically cool and logical, I think this would become a bit too useful. It basically means one enemy the fighter is near is losing an attack that round, no matter who they are targeting.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

"Your mistake was that you thought of me as a man of the military. I am not that."
"What are you, then?"
"I am a man of war."
--- Colonel Ian Graeme, Dorsai

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Needs More Chaos Magic wrote:
Have you ever seen a fantasy movie where the hero calls himself a "fighter".

LONG LIVE THE FIGHTERS!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
And for the record, I'm a fencer and have been competing for almost 10 years since college. Everything a combatant does requires focus. Using the shield as an action is smart developing; your shield doesn't just hang out statically in front of you.

Would you require that a combatant expend an action to apply their dexterity bonus to their AC? They are not just hanging out statically in their square. It requires focus. Making everyone use an action to receive their dexterity bonus is smart developing.

Congratulations on your fencing accomplishments. I am not one. I did some light fighting in college and have had minor progress in martial arts. However, I think it is safe to say that not having a shield does not give you a case of dead arm. Whether you have a shield changes how you fight with your arm, not if you do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:

Would you require that a combatant expend an action to apply their dexterity bonus to their AC? They are not just hanging out statically in their square. It requires focus. Making everyone use an action to receive their dexterity bonus is smart developing.

Congratulations on your fencing accomplishments. I am not one. I did some light fighting in college and have had minor progress in martial arts. However, I think it is safe to say that not having a shield does not give you a case of dead arm. Whether you have a shield changes how you fight with your arm, not if you do.

I don't understand the hate toward shield use requiring an action. Sure, it's different from previous editions of D&D, but shields have pretty much always been very boring in the past. The new way of doing shields is so much more tactical and opens up all kinds of design space for interesting shield mechanics. It also provides a clear way to balance sword n' board against duelist style (1-handed sword with an empty hand). Personally, I love it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Smite Makes Right wrote:

Would you require that a combatant expend an action to apply their dexterity bonus to their AC? They are not just hanging out statically in their square. It requires focus. Making everyone use an action to receive their dexterity bonus is smart developing.

Congratulations on your fencing accomplishments. I am not one. I did some light fighting in college and have had minor progress in martial arts. However, I think it is safe to say that not having a shield does not give you a case of dead arm. Whether you have a shield changes how you fight with your arm, not if you do.

I don't understand the hate toward shield use requiring an action. Sure, it's different from previous editions of D&D, but shields have pretty much always been very boring in the past. The new way of doing shields is so much more tactical and opens up all kinds of design space for interesting shield mechanics. It also provides a clear way to balance sword n' board against duelist style (1-handed sword with an empty hand). Personally, I love it.

The hate is that shields are still incredibly boring, but now require an action to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
And for the record, I'm a fencer and have been competing for almost 10 years since college. Everything a combatant does requires focus. Using the shield as an action is smart developing; your shield doesn't just hang out statically in front of you.

Would you require that a combatant expend an action to apply their dexterity bonus to their AC? They are not just hanging out statically in their square. It requires focus. Making everyone use an action to receive their dexterity bonus is smart developing.

Congratulations on your fencing accomplishments. I am not one. I did some light fighting in college and have had minor progress in martial arts. However, I think it is safe to say that not having a shield does not give you a case of dead arm. Whether you have a shield changes how you fight with your arm, not if you do.

You are having a simulationist approach. (Nothing wrong with that, BTW)

I suggest you to try some other approach, like a gamist one, in order to understand why Paizo is doing what it is doing.

If a shield is free to use, then for balance reasons, the effect it has is small. If you make it use-activated, then you can make it having a stronger effect, because it balances out with the cost. Shields that cost one action, can add damage reduction = hardness, making them much more effective at reducing incoming damage. If it was just a passive effect, then you could not add something like damage reduction to it.


I'm pretty excited to see what sorts of impressive things one can do with shields later on if they build around them. I imagine my long-standing desire to play Ajax the Greater will be satisfied somewhere along the line, though it might take legendary shield proficiency.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
The hate is that shields are still incredibly boring, but now require an action to use.

Hmmm... I can't agree with that. We've only seen a fraction of what you can do with shields, and I already think they look really cool. I also don't see how the fact that shield-use takes an action is an inherently negative thing. It would be a nerf if shields in PF1 were errata'ed to take an action to use, but this is PF2; it's a different system. It's possible to balance action economy and weapon selection around the fact that shields take an action to use, and that's exactly what Paizo is doing. Attaching an action cost to shields allows Paizo to design them to be more powerful and cool, because there's more of a trade-off to using them.

1 to 50 of 1,122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Fighter Class Preview All Messageboards