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
251 to 300 of 1,122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gallyck wrote:
I'm really interested in how they plan to not make every character within the same +/-3 range on everything. I think we can all agree that that is not good right?

This situation does not exist. You’ve already read how they plan to differentiate characters. You need more info from the designers.

Pick one.

In my opinion, it’s the second one but any of these may be valid for you.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
...

At this point we might want to move this to a new thread (perhaps your math thread? That is a thread specifically about math nerdery). I will say that the damage seems significantly too high across the board. If you need a 10 to hit and deal 1d12+4 damage, dealing 25 damage on average in a round (listed for normal) is way too high. It should be 10.5 damage per hit x (18/20 in expected hits + 3/20 in expected extra crit damage).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The one thing I think we all need to remember is there are three attributes to any RPG that needs to be accounted for, one is the flavor or fluff of the system. does the character and the system play off the fantasy and imagery in our collective imagination? Second, the Math, does the calculations of attack, damage, armour, DCs, and Hit Points line up for a balanced system? and finally playability, does the system play smoothly and enjoyably for the players and DM?

I believe that these previews can only give us the flavor and playability of the system, we will need to see the playtest to get the math portion of it. or poke the rules team for them.

*Poke* *Poke* *Poke*


tivadar27 wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:

The change to Power Attack makes sense in a system where extra hitting power means more critical hits. It may not function like the old Power Attack but it still fits the name. It's now a bigger, slower attack taking too actions.

The raise shield thing is interesting, but I hope we can add more to it. Like taking a feat that allows you to do a shield bash and raise your shield in a single action. Then you could do a Power Attack + Shield Bash in a single turn and have your shield up. That would be fun.

Raising your shield can be done as a reaction (I'm pretty sure) for fighters, so you can still:

2 action: Power Attack
1 action: Shield Bash
reaction: Raise Shield

I'm guessing that just using a two handed weapon and defeating your enemies faster by dealing more damage is still going to be the far superior option, just like in 1E.

They've made minor improvements to shields but at the expense of using half your actions in a round to actually use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallyck wrote:
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Gallyck wrote:
I'm really interested in how they plan to not make every character within the same +/-3 range on everything. I think we can all agree that that is not good right?
First off that's +/-5, and secondly, no. In fact the debate on that very question has been raging in a different thread for more than 1,000 posts now. Personally, I'm in favor of it. It sounds silly on the face of it, at least coming from PF1, but other factors that the new system is introducing (such as the crit fail/success rules, and special abilities unlocked by higher proficiency levels) make it much more viable. If anything, I think it's a vast improvement.
Link to that other thread so I can take my anger there then. It sounds like absolute hot garbage that a wizard can be almost as good at hitting something with a sword with minimal investment. So ide like to go rage there.

It's more about skills, but the math is the same, and so are the reasons you're completely misunderstanding the whole thing, so:

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkm3?Are-You-Proficient#discuss
Have fun?

Scarab Sages

After reading through the class preview... I am even sadder that paizo is abandoning new content for p1.


for people worried about narrative power, I suspect all characters getting skill feats as well as the proficiency system for skill should mostly address this problem for fighters.


I think folks are getting caught up on needing that third action for cool things. Sure you have to raise your shield or you can make a -10 attack. That -10 attack isnt going to be all that effective and down right dangerous if your GM likes crit fail Nyuck Nycuk rules. I can picture a lot of fun things classes can do with that third action in place of a third -10 attack.

Also, the AoO isnt a fighter only thing. Fighters can do it without using an action to ready. Im sure folks might hate the idea of spending a third action and reaction to perform AoO, but its still an option. There might even be ways for other classes to take a feat to gain the fighter ability.

Im guessing other classes will have cool things to do in the third action space as well as reaction to make up for it. Hopefully.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Players (and smart monsters) like to set up flanking. While flanking, you're no where near being adjacent to another. Actually, with all the AoE spells and abilities, being a bit spread out is more beneficial for the party.
So abilities that require being adjacent see very limited use but if you can apply the ability to a target creature, those abilities become a lot more useful and worth getting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:


Concerns
  • Still not happy with only Fighters getting AoO. I could totally see limiting it to martials in general without a feat, so Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues could also start with it, but Fighters only? Really???

Questions

  • Can we get official confirmation whether you really have to raise your shield every single turn? Because that's not a thing in real life; as someone mentioned above, it's basically instinctive with even the most rudimentary training. It kind of sounds from the playtest like you do actually have to spend an action every turn, but on the other hand the GM and players in the playtest also made multiple mistakes, so I can't tell if this was also a mistake.

Agree with your nice things.

TOTALLY agree with your AoO concern. Agree with the other two corcerns.

About the questions, I'm interested in the shield question only, the other all seems to have a yes answer.


Am I going to need to write a guide so people understand this one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

Is there a source somewhere that confirms weapon damage dice? Is a greatsword still 2d6? Does Power Attack make it 4d6? Do two-handed weapons still add 1.5 STR?

Where did the information on +1/+2 weapons come from? Do we know that each +x results in more dice? Are there weapons that deal multiple dice in damage?

Seems martials got nerfed, and fighters got worse not better. Not happy, and now much less excited for the other classes.

To be sure, the paladin is more than likely going to be our Tank class, most likely with CHA related abilities to draw aggro, since I can't really see a class that focuses on armor being able to use that feature without making enemies want/need to attack them.

Seems the 4e comparisons are coming more and more true. I'm losing faith in this edition now.

Move+ Power attack is just as bad as move+ vital strike. That's why we hated vital strike.

At what rate does this power attack scale? How much does it scale?

You've created many questions that I didn't realize I never wanted to have to ask.


MMCJawa wrote:
for people worried about narrative power, I suspect all characters getting skill feats as well as the proficiency system for skill should mostly address this problem for fighters.

Except everyone has access to the skill feat system.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
thflame wrote:
...
At this point we might want to move this to a new thread (perhaps your math thread? That is a thread specifically about math nerdery). I will say that the damage seems significantly too high across the board. If you need a 10 to hit and deal 1d12+4 damage, dealing 25 damage on average in a round (listed for normal) is way too high. It should be 10.5 damage per hit x (18/20 in expected hits + 3/20 in expected extra crit damage).

Made a new thread, found a bug, fixed it.

TL;DR, you're right. False alarm.

I'll go have my humble pie now...


14 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.


Can sudden charge and power attack be combined?


Definitely has a 4th edition vibe. Definitely didn't purchase 4th edition either. I hope they will listen to play test and this isn't just early access where they change superficial nothing's and say look we did a play test!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.


i wonder, when you use an action to power attack, will that influence all of your attacks you can still make that turn?
So 1 action for power attack and 2 actions of 1 attack each, would both attacks get the extra damage?


master_marshmallow wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.

Never have I smashed the favorite button harder than right here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.

In that case we need an optional rule to make all damage dice deal average damage automatically. Super reliable numbers and the unnecessary, purely ceremonial damage roll is out too.

Either way i like the idea that the amount of damage your weapon deals by itself is now actually a meaningful factor in the game, not just "Is it two-handed? Y/N" whether thats dice for people who prefer the randomness or a hard number for those who want more predictable output.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I also find the bonus to reflex saves from a shield at level 14 pretty lack luster. Shouldn't that come online at like level 5 when fireballs are getting tossed around? By level 14 I would expect to be able to sacrifice my shield to deflect a bad save against a ray of disintegration.

Also by not having even a single paragraph on the narrative power of the fighter is concerning to me because it feels like the issues I had ( and many others had) with the fighter isn't being acknowledged by the pf2 developers, it's concerning because if their narrative power isn't a big enough concern to warrant a paragraph in their introduction then all sorts of other issues the community I share have about PF and what we want in a second edition seems increasingly more remote.


Threeshades wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.

In that case we need an optional rule to make all damage dice deal average damage automatically. Super reliable numbers and the unnecessary, purely ceremonial damage roll is out too.

Either way i like the idea that the amount of damage your weapon deals by itself is now actually a meaningful factor in the game, not just "Is it two-handed? Y/N" whether thats dice for people who prefer the randomness or a hard number for those who want more predictable output.

I like that actually, doing average damage in place of rolling.

But still, it is going to create more scenarios where we will find the "one true weapon" and everyone will use it because it has the best dice to roll to reliably deal damage.

If this is the result of the fighter being the best at weapons, then by virtue all the other classes will be terrible too. Damage is no longer going to be the economy of the game.

This is bad design. This doesn't feel like Pathfinder, which rewarded me for buying all the products and learning what the best choices were, but rather forces homogeneity on us in favor of 'balance at all costs.' This was my red line.

I do not want to derail the blog thread, and I feel I now have enough information to inform my own opinion of where I see this edition going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
I'm waiting for the dramatic twist where it turns out that Monk is PF2's armor specialist.

That would be awesome to play a Saint Seiya inspired character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could just be predisposed to see the similarities, but this sounds a lot like the fighter gets a bunchbof at will powers and we've just renamed them feats. I will be very interested to see how it reads and plays. I can see how things are evolving from fighter talents to fighter "feats"/"powers". Just can't help but see the immediate similarity. I'll need to look at it in depth.


Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

THINGS I LIKE:

I like the general tone of the post and of the fighter concept. I like your goals for the fighter and I'm glad you're giving it some flexibility.

I'm glad that Power Attack is getting a change, and several of the other feats mentioned also sound pretty interesting.

I like the idea that not everyone gets Attacks of Opportunity, but fighters all do. Not only will fighters stand out, but the battlefield won't be so static.

THINGS I DON'T LIKE:

I'm still hating that raising your shield costs an action. Having used one for years, I can verify that it doesn't really need much thought or time.

Like practically everyone else, I think that the bonus to reflex saves from a shield MUST come at a much lower level. 6th seems reasonable to me.

THINGS I'M CURIOUS ABOUT:
I really want to see how archery works out. I want fighters to be the best archers -and- I want archery to be toned way the heck down so that it's not the nuclear weapon of the battlefield.

I'm curious how long it will take for new classes to take everything the fighter does and do it better. PLEASE don't do this. I'm looking at you, slayer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I actually have a request for the new rules and this concerns Archetypes.

Could you put out a Vigilante/Intrigue-style Archetype for every class? I know you won't have the actual Vigilante class for a while (if ever) but it would be nice to have all the Core classes with the ability to do an Intrigue campaign without having to try and find a way to convert those rules to 2nd Edition. Things like concealing identities and the like would be interesting and wouldn't really take up that much time.

For that matter, I suspect some of the hybrid-classes like the Swashbuckler and the Slayer will be easily recreated with Archetypes, so those may also be handy options for Archetypes so that someone who likes the new classes could still have an option similar to that when GMs switch over to 2nd edition... but mostly I'm hoping for something for those of us who enjoy the Intrigue archetypes and rules. :)

Shadow Lodge

Gallyck wrote:
Definitely has a 4th edition vibe. Definitely didn't purchase 4th edition either. I hope they will listen to play test and this isn't just early access where they change superficial nothing's and say look we did a play test!

Well, we do have only 4 months(gotta get it ready to sell to the impulse buyers at next year's conventions), they won't release it early, and they've said they're putting the more extreme rules they had into the play test, so.... better be heavily pessimistic about it. It doesn't sound good.

And now I will wait to see if any of the regulars pop on to say I'm wrong or something to that effect. >.>

Mudfoot wrote:
Getting shield bonuses to reflex at 14th level is much too late. It might as well be never. This should be available at more like 3rd level. It's not broken there because the bonus is only about +2 anyway. woot.

Heavily agreeing. It's an iconic fantasy ability. What's the point of getting it near the end of your career(if APs are anything like PF1's Aps)?

Dead Phoenix wrote:
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...

You know, you might want to check out the Spheres of Might system for PF1. It has an ability that is pretty close(might even be better) than Passage of Arms.

Honestly if Drop Dead Studios and Dreamscarred Press keep producing PF1 material they might be able to keep PF1 alive. Their material is usually more balanced anyhow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
But still, it is going to create more scenarios where we will find the "one true weapon" and everyone will use it because it has the best dice to roll to reliably deal damage.

Eh… I dunno. I'm guessing more uniform damage dice, with distinctions made with interesting properties. So you pick a weapon based on your class's proficiency, how many hands you want to dedicate, and what weapon properties suit your style. (As opposed to one or two best weapons for each category.) We already saw that scimitar (I think?) was a versatile weapon focused on multiple attacks, giving one perk for hitting an enemy repeatedly, and another for hitting different enemies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Another interesting post, pretty tantalizing too as it generates more questions than it brought answers. I guess this is a feature of the blog, not a bug. OK, fair enough, if you guys were ready to lay it all out you'd have done it already.

Still, I second the many comments saying that there's nothing at all there for out of combat situations. That's a bit concerning, even if you argue that it says "fighter" on the can.

Many seem to have issues with one or more of the following: AoO no longer default, shield needs an action to be useful, Power Attack looks like old Vital Strike. Some of that sounds a bit like generic reluctance to change, which it's necessarily wrong - why change if it isn't broken?

I'd argue that change can have merit even if legacy isn't broken, provided you bring something fresh and interesting.

AoO no longer default: In PF1 AoO isn't a broken mechanic, but people get punished for moving (vast majority of AoOs). This change will make fights more dynamic and tactically diverse. The new and interesting thing that this brings is a choice for the fighter: Use your reaction for AoO, or for something else? I understand many new and interesting reactions are yet to be shown, not just the shield thing.

Shield needs an action to raise it: PF1 shields aren't broken, but one has to admit they aren't the most exciting part of the game. The change makes them more interesting, because they're subject to choice every round: Do I raise my shield, or do I move further across the battlefield, or do I take one more attack at a penalty? Lots more options and opportunities for cool choices other than full attack.

Power Attack now adds a die: PF1's Power Attack is somewhat broken. Proof: Everyone takes it. It's too much of an optimal choice, which is boring, so much so that people have taken to calling it a feat tax. Now, by requiring 2 actions instead of 1, it's the subject of a choice every round, which is good. As for the fact it gives you an extra damage die rather than a fixed bonus, this removes the (minor) problem of the damage die being overshadowed by humongous bonuses.

Regarding the objections about the narrow numeric range between Untrained and Master or Legendary, the relatively small numeric impact of shields, or the idea that a good fighter should expect to hit on his first attack, etc: I think we need to get used to the PF2 math being really different. A +1 or +2 bonus or penalty is often going to be a bigger deal than in PF1, because of the critical success/failure system. With an extra +2 you don't only improve your chances to hit by 10%: You also improve your chances to crit, as well as reduce your chances to critically fail, by 10%. This +2 is going to change your damage output quite a lot more than it did in PF1. This is also valid defensively, so a +2 from your shield is worth spending an action. We see an example of that in the Glass Cannon podcast, when a character uses a defensive reaction (a Rogue ability if I remember correctly) to grab a quick +2: He gets hit anyway, but the +2 spares him from a very nasty critical.

Overall, I think these changes, while odd at first glance, will bring a lot of interesting dynamics and diversity of actions in combat play.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I am absolutely happy about is a seeming movement away from fixed damage that completely outstrips the dice they are attached to.

I would much rather roll more dice than simply accumulate static bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Honestly if Drop Dead Studios and Dreamscarred Press keep producing PF1 material they might be able to keep PF1 alive. Their material is usually more balanced anyhow.

Funny you should mention Drop Dead...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Shifting the focus on doing damage from "accumulating a bunch of static bonuses" to "rolling more dice" is a positive change. I had one character who by the end of the campaign was rolling like "1d8+45" for damage and at that point, the die is pretty much superfluous.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is making me rethink my view of the fighter class. If the other class reworks are as good as this, than this is going to be sweet!


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Since Power Attack and Sudden Charge each take two actions and you only get three actions in a round, I'm guessing not.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Both cost 2 actions to use. You get 3 actions per round. So no unless you can build up over 2 rounds or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.
Since Power Attack and Sudden Charge each take two actions and you only get three actions in a round, I'm guessing not.

I'd like an option to add power attack onto other things by increasing their action cost by one, I guess. So you could sudden charge for 2 and Power Attack for +1, using all three of your actions.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Joana wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.
Since Power Attack and Sudden Charge each take two actions and you only get three actions in a round, I'm guessing not.
I'd like an option to add power attack onto other things by increasing their action cost by one, I guess. So you could sudden charge for 2 and Power Attack for +1, using all three of your actions.

That would be 4 actions however, I don't see stuff being allowed at a discount as that is screaming spell abuse.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Shifting the focus on doing damage from "accumulating a bunch of static bonuses" to "rolling more dice" is a positive change. I had one character who by the end of the campaign was rolling like "1d8+45" for damage and at that point, the die is pretty much superfluous.

I hope he rolls low.


Joana wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.
Since Power Attack and Sudden Charge each take two actions and you only get three actions in a round, I'm guessing not.

Since Sudden Charge itself is special ability reducing cost of combined action, it's hardly a stretch to imagine a high level Feat likewise allowing combined Charge and Power Attack. Pretty clear the overall model is Power Attack is generally it's own thing like Vital Strike, but AFAIK even P1E ended up with options to combine that with other specific actions. P2E is still game of exceptions to rule like Pathfinder and 3.x, all these "norms" are there to be broken.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Shifting the focus on doing damage from "accumulating a bunch of static bonuses" to "rolling more dice" is a positive change. I had one character who by the end of the campaign was rolling like "1d8+45" for damage and at that point, the die is pretty much superfluous.

The die should be superfluous, because it means your character can be reliable regardless of the weapon they are using.

It won't be good design when killing the dragon becomes two battles of you vs. the dice landing correctly instead of making sure your properly trained fighter hits and the team can rely on him/her to kill the dragon within a small margin of #of hits landed. Now you could see a swing of something like 6 damage per hit to 28 damage per hit on the same weapon.

This is not good design, I'm not being rewarded for learning the system. This is not Pathfinder.


Tarondor wrote:
I really want to see how archery works out. I want fighters to be the best archers -and- I want archery to be toned way the heck down so that it's not the nuclear weapon of the battlefield.

I would tend to think Rangers would still be best at archery and TWF, Fighters would just get to also be very good at it. If Fighter is best at all weapon groups then what does the Ranger's niche become? Unless they do something like give Ranger an animal companion from first level, and/or some powerful abilities like an improved PF1 Skirmisher or 10xmillion improved PF1 Trapper.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Subparhiggins wrote:
I'm glad that AoO's are being restricted. Combat is about to get way more interesting, and I no longer am going to feel like I have to remind a player every single time they move or take an action, "That is going to provoke, would you like to do it anyway?"

x10. Outcome of "everybody always having AoO" means everybody always avoids triggering AoO. If you don't know if they have AoO or not (I don't think it will be as rare as people seem to think), why not go for it and see?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Shifting the focus on doing damage from "accumulating a bunch of static bonuses" to "rolling more dice" is a positive change. I had one character who by the end of the campaign was rolling like "1d8+45" for damage and at that point, the die is pretty much superfluous.

The die should be superfluous, because it means your character can be reliable regardless of the weapon they are using.

It won't be good design when killing the dragon becomes two battles of you vs. the dice landing correctly instead of making sure your properly trained fighter hits and the team can rely on him/her to kill the dragon within a small margin of #of hits landed. Now you could see a swing of something like 6 damage per hit to 28 damage per hit on the same weapon.

This is not good design, I'm not being rewarded for learning the system. This is not Pathfinder.

We haven't seen everything, and I'd be really surprised if they haven't already thought of this and encountered it in their internal playtesting - they've been playing for a year, after all. Maybe as you improve in a weapon from Expert to Master or whatever, you get to start rerolling low damage dice. Maybe instead of just rolling double damage on a crit, a crit is actually rolling damage once and adding the max of what you would have rolled on a normal hit. There's any number of things they could have already done to mitigate a night of rolling 1's.


Biztak wrote:
thflame wrote:

Bad new devs:

Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.
did you take into consideration that AC might scale better or did you use PF1 AC?

Not only that (and HP pools and damage mitigation), but the meaning of this math curve is just one piece of puzzle: What is P2E expectations re: combat length? How do other damage sources compare? What is relative efficacy of non-damage options?

Damage effect of one mechanic (which others have accurately compared more to Vital Strike given action correlation, despite using Power Attack name) is really meaningless in a vacuum, and that goes EVEN WHEN accounting for AC which is just another factor in puzzle.

Agreed the math stuff belongs in other thread.


My single greatest concern is the lack of any mention of Fighters having greater narrative power than they did in First Edition. Can we please get a response to this concern?

Liberty's Edge

I am guessing that attacks of opportunity are damage oriented crowd control method.

What is concerning to the me is that the language of the post hints that there may artificial fighter only abilities. One of my pet peeves is the fighter level requirement for greater weapon focus and greater weapon focus. Either this is gained through training and the fighter level is out of place or it is a class feature like animal empathy. As the fighter is just a focus on martial training, the fighter level requirement is an artificial method of enticing players to play the class.

The fighter should be enticing in its own right even if many players dip a few levels for some expedited martial training.


35 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
This is not good design, I'm not being rewarded for learning the system. This is not Pathfinder.

I'd rather reward players for actual play than for doing homework to obtain some arcane level of system mastery.

251 to 300 of 1,122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Fighter Class Preview All Messageboards