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
151 to 200 of 1,122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Wait, so Attacks of Opportunity are now a reaction, does this mean you can only do one per turn, effectively making you unable to use any of your other reactions? That's a massive nerf in my eyes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's remarkable to see the 4e comparisons keep piling up the more I read about PF2. 4e was a great high fantasy combat system, but ultimately failed at "being D&D" in many players' eyes, which ultimately proved to be it's downfall.

Here's hoping you all at Paizo can catch lightning in a bottle and keep the "Pathfinder" in Pathfinder while still making a fun system to play with.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Point of order; what in here says that fighters won’t be able to compete in skills?

Everyone can compete in skills it seems. The proficiency spread is a +6 at best. That doesn't really make the game any more engaging though. If everyone is basically the same, why are there even numbers. The variance on a d20 will often out-way how much better one character is over the other.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
It occurs to me that I forgot to include a mention of Reactive Shield in this blog, which is a bit of an oversight. The preview version we ran all weekend had this ability, which allows you to spend your reaction to raise your shield. You can't block with it if you use this ability (since you've already spent your reaction), unless you get the extra reaction to block. I may try and get an edit in there to add a note about this.

Wait, you're saying that you have to spend an action to raise your shield to even get the AC bonus from the shield? I thought people were saying you only had to use an action if you wanted to do that block/damage reduction thing with it?

So you have to spend an action, give up the use of one of your hands, and you don't even gain AC to Reflex against blast attacks when you spend an action unless you're a level 14 fighter?

That's absolutely dreadful unless shields are giving a substantially bigger bonus to AC in 2E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isle Of The Deep wrote:

It's remarkable to see the 4e comparisons keep piling up the more I read about PF2. 4e was a great high fantasy combat system, but ultimately failed at "being D&D" in many players' eyes, which ultimately proved to be it's downfall.

Here's hoping you all at Paizo can catch lightning in a bottle and keep the "Pathfinder" in Pathfinder while still making a fun system to play with.

You are welcome to your opinion but4th ed was widely panned by everyone so clearly thats not what the community wants. Getting closer to that shouldnt be encouraged.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tuvarkz wrote:
Wait, so Attacks of Opportunity are now a reaction, does this mean you can only do one per turn, effectively making you unable to use any of your other reactions? That's a massive nerf in my eyes.

Default of 3.x/Pathfinder 1st Edition is 1 AoO per turn. This rules blog (and dev comments) have already revealed that options will exist to enable free/bonus reactions for specific purposes, leaving 'generic' reaction (and others) free.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Love the new power attack. There is nothing I hate more as someone who has always loved fighter than being told every single time I make one at low levels. "Take Power Attack."


Cyrad wrote:

Praises

  • More interesting tactics so the fighter can handle more types of encounters. As they should!
  • Fighter can diversify into different builds. Overspecialization is one of the biggest problems with martials in PF/D&D. Being forced to stick to a single combat style gets boring very fast and cripples the class. I'm happy this is getting addressed
  • More teamwork-oriented abilities. Good because this is a team game, after all!

    Concerns

  • No narrative power. This was one of the biggest problems with fighters and most martials. Every other class type gets abilities to heavily influence the campaign narrative. The fighter still gets nothing!
  • Still can't do much outside of combat. The game has three pillars of gameplay: skill challenges, combat, and social encounters. Most classes can meaningfully contribute in at least two of the pillars. The fighter still can meaningful contribute in only one and can't do hardly anything in the others, not even in ways that make sense for a soldier-type character.
  • Many things that feel like every character should be able to do (like threaten with melee weapons) are being carved out to be feats. While it's great that every class can pick up such options, it still feels like a step back.
  • To be fair, being able to be The Wall that Will Never Fall is pretty big in narrative terms. I see your concerns as far as Non-Combat goes, but I'd imagine Paizo'd be smart enough to give the Fighter bonuses to lore checks about combat and warfare, bonuses to make weapons and armor, etc.

    Silver Crusade

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I think we're going to get a better idea of Fighter's narrative power when we see more about the skills system and the downtime system.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Cool

    I want to be Prince Phillip now.

    blocking the fire


    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    coxey292 wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Point of order; what in here says that fighters won’t be able to compete in skills?
    Everyone can compete in skills it seems. The proficiency spread is a +6 at best. That doesn't really make the game any more engaging though. If everyone is basically the same, why are there even numbers. The variance on a d20 will often out-way how much better one character is over the other.

    You keep making these statements and in essence you couldn’t be more incorrect. The proficiency spread is is only 5, but then you need to factor in attribute bonus which can be another 5, circumstances that could give you another 2 or so, magic items which could provide another 2 or 3, and finally the difference in level from your opponent (1 for each level).

    This means there can easily be a difference of 10 on prof and attributes alone. With a magic item and some luck, it could be another 3-5, and then add 1 more for every difference in level.

    Wow, look at that. Suddenly you have some major differences in numbers. And we haven’t even talked about the percentages of the +/- 10 crit effects yet.

    Your hyperbole on the d20 is a little off base methinks.


    BryonD wrote:

    Cool

    I want to be Prince Phillip now.

    blocking the fire

    I'm not big on the idea of paladin being the main tank class, but if I can do something like Passage of Arms I might be convinced to go shield paladin...

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Friendly Rogue wrote:
    So Power Attack works somewhat similarly to Vital Strike in P1e? If Vital Strike is still a feat in P2e I'm interested to see how it'll work with this change

    You say this in context of current weapons and weapon scaling. We do not know how weapon scaling works yet....


    I really hope that the Fighter ends up having some non-combat class features, and am worried about armour mastery considering I can't think of any core class that could get it without me being against it.

    Aside from that, I'm happy that fighters get more choice with their combat.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Milo v3 wrote:

    I really hope that the Fighter ends up having some non-combat class features, and am worried about armour mastery considering I can't think of any core class that could get it without me being against it.

    Aside from that, I'm happy that fighters get more choice with their combat.

    Even the Paladin?


    tivadar27 wrote:

    Power Attack seems like it's going to be really useful when you want to "Full Attack" with a 2H weapon. Your options there will be:

    * attack, attack at -5, attack at -10, or
    * attack with power attack, attack at -5.
    The second sounds *much* better than the first.

    I don't know.

    Remember, all dice results are doubled in PF 2e Crits so think if that first hit was a crit... That is 30% more damage with 2 attacks compared to 3 attacks.

    So, you are doing way more. Granted, you'd have to either roll a 20 or have +10 hit vs target's AC to Crit.

    But Fighters usually do have good hit.


    I still really want to know if Nat 20 Or Nat 1 actually mean anything in the new system. They've pretty studiously avoided mentioning them, and with all the mentions of the changes to how "criticals" works, I'm wondering if rolling a natural 20 will actually change anything.

    Liberty's Edge

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gallyck wrote:
    Isle Of The Deep wrote:

    It's remarkable to see the 4e comparisons keep piling up the more I read about PF2. 4e was a great high fantasy combat system, but ultimately failed at "being D&D" in many players' eyes, which ultimately proved to be it's downfall.

    Here's hoping you all at Paizo can catch lightning in a bottle and keep the "Pathfinder" in Pathfinder while still making a fun system to play with.

    You are welcome to your opinion but4th ed was widely panned by everyone so clearly thats not what the community wants. Getting closer to that shouldnt be encouraged.

    It was not panned by everyone. I know quite a few people that still play it and can't stand D&D 3.5. As far as myself, I like 4e for a lot of reasons, but no, it doesn't really feel like D&D to me the way AD&D 2e, 3.x/Pathfinder, and 5e do. A lot of that boils down to the powers system and the overall feel of the game. So far I do not get that same feeling from PF2. In fact, a lot of what they have revealed are not dissimilar from ideas I've had for how I'd improve the system . . . or they're ideas I *wish* I had thought of. :)

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Enlight_Bystand wrote:
    ryric wrote:

    I like a lot of this, but I'm concerned at the implication that all fighters are at least Perception Experts - I was hoping skill ranks would be more customizable than that. I occasionally enjoy playing oblivious characters of all classes, and this exacerbates the issue of "everybody automatically gets better at everything" if you can't even choose to be Untrained in things.

    Power Attack seems like a slow, mighty swing a la Skyrim, which is fine. I really like the free weapon ranks, shades of BECMI Weapon Mastery there, which is a system I've always liked. Quick reversal seems solid unless your game always pits you against single foes. As far as the level 14 shield thing, I'm presuming you might have a slightly better than "off the shelf" shield by then so you may be looking at +5 or so to Reflex saves for an action...could be worth it if you suspect a blast is incoming.

    The Glass Cannon Podcast specifically called out that perception isn't a skill any more, it's a feature that everyone gets some level in, determined mostly by class. Since it was almost mandatory to take it in PF1, they've made it so in PF2

    I think I've played more PF1e characters with 0 ranks in Perception than I have characters with ranks. I max it maybe 20% of the time? It's not nearly as "necessary" as "boards wisdom" would have it, as long as at least 1 PC has it, at least in my experience. One of my favorite PF1e PCs was a fighter with no Perception and a Wis penalty. In Carrion Crown.

    Shadow Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Strachan Fireblade wrote:
    coxey292 wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Point of order; what in here says that fighters won’t be able to compete in skills?
    Everyone can compete in skills it seems. The proficiency spread is a +6 at best. That doesn't really make the game any more engaging though. If everyone is basically the same, why are there even numbers. The variance on a d20 will often out-way how much better one character is over the other.

    You keep making these statements and in essence you couldn’t be more incorrect. The proficiency spread is is only 5, but then you need to factor in attribute bonus which can be another 5, circumstances that could give you another 2 or so, magic items which could provide another 2 or 3, and finally the difference in level from your opponent (1 for each level).

    This means there can easily be a difference of 10 on prof and attributes alone. With a magic item and some luck, it could be another 3-5, and then add 1 more for every difference in level.

    Wow, look at that. Suddenly you have some major differences in numbers. And we haven’t even talked about the percentages of the +/- 10 crit effects yet.

    Your hyperbole on the d20 is a little off base methinks.

    Everyone can have those things. They have already said that magic items aren't going to be number bonuses, so that's out. The difference between a fighter who is good at a thing, and the wizard who is good at it, and all the other classes who are all good at it, is a bonus or penalty from -2 to +3. That's it. The lack of choice in the matter makes this even more obvious. Two dex based characters will almost always be the same at stealth because the difference is in the -2 to +5 since their stat is likely to be the same. No work needs to be done to be great at something, and systems like this make classes feel boring. It is the reason a majority of my friends don't play 5e. A monk and a wizard of equal level are pretty much the same in everything besides a couple of numbers.

    Silver Crusade

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    You're missing the number of abilities people who invest in proficiencies will get due to skill feats. Numbers aren't everything.


    Obviously we are only getting a tiny bit of info here. But most of it seems alright. Power attack was one of few feats in PF1e that scaled with levels, not sure if turning it into a flat extra die, and one more at some undefined later level, is better in that respect. Testing will have to show if it is.

    Still not enthused about the "raise shield" thing, though.

    Silver Crusade

    Very interesting blog, I kinda like everything.

    The defensive fighter might be interesting, I already like the option to use your reaction to decrease incoming damage, so a mitigation focussed tanking concept might be an option. For me it is preferable to PCs the GM can only hit on a 20.


    Some interesting ideas, but given that the Fighter role tends to overlap pretty extensively with the Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger it was always going to be tricky to give them a truly unique identity. Personally, in PF1 I tended to use the bonus feats to diversify so asto be competent with a few combat styles, I have high hopes for this method too.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
    Even the Paladin?

    Unless the alignment aspect is removed from paladin, then yes, I would be against Paladins being the armour masters.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    I'm liking a lot about this.

    Excited about:

    • It looks like power attack is good, but no longer so good that you're essentially forced to use it every turn. Awesome!
    • It looks like there are lots of nice touches to help speed up combat. I find one of the biggest indicators of how long combat will take is the number of attacks that take place, and I like how there are a lot of options that cut down on that. (E.g., power attack taking 2 actions, raising a shield taking an action, etc). As long as these options are good enough to make them worthwhile, I think this is a good move.
    • I like that attacks of opportunity are less common now. That's another thing that will cut down on the number of attacks that take place each round, which (again) will help to speed up combat. It also reduces one of the barriers to moving around the battlefield, allowing for more mobile/dynamic combat.

    Less excited about:

    • I share the vague worry that the high-level abilities being offered the fighter won't keep up with the stuff spellcasters get. Shield bonus to reflex saves is a nice perk, but at 14th level one would like to see abilities that feel legendary. Things like: Wielding a huge weapon without penalty! Using a 2H-bludgeoning weapon to smash the ground beneath your opponent, making it difficult terrain, and forcing them to make a save or fall prone, or creating a 5' pit beneath them! And so on.
    But all in all, I'm pretty excited!


    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    coxey292 wrote:
    Two dex based characters will almost always be the same at stealth because the difference is in the -2 to +5 since their stat is likely to be the same.

    That 7 points of difference is massive in a game where there's 20 points between critical success and critical failure. If the DC is high, the not proficient is far more likely to critically fail. If the DC is low, the proficient character is far more likely to critically succeed. If the DC is so low that they can both critically succeed then it wasn't a very challenging task to begin with.


    Starbuck_II wrote:
    tivadar27 wrote:

    Power Attack seems like it's going to be really useful when you want to "Full Attack" with a 2H weapon. Your options there will be:

    * attack, attack at -5, attack at -10, or
    * attack with power attack, attack at -5.
    The second sounds *much* better than the first.

    I don't know.

    Remember, all dice results are doubled in PF 2e Crits so think if that first hit was a crit... That is 30% more damage with 2 attacks compared to 3 attacks.

    So, you are doing way more. Granted, you'd have to either roll a 20 or have +10 hit vs target's AC to Crit.

    But Fighters usually do have good hit.

    It sounds like to-hit bonuses will be scaled back quite a bit, so the single attack at -10 will likely be pretty close to a guaranteed miss, minus rolling really well. Also, did we get info on whether or not the Power Attack die is doubled on a crit? That would make things a lot better...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dead Phoenix wrote:
    I'm not big on the idea of paladin being the main tank class

    Read the Shield Warden part of the Blog.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    I have some concerns.

    The wording of Quick Reversal makes it sound something like

    "Once per round when you are flanked and miss an attack after your first one, you can make another attack against the enemy opposite of your target with the same penalty."

    Best case scenario, you're getting an extra attack every single round, which sounds great.

    But! You've got some real hoops to jump through to benefit.

    1. You need to fight more than one enemy. Let's put the probability of that at 66%, with 1/3rd of encounters being up against solo threats or when you're on the last rounds cleaning up the final enemy.

    2. When you are up against two or more enemies, you then need to draw the attention of at least two enemies. Let's put this at 40% because even if you can sudden charge, enemies are going to want to go after the squishies, not waste their attacks on the muscle-head.

    3. Now that you've got their attention, you need them to flank you. Flanking gives a +2 bonus, so we can make this 75%. A%~%%!# DMs could of course avoid flanking you altogether so that you couldn't ever trigger the feat, but we'll not think about that.

    4. Now that you're flanked, you need to attack and miss. -5 and -10 penalties, so this should be pretty easy. Let's put it at 65% chance to miss.

    5. Okay, your feat has triggered! You finally get to make that extra attack! Unfortunately, you've only got a 35% chance to hit with it.

    Combine all of these (what I think are pretty conservative) probabilities together and you end up hitting with an extra attacks worth of damage once every twenty rounds.

    Compare that to a +1 damage bonus that could trigger multiple times per round, and as cool as the flavor of this feat might sound, it screams TRAAAP to me.


    Sounds pretty cool! I like the idea of a sword-and-board Fighter who stands as a bulwark between her allies and their foes. I can't wait to see all of the awesome class abilities, and combine them with the cool Master and Legendary skill feats!


    Ninja in the Rye wrote:
    Jason Bulmahn wrote:
    It occurs to me that I forgot to include a mention of Reactive Shield in this blog, which is a bit of an oversight. The preview version we ran all weekend had this ability, which allows you to spend your reaction to raise your shield. You can't block with it if you use this ability (since you've already spent your reaction), unless you get the extra reaction to block. I may try and get an edit in there to add a note about this.

    Wait, you're saying that you have to spend an action to raise your shield to even get the AC bonus from the shield? I thought people were saying you only had to use an action if you wanted to do that block/damage reduction thing with it?

    So you have to spend an action, give up the use of one of your hands, and you don't even gain AC to Reflex against blast attacks when you spend an action unless you're a level 14 fighter?

    That's absolutely dreadful unless shields are giving a substantially bigger bonus to AC in 2E.

    Based on the GC playtest, the AC boost is about the same. The reason you want a shield is to Block damage from an opponent's attacks (effectively DR)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    coxey292 wrote:
    Strachan Fireblade wrote:
    coxey292 wrote:
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Point of order; what in here says that fighters won’t be able to compete in skills?
    Everyone can compete in skills it seems. The proficiency spread is a +6 at best. That doesn't really make the game any more engaging though. If everyone is basically the same, why are there even numbers. The variance on a d20 will often out-way how much better one character is over the other.

    You keep making these statements and in essence you couldn’t be more incorrect. The proficiency spread is is only 5, but then you need to factor in attribute bonus which can be another 5, circumstances that could give you another 2 or so, magic items which could provide another 2 or 3, and finally the difference in level from your opponent (1 for each level).

    This means there can easily be a difference of 10 on prof and attributes alone. With a magic item and some luck, it could be another 3-5, and then add 1 more for every difference in level.

    Wow, look at that. Suddenly you have some major differences in numbers. And we haven’t even talked about the percentages of the +/- 10 crit effects yet.

    Your hyperbole on the d20 is a little off base methinks.

    Everyone can have those things. They have already said that magic items aren't going to be number bonuses, so that's out. The difference between a fighter who is good at a thing, and the wizard who is good at it, and all the other classes who are all good at it, is a bonus or penalty from -2 to +3. That's it. The lack of choice in the matter makes this even more obvious. Two dex based characters will almost always be the same at stealth because the difference is in the -2 to +5 since their stat is likely to be the same. No work needs to be done to be great at something, and systems like this make classes feel boring. It is the reason a majority of my friends don't play 5e. A monk and a wizard of equal level are pretty much the same in everything besides a couple of...

    So are you saying you like all characters being jack of all trades and the same? Isn't that a huge problem in your eyes? If I optimize being stealthy I should have to sacrifice things for it. If I want to do the most damage I should have to sacrifice things for it. Making everyone the same +/-3 would be absolutely, unequivocally, terrible.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Arssanguinus wrote:
    Gallyck wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Gallyck wrote:
    Noone cared about the decreased accuracy because any fighter who doesnt suck should be reliably hitting.
    Even if you only need a 2 on the d20 to hit on your first attack, you do not want to take a -5 penalty in PF2. Because it eliminates over half of your criticals hits, it's a reduction of over 1/3 of your expected damage (and you also don't get to do the fun things that only happen on a critical).
    I mean thats fine and all. But assuming things like weapon focus exist it still should be possible to hit 10 more than an AC if slightly optimized. Im fairly neutral on the hit by 10 or more for a crit (why fix something that isnt broke though.) If its solely just hit by 10 or more then im afraid a lot of the weapon variety will be right out since there is no reason to take a scimitar at d6 when a longsword does a d8 and they both crit at the same rate.
    Nt saying it will, but I could see design space for a feat which opens up special features or attacks for specific weapons or types of weapons.

    And you don't see an issue with a penalty that doesn't actually effect you as a balancing mechanic? Gotta say, I like the new method much more. It makes whether or not to Power Attack a legitimate tactical choice instead of a requirement.

    Also it was already revealed somewhere or another that they're planning to make weapons special moreso via special abilities. For example they said Scimitar will have a "Sweep" ability that reduces the iterative penalty when attacking a second foe adjacent to the first, a la Cleave, or something to that effect, don't remember the exact details.

    Gallyck wrote:
    Thomas, A wrote:
    might be the lack of info given but it sounds fighters are going to be same-y
    Yup.And videogamey. Ok i go into power attack stance! now defense stance! bleh

    That's...the opposite of what's happening here? In PF1 Power Attack was a stance. It took no action of its own to activate, and affected all your attacks until your next turn. This version of Power Attack is just that: A single powerful attack. Also in PF1 we had...Fight Defensively/Combat Expertise. Which were also stances. So now you have to raise a shield to benefit from it, instead of just strapping it on. But on the other hand, you potentially gain a lot more than just some boring AC bonus. Not 100% sold on the shield action thing, but they also haven't given us full info on it yet.


    Rek Rollington wrote:
    coxey292 wrote:
    Two dex based characters will almost always be the same at stealth because the difference is in the -2 to +5 since their stat is likely to be the same.
    That 7 points of difference is massive in a game where there's 20 points between critical success and critical failure.
    tivadar27 wrote:
    It sounds like to-hit bonuses will be scaled back quite a bit, so the single attack at -10 will likely be pretty close to a guaranteed miss, minus rolling really well.

    Not when you consider Fighters with "overkill" attack bonus meaning they are ACCUSTOMED to getting Crits as often as not on their non-penalized attacks. In that case extra attack at -10 is not "near-guaranteed miss" but "decent chances to hit, minor chance to Crit, some chance to Fail". And we already know of at least one option to trade lowest "iterative" attack for damage bonus for characters/situations that makes sense for.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    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.

    Liberty's Edge

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Nikosandros wrote:
    Serisan wrote:
    Nikosandros wrote:
    Do you have to take an action to raise the shield each round?
    All indications so far are yes.
    It seems a bit weird to me that if you don't spend an action each turn, your shield is completely useless. I wonder if a "non-raised" shield confers a minor defensive bonus that increases if you spend an action on it.

    does it feel weird that if you dot spend an action to attack then your sword does nothing ?

    because really this is the same idea

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    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?


    FlySkyHigh wrote:
    I still really want to know if Nat 20 Or Nat 1 actually mean anything in the new system. They've pretty studiously avoided mentioning them, and with all the mentions of the changes to how "criticals" works, I'm wondering if rolling a natural 20 will actually change anything.

    Natural 20 is a critical hit (no confirmation required) still. I haven't seen anyone roll a natural 1 yet, but I know there are no fumble rules for attacking so worst case is that it's an automatic miss.

    Source - Watched Games Trade Media play the Playtest for 2 hours
    http://gametrademedia.tv/watch-live/


    18 people marked this as a favorite.
    thflame wrote:

    Bad new devs:

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

    This is good news. In PF1 Power Attack was so good it was all-but-required. If PF2 Power Attack was better than PF1 Power Attack, then basically 100% of builds would end up taking it. And that's boring! It was due for a nerf, and this seems like a cool implementation to make it less powerful and more dynamic.


    So with power attack if you are using a weapon with multiple damage dice (say a greatsword) is it still just 1 extra die?


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I 100% am so happy Power Attack is no longer going to be a required investment. I *hate* being told what feats I should take otherwise I'm being 'suboptimal'.


    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.

    How about on requiring a 10 to hit?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    RumpinRufus wrote:
    thflame wrote:

    Bad new devs:

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

    This is good news. In PF1 Power Attack was so good it was all-but-required. If PF2 Power Attack was better than PF1 Power Attack, then basically 100% of builds would end up taking it. And that's boring! It was due for a nerf, and this seems like a cool implementation to make it less powerful and more dynamic.

    Disagree. It was one of the most useful feats heavily nerfed. It was what people want out of feats. Useful from 1-20. Easy to use. Now its pretty easy to blow 2 actions for +1 damage over using one action.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
    Gallyck wrote:
    Thomas, A wrote:
    might be the lack of info given but it sounds fighters are going to be same-y
    Yup.And videogamey. Ok i go into power attack stance! now defense stance! bleh

    How is this different than saying, "I'm going to Power Attack." or "I'm using Combat Expertise."

    It is, literally, the same thing...re: activating move or stance.


    Scott Mcgroarty wrote:
    So with power attack if you are using a weapon with multiple damage dice (say a greatsword) is it still just 1 extra die?

    I'm guessing that there are no weapons that start with multiple dice. With +X weapons adding more dice, and Power Attack adding more dice, I'm guessing that the base will always be a single die to avoid confusion.

    If you're using a +1 weapon, though, Power Attack still just adds one more die from the sound of it.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    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.

    Two things: One, seeing as the old power attack was so good you pretty much had to take it as a front line fighter, I sincerely doubt that that is exactly bad news. In fact that sounds like exactly what they'd be aiming for - more legitimate choices.

    Whether that pans out in practice, we'll see :)

    and/or two, PF2 is clearly running on a different mathematical benchmarks, so direct comparisons are going to be of minimal helpfulness, if at all.


    Quandary wrote:
    Dead Phoenix wrote:
    I'm not big on the idea of paladin being the main tank class
    Read the Shield Warden part of the Blog.

    Not 100% sure what you mean, but I was suggesting that paladin not only gets the ability to block an aoe, but to also block it for the rest of the party(assuming they are in position, which may be an issue).


    Quote:
    I'm guessing that there are no weapons that start with multiple dice

    How will that work with size differences? Are you saying a greater the size of a house should do the same damage as one made for a gnome?


    11 people marked this as a favorite.
    RumpinRufus wrote:
    thflame wrote:

    Bad new devs:

    Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.
    This is good news. In PF1 Power Attack was so good it was all-but-required. If PF2 Power Attack was better than PF1 Power Attack, then basically 100% of builds would end up taking it. And that's boring! It was due for a nerf, and this seems like a cool implementation to make it less powerful and more dynamic.

    Yeah, weird assessment of new game system , "A mechanic does 5% less average damage than different system mechanic with SAME NAME = BAD NEWS! FAIL!" As if the numeric result of different systems' mechanics with "same name" even has inherent meaning or importance. This sort of analysis might apply to ruleset tweak (like 3.5->P1E), but P2E is new game... JUST basic change re: Hit Die and Shield DR changes other side of damage/HP equation, and that is most superficial detail. I mean, Paizo certainly uses basic math curves like this in system design, but important part is not any one curve in isolation but how entire system dynamics interact.

    151 to 200 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