Fighter Class Preview

People seem to prefer taking 10, actually...

Bodhizen wrote:

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?

Then the Fighter is not your class. They don't need any NARRATIVE power. They are a COMBATIVE CLASS. They fight. At most I can see is maybe doing something with intimidate. Other than than I don't think they need any. If you want it that bad then dip in to classes that give it.

The response is either there is none or wait till the playlets comes out and see the full CLASS.

That's not entirely a fair statement. For example, I believe in d&d 3 or 3.5, there was a gladiator prestige class that could use his gladiatorial fame in a narrative fashion. However, since the fighter is, in concept, a generic class, the narrative aspects would likely come from feat choices that have flavor attached to them.

Just because the class is specialized in combat does not mean that it should not have non-combat options.

That's my take away too. At our table Paladins are almost always tanks with some very nice extra utility. I look forward to seeing if they can make fighters into the main damage dealers with some cool extra utility too.

If Paizo went with this approach to both the Paladin and the Fighter, it kind of begs the question what sort of niches the other "full BAB" classes would fill; I'd imagine the Barbarian would slip pretty well into sheer damage with virtually no defense, but for Ranger and Monk (and all of the P1e classes but that's an entirely different subject) the line gets somewhat muddled.

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.

So long as Fighters can take them without sacrificing something else I'm fine with a hopefully large common pool. If the pool is small... then I will add my complaints to others... but I have a feeling the Devs did a good job.

If your' worries stem from duplication, a bit of table talk should take care of that, although having two people who can bargain for a better price is never really bad. (Example pulled out of bumm... I have no idea if there will be a better bargain skill feat).

Smite Makes Right wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Rubber Ducky Guy wrote:

5 is a gross exaggeration. We go 30min or longer before someone has to pause to ask questions.

What really slows things down is the archer with a bucket of variable bonuses who has to calculate manyshot, rapid shot, judgement, bane, haste, bardic performance, deadly aim... ect with each shot

If adding 4-5 numbers from paper is derailing the game by 30 minutes, then how is adding 4-5 numbers from a dice going to change your experience and make it better? The process is the same, but instead the player now has to deal with the system working against them roughly half the time, at best.

I think you misunderstood what Rubber Ducky Guy* was saying. They play for 30 minutes or more without a question. The time spent on the math for the archer's damage was not specified.

*I can't help but say that in an Ernie voice.

It really doesn't change my point, if they were having problems adding 4-5 different numbers that are static and don't change turn to turn then how is the same group going to fare when they have to add 4-5 numbers that do change every turn?

The archer's bonuses would change turn to unless the group is only facing a single target. I suspect that the issue is not the addition, but remembering what bonuses apply. If that is true, a flat bonus versus a die would not make much difference, but a die added to one roll would be simpler than a flat modifier applied to two rolls. The exact impact would vary by player experience and focus.

Smite Makes Right wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Rubber Ducky Guy wrote:

5 is a gross exaggeration. We go 30min or longer before someone has to pause to ask questions.

What really slows things down is the archer with a bucket of variable bonuses who has to calculate manyshot, rapid shot, judgement, bane, haste, bardic performance, deadly aim... ect with each shot

If adding 4-5 numbers from paper is derailing the game by 30 minutes, then how is adding 4-5 numbers from a dice going to change your experience and make it better? The process is the same, but instead the player now has to deal with the system working against them roughly half the time, at best.

I think you misunderstood what Rubber Ducky Guy* was saying. They play for 30 minutes or more without a question. The time spent on the math for the archer's damage was not specified.

*I can't help but say that in an Ernie voice.

It really doesn't change my point, if they were having problems adding 4-5 different numbers that are static and don't change turn to turn then how is the same group going to fare when they have to add 4-5 numbers that do change every turn?

“Wait Haste runs out this turn, but I’m going to add my judgement (does that add to hit or just to damage?), is the bard still performing? (“Yes!” GM: “You didn’t declare it though!” “Of course I am!”) I’m going to rapid shot, multi shot, so the first arrow gets double dice but the bonus isn’t doubled, while every other shot gets one dice. Okay with this I get 5 shots! Three at my highest bonus plus bonuses from haste, judgement and bardic performance, then another at my second BaB plus those bonuses, then a third at lowest BaB plus bonuses.”

GM: “He has concealment so don’t forget your 20% miss chance. For every shot.”

master_marshmallow wrote:

Smite Makes Right wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Rubber Ducky Guy wrote:

5 is a gross exaggeration. We go 30min or longer before someone has to pause to ask questions.

What really slows things down is the archer with a bucket of variable bonuses who has to calculate manyshot, rapid shot, judgement, bane, haste, bardic performance, deadly aim... ect with each shot

If adding 4-5 numbers from paper is derailing the game by 30 minutes, then how is adding 4-5 numbers from a dice going to change your experience and make it better? The process is the same, but instead the player now has to deal with the system working against them roughly half the time, at best.

I think you misunderstood what Rubber Ducky Guy* was saying. They play for 30 minutes or more without a question. The time spent on the math for the archer's damage was not specified.

*I can't help but say that in an Ernie voice.

It really doesn't change my point, if they were having problems adding 4-5 different numbers that are static and don't change turn to turn then how is the same group going to fare when they have to add 4-5 numbers that do change every turn?

“Wait Haste runs out this turn, but I’m going to add my judgement (does that add to hit or just to damage?), is the bard still performing? (“Yes!” GM: “You didn’t declare it though!” “Of course I am!”) I’m going to rapid shot, multi shot, so the first arrow gets double dice but the bonus isn’t doubled, while every other shot gets one dice. Okay with this I get 5 shots! Three at my highest bonus plus bonuses from haste, judgement and bardic performance, then another at my second BaB plus those bonuses, then a third at lowest BaB plus bonuses.”

GM: “He has concealment so don’t forget your 20% miss chance. For every shot.”

Prove that isn't going to also exist in PF2.

Prove that that isn't going to exist on top of needing to add in all your variable damage for your base damage before coming to your final number.

No?

I don’t have the playtest documents and neither do you. I trust the game designers at Paizo know how to design a game.

The sky is falling!

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...

First of all I like complexity and I am attracted to more dice. To say that either system statics bonus vs bonus dice is better or simpler is misleading... they are different, that's all. I endorse the idea of using the average though... I give my casters in high level games the choice to average rather then roll things like disintegration's 36 dice. LOL

Secondly, as concerns the "one true weapon", different weapons may have different qualities (for lack of a better name). Some weapons reduce the penalty on the second and third swing. Some weapons make it easier to hit more than one person. We don't yet know how many qualities there are but I hope there are more than enough to accommodate many different and personal "One true weapons".

This was never the problem with wizards. 10d6 is an atrociously weak use of a 3rd level spell comparatively speaking. Narrative influence, battlefield control, and out of combat utility were the problems with wizards over fighters.

I didn't say that you have to squeeze every drop of math out of the game. I'm saying that the options we are being presented which make the characters less mathematically reliable in practice at the table which ultimately creates less fun characters if they are not able to beat encounters due to the second set of dice they are forced to rely upon not landing where they need them to to succeed in the encounters they are supposed to be designed to succeed at. You don't have to be a genius to understand that a fighter that does 2d6+20 three times per turn is going to have more consistent and reliable numbers they can play with than a fighter who gets 4d6+4 and then 2d6+4. If the player can't win their combats because the 'simpler system' created a scenario where they were punished by dice and not by their own choices when playing the game then odds are they won't be having more fun than in a system where their choices mattered.

My point was that casters have along with say, anyone who wasn't power attacker, relied upon RNG dice numbers for as long as we've been playing 3.x/Pathfinder. We haven't died because of it. And your argument is narratively stupid. "I want to know how many swings it's going to take to kill this dragon." Answer - You shouldn't have a clue. Your character doesn't know how much health that monster has. You shouldn't walk in, look at a monster and be like... "Hmm... I can take this guy down in... eight or ten hits with my axe. Give me, hmm, ten... no twelve seconds." That's dumb.

Yes, more dice introduces more random chance and less reliable known damage. That is a GOOD thing. You hit him, just because you hit him doesn't mean you should chunk 1/5 of his HP off every swing BEFORE dice. You hit means you did damage. It doesn't mean you landed an impactful solid blow. You'll get over it or keep playing P1. If not you'll get over it.

This adds potentially more burst damage and less constant damage. However that allows people like say... the rogue to not just be terrible by comparison. Why play a rogue? We have PA Fighter/Barb/Paladin for all that damage. Have fun! Ya, no thanks. I've seen enough of that.

Every character class should be able to make Attack of opportunity!

Every class can make an attack of opportunity, it just costs a feat for non-fighters.

AoOs are so rare in games I participate in for anything other than "people with reach", so I don't really think they're very important, but the "it costs a feat" solution seems fair. I mean, it's not like every Wizard or Cleric should automatically be practiced in watching for opponents to make mistakes during swordfights.

master_marshmallow wrote:

This was never the problem with wizards. 10d6 is an atrociously weak use of a 3rd level spell comparatively speaking. Narrative influence, battlefield control, and out of combat utility were the problems with wizards over fighters.

I didn't say that you have to squeeze every drop of math out of the game. I'm saying that the options we are being presented which make the characters less mathematically reliable in practice at the table which ultimately creates less fun characters if they are not able to beat encounters due to the second set of dice they are forced to rely upon not landing where they need them to to succeed in the encounters they are supposed to be designed to succeed at. You don't have to be a genius to understand that a fighter that does 2d6+20 three times per turn is going to have more consistent and reliable numbers they can play with than a fighter who gets 4d6+4 and then 2d6+4. If the player can't win their combats because the 'simpler system' created a scenario where they were punished by dice and not by their own choices when playing the game then odds are they won't be having more fun than in a system where their choices mattered.

My point was that casters have along with say, anyone who wasn't power attacker, relied upon RNG dice numbers for as long as we've been playing 3.x/Pathfinder. We haven't died because of it. And your argument is narratively stupid. "I want to know how many swings it's going to take to kill this dragon." Answer - You shouldn't have a clue. Your character doesn't know how much health that monster has. You shouldn't walk in, look at a monster and be like... "Hmm... I can take this guy down in... eight or ten hits with my axe. Give me, hmm, ten... no twelve seconds." That's dumb.

Yes, more dice introduces more random chance and less reliable known damage. That is a GOOD thing. You hit him, just because you hit him doesn't mean you should chunk 1/5 of his HP off every swing BEFORE dice. You hit means you did damage. It...

Blasters are considered and have always been considered not optimal uses of spell slots exactly because they rely on variable dice and cannot guarantee numbers.

Honestly I've seen the same argument used for rogues. How many threads exist claiming the rogue was useless?

These concepts can't suddenly become the most amazing things ever that no one complained about, just search the forums and you'll prove yourself wrong.

I just hope it does't become a 4th edition combat simulator. I'd like to see some details concerned the new rules produce long encounters - these are currently the bane of my high level play - hours to finish a combat is tedious.

I have no problem with AoO for trained fighters, and shield ready as an action. To me this says reacting to a foe in the 2 seconds they use for the action takes training, probably to anticipate and react to what they do. Readying the shield really means it takes you 2 seconds (I'm assuming 6s rounds) to adjust your shield up in readiness for a blow, or recover after a blow. I'm certainly hoping there's a feat that makes this a non-action, like mastery in shields, or expert level shield proficiency (or similar) that reflects someone who is really trained in using a shield

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.

So many possibilities, I feel August is too far away.

If Paizo went with this approach to both the Paladin and the Fighter, it kind of begs the question what sort of niches the other "full BAB" classes would fill; I'd imagine the Barbarian would slip pretty well into sheer damage with virtually no defense, but for Ranger and Monk (and all of the P1e classes but that's an entirely different subject) the line gets somewhat muddled.

I sincerely hope that class design does not always go via "identify the thing this class is best at" since either we're going to run out of things or we're going to end up with really pigeonholed classes. Better instead to identify what a class needs to be able to do well to fulfill the fantasy people have for a character when they choose that class. For fighters "best at weapons" seems to have been a layup, but I don't need the Ranger to be the best at a specific thing, I just want them to be good at ranger stuff.

Like making rangers the best at archery or twf doesn't help someone who wants to play a ranger who fights with one big axe. Sure, maybe "axe-guy" can be built as a fighter, but the reason I would choose a class probably are potentially more than "good with an axe".

No?

I don’t have the playtest documents and neither do you. I trust the game designers at Paizo know how to design a game.

To a slight degree, we know that it won't happen on the attack roll because of power attack.

I am curious, does power attack apply to ranged? I vaguely remember an old feat (overdraw?) that provided power attack for ranged attacks. It would be interesting if it was combined in PF2.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

No?

I don’t have the playtest documents and neither do you. I trust the game designers at Paizo know how to design a game.

To a slight degree, we know that it won't happen on the attack roll because of power attack.

I am curious, does power attack apply to ranged? I vaguely remember an old feat (overdraw?) that provided power attack for ranged attacks. It would be interesting if it was combined in PF2.

Deadly aim?

master_marshmallow wrote:

This was never the problem with wizards. 10d6 is an atrociously weak use of a 3rd level spell comparatively speaking. Narrative influence, battlefield control, and out of combat utility were the problems with wizards over fighters.

I didn't say that you have to squeeze every drop of math out of the game. I'm saying that the options we are being presented which make the characters less mathematically reliable in practice at the table which ultimately creates less fun characters if they are not able to beat encounters due to the second set of dice they are forced to rely upon not landing where they need them to to succeed in the encounters they are supposed to be designed to succeed at. You don't have to be a genius to understand that a fighter that does 2d6+20 three times per turn is going to have more consistent and reliable numbers they can play with than a fighter who gets 4d6+4 and then 2d6+4. If the player can't win their combats because the 'simpler system' created a scenario where they were punished by dice and not by their own choices when playing the game then odds are they won't be having more fun than in a system where their choices mattered.

My point was that casters have along with say, anyone who wasn't power attacker, relied upon RNG dice numbers for as long as we've been playing 3.x/Pathfinder. We haven't died because of it. And your argument is narratively stupid. "I want to know how many swings it's going to take to kill this dragon." Answer - You shouldn't have a clue. Your character doesn't know how much health that monster has. You shouldn't walk in, look at a monster and be like... "Hmm... I can take this guy down in... eight or ten hits with my axe. Give me, hmm, ten... no twelve seconds." That's dumb.

Unless I'm the DM trying to design an encounter and I have no idea how many HP to give the BBEG because the fighter could land a hit anywhere from 8 damage to 32 damage on the same swing before I even consider crits and the metric by which I have to decide how long I want this enemy to stay alive for becomes impossible to design around because of how swingy damage gets?

From a game design perspective we should know about how long the fight will take, that way I can design encounters to last an appropriate amount of time at my table.

Blasters are considered and have always been considered not optimal uses of spell slots exactly because they rely on variable dice and cannot guarantee numbers.

Honestly I've seen the same argument used for rogues. How many threads exist claiming the rogue was useless?

These concepts can't suddenly become the most amazing things ever that no one complained about, just search the forums and you'll prove yourself wrong.

Yes, blasters have been sub optimal since oh... when was that again? 3.0 when PA became the thing it is now ya? Hmm... awfully suspicious.

Now that said, is static damage fun? Sure, I know what I'm going to do and don't even need worry about dice. But what's the point of a dice game without dice? I've never been a fan of so many stupid static bonuses that my actual weapon attack doesn't matter besides, "Is it a 2h weapon?". That's silly.

Honestly the damage PA has been needing a rework for about as long as it's existed. The answer was either, allow everyone to have something akin to PA with a 2-hander for damage numbers or rework it. Now why do I say give everyone something like that? Because if you don't you fall back into the same problem we have now. All the PA-ers win and no one else does. Also feat tax.

Besides that to go along with that same problem then you run into the 'Why does this dragon in the Bestiary have 2500 hp?' 'Oh because he needs to live more than 2 rounds with a party of 4 18+ characters beating on his face.' As you have been saying, THAT IS A DESIGN PROBLEM. "Here's a meat wall, beat on it until it dies, have fun."

PA is the dumbest feat in the book. Static damage numbers about 20 are just flat stupid. My GREATSWORD is capable of dealing 2-12 points of damage. WITHOUT the sword I deal twice that. Why do you have a sword again? Just rip the enemies apart with your hands.

Now, I do hope magic and rogues and such are balanced around this, but I think they probably will be.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Blasters are considered and have always been considered not optimal uses of spell slots exactly because they rely on variable dice and cannot guarantee numbers.

Honestly I've seen the same argument used for rogues. How many threads exist claiming the rogue was useless?

These concepts can't suddenly become the most amazing things ever that no one complained about, just search the forums and you'll prove yourself wrong.

Yes, blasters have been sub optimal since oh... when was that again? 3.0 when PA became the thing it is now ya? Hmm... awfully suspicious.

Now that said, is static damage fun? Sure, I know what I'm going to do and don't even need worry about dice. But what's the point of a dice game without dice? I've never been a fan of so many stupid static bonuses that my actual weapon attack doesn't matter besides, "Is it a 2h weapon?". That's silly.

Honestly the damage PA has been needing a rework for about as long as it's existed. The answer was either, allow everyone to have something akin to PA with a 2-hander for damage numbers or rework it. Now why do I say give everyone something like that? Because if you don't you fall back into the same problem we have now. All the PA-ers win and no one else does. Also feat tax.

Besides that to go along with that same problem then you run into the 'Why does this dragon in the Bestiary have 2500 hp?' 'Oh because he needs to live more than 2 rounds with a party of 4 18+ characters beating on his face.' As you have been saying, THAT IS A DESIGN PROBLEM. "Here's a meat wall, beat on it until it dies, have fun."

PA is the dumbest feat in the book. Static damage numbers about 20 are just flat stupid. My GREATSWORD is capable of dealing 2-12 points of damage. WITHOUT the sword I deal twice that. Why do you have a sword again? Just rip the enemies apart with your hands.

Now, I do hope magic and rogues and such are balanced around this, but I think they probably will be.

You can think it's silly, but please don't call me or my playstyle dumb.

I roll plenty of dice to make sure I land my attacks, it's the d20 system after all.

From a game design perspective we should know about how long the fight will take, that way I can design encounters to last an appropriate amount of time at my table.

You actually do this? I see more clearly where the fundamental disconnect is now, thank you for clarifying.

master_marshmallow wrote:

From a game design perspective we should know about how long the fight will take, that way I can design encounters to last an appropriate amount of time at my table.

You actually do this? I see more clearly where the fundamental disconnect is now, thank you for clarifying.

You don't? I put effort into every encounter to make sure it lasts as long as I want it to, most guides to DMing tell you to be aware of how much damage the party's primary damage dealer can expect to dish out.

Prove that isn't going to also exist in PF2.

Prove that that isn't going to exist on top of needing to add in all your variable damage for your base damage before coming to your final number.

Pretty sure I don't like you enough to do that homework you're assigning.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Prove that isn't going to also exist in PF2.

Prove that that isn't going to exist on top of needing to add in all your variable damage for your base damage before coming to your final number.

Pretty sure I don't like you enough to do that homework you're assigning.

FINE

You don't? I put effort into every encounter to make sure it lasts as long as I want it to, most guides to DMing tell you to be aware of how much damage the party's primary damage dealer can expect to dish out.

I have literally never done anything like that. Most of my encounters are driven primarily by "what makes sense or is cool to be here". I mean, the PCs are supposed to win the fights so if they're over in a hurry but people are having fun, that's fine.

Blasters are considered and have always been considered not optimal uses of spell slots exactly because they rely on variable dice and cannot guarantee numbers.

I'm not going to say I've never heard that, but that's certainly not the typically argument I hear against blasters.

Usually, it's some combination of "blasting damage doesn't keep pace with hit point totals", "hit point damage doesn't hamper the enemy unless you kill them", and "energy resistances are super common".

None of those are complaints about dice variability. You could replace fireball with a spell that does a flat 3.5 fire damage per level and people would still have the same complaints.

Note: I'm not saying I buy the arguments against blasting--the wizards in my games seem to have a fine time throwing around fireballs--just, those are the arguments I see.

You can think it's silly, but please don't call me or my playstyle dumb.

I roll plenty of dice to make sure I land my attacks, it's the d20 system after all.

I'm not calling a play style dumb. I'm calling a singular feat that is the root of the damage scaling problem in all of 3.x style systems dumb. If that entails the whole of your play style in just that one feat... I think it speaks for itself.

There is a reason it's a feat tax to any melee character in the game that isn't a dex build. Oh right. Dex builds... ya doesn't work does it? Why not? Oh, right. Can't take PA.

There are a couple builds that use it I know but they are supplemental to someone dealing real damage and not all that powerful themselves. A single feat that is this overly powerful IS a problem and always has been. You might being able to look at the DM and tell him you just hit for 20051asdf204 damage. Doesn't mean it hasn't always been a problem.

I suspect there is probably something other than Power Attack that a whole lot of fighters want to take so they can hurt things a lot. Since we know the full text of approximately zero feats, it's too early to speculate.

The King is dead, long live the King!

I think I see the problem Marshmallow. You micromanage the game, so set numbers is very attractive to you.
But that isn't the style that most here utilise.

Speculative maths and drawing judgments on it is a mistake right now.
This isn't the playtest rules. This is just a teaser to get us excited and keep us engaged until August

You don't? I put effort into every encounter to make sure it lasts as long as I want it to, most guides to DMing tell you to be aware of how much damage the party's primary damage dealer can expect to dish out.

No, I do not. I can't say that I ever have in 25 years of gaming and I can't say the idea appeals to me at all.

I want to be surprised as much as my players do. If they blitz through a fight now and then, great. They'll also be terrorized once in a while by something that I thought was just going to be a guard dog.

But, there are all sorts of ways to enjoy the game. If your players are happy with your pacing (and it sounds like you put in enough work, I hope that they are) then your style is the best for your table.

It is alien to mine, though.

Hmm...waking up to this, I like how Power Attack and Sudden Charge sounds, not too fond of making AoO and Charge something that has to be learned. I like the variety of shield stuff.

Ask me again after my second coffee though and depending on if I had enough Resonance for the coffee to work my mood might change

There is a reason it's a feat tax to any melee character in the game that isn't a dex build. Oh right. Dex builds... ya doesn't work does it? Why not? Oh, right. Can't take PA.

I've seen enough Dex builds that force out the 13 Str for PA just because it's that good. That alone should be a warning sign.

Folks,

I just want to come out and ask everyone in this heated debate to take a step back and breathe. We are all here to make a better game, and while your passion is commendable, please endeavor to prevent it from governing your actions.

As for the issues at hand, we have been working hard to shift some balances around a bit. Making an attack more accurate over the levels of play, while adding some variability and scaling to damage. This gives us more "levers" for design, and will result in a better play experience. The math of the old system, and the way some feats interacted with it caused serious balance issues over the life of the system. We hope to have corrected them, but only a full playtest will give us any indication as to whether or not we have succeeded. We hope you will hold off on judgement until then.

^^that is what I keep saying. simply not enough information out their yet.

^^that is what I keep saying. simply not enough information out their yet.

And we get that. To be honest, we are still hard at work wrapping up the current draft and getting it ready to print. We knew we had to give you an idea of the direction of the game, but we just do not have the time needed to absorb all of the feedback that a full release would invite.

It's a price we have to pay. An incomplete picture is better for most than total silence until release.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

^^that is what I keep saying. simply not enough information out their yet.

And we get that. To be honest, we are still hard at work wrapping up the current draft and getting it ready to print. We knew we had to give you an idea of the direction of the game, but we just do not have the time needed to absorb all of the feedback that a full release would invite.

It's a price we have to pay. An incomplete picture is better for most than total silence until release.

I actually really Like what I have seen so far they all seem like good design choices to me anyways. I think the problem I keep seeing is people are comparing the spoilers in a vacuum or worse comparing them to current pathfinder rules. Until we have a fuller picture I feel its probably a good idea to take things as a grain of salt. Plus if it isn't perfect that is why we have the Play test coming up!

Micheal Smith wrote:

Bodhizen wrote:

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?

Then the Fighter is not your class. They don't need any NARRATIVE power. They are a COMBATIVE CLASS. They fight. At most I can see is maybe doing something with intimidate. Other than than I don't think they need any. If you want it that bad then dip in to classes that give it.

The response is either there is none or wait till the playlets comes out and see the full CLASS.

That's not entirely a fair statement. For example, I believe in d&d 3 or 3.5, there was a gladiator prestige class that could use his gladiatorial fame in a narrative fashion. However, since the fighter is, in concept, a generic class, the narrative aspects would likely come from feat choices that have flavor attached to them.

Just because the class is specialized in combat does not mean that it should not have non-combat options.

Ok this is and always has been an issue for. WHY MAKE EVERY CLASS DO EVERY THING OR OTHER CLASSES THINGS?

In first edition you have archetypes that can do what other CLASSES should be doing. Then sometimes there are builds that do things 1 class is supposed to do but significantly better. I hate that I can play class a take an archetype and maybe did into class b then make it better than class c. Then now we can make it so every class can do combat/non combat just as good as the classes design to do so.

Ok so by your example don't give the fighter base abilities that are narrative. The narrative aspect of the game doesn't make sense for a fighter. The fighter is supposed to adapt in any combat situation. No other class in any way shape or form should do this better. If it does then we have a design issue. That is why we have CLASSES. If you want to be a combative then you look at doing a Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian. If you want to be the face of the group maybe be a Paladin, Bard, maybe Cleric. There should not be a reason why there is a better healer than the cleric.

One thing that PISSED me off when the ACG came out was the Investigator, Swashbuckler. I have seen these to classes alone break more than any other class. I have seen so many people go Investigator/Mind Chemist and wreck scenarios. Then the Parry and Riposte deed needed to be given to the Swashbuckler a lot later (similar to the Duelist) I Liked during the playlets you couldn't multi class into the parent classes. I think this needs to be fixed ASAP.

So where I was going with this is, a Fighter is a FIGHTER. He fights that is what he does. Leave the base abilities to fighting. Simple as that.

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?

What do you want eh?

Do you want to be able to punch so hard that you break reality? Cut a hole in space time? Be reasonable.

Bodhizen wrote:

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?

What do you want eh?

Do you want to be able to punch so hard that you break reality? Cut a hole in space time? Be reasonable.

Hey now, I kind of like those ideas... don't think they'll be in the game but fun to think about.

Fighter draws back fist and says to Wizard: So you wished that I die... and now my guts are dragging on the floor... well this is how I make my wish. [Punch] I wish you'd die! [Punch] I wish you'd die! [Punch] I wish you'd die!

[Poof... reality breaks... Fighter shoves dead wizard in hole while asking the Cleric to heal him up.]

Please remember that the playtest and the approproiate feedback loop haven't started yet. Also, playtest means PLAY test, as in feedback from actually PLAYING the game, not from armchair theorycrafting. They can do that themselves.

I'm also wondering, what is this "narrative power" you want the fighter to have? What kind of abilities are you imagining there?

Bodhizen wrote:

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?

What do you want eh?

Do you want to be able to punch so hard that you break reality? Cut a hole in space time? Be reasonable.

One thing I've picked up on that I expect is skills are going to have a lot more narrative power. (at least that is my impression) so most non caster classes I suspect will have a lot more from skills alone even without going into class features.

Before Power Attack use to be the go to feat for increasing damage for a strength build. In PF1 if you wanted to do something similar for a dex build,you could use something like Piranha Strike. Technically you could use Power Attack also for dex builds. It seems like the new Power Attack does not care if you use Str or Dex. How easy/hard will it be for someone to opt into a dex build this time around? There was mention of less prereqs when choosing feats. Or will it be the same where the optimal builds are Wizard/Int, Fighter/Str, Rogue/Dex, etc?

I can't believe nobody commented on the " and gives you an additional +1 bonus when you roll Perception for initiative, helping you be first into the fight!"

Does anyone else read that as roll perception instead of what we roll now for initiative?

I can't believe nobody commented on the " and gives you an additional +1 bonus when you roll Perception for initiative, helping you be first into the fight!"

Does anyone else read that as roll perception instead of what we roll now for initiative?

I retract my statement then!

No, that was exactly what that meant.

Most of the game happens in exploration or encounter mode, with the two types of play flowing easily from one to the other. In fact, exploration mode can have a big impact on how combat begins, determining what you roll for your initiative. In a group of four exploring a dungeon, two characters might have their weapons ready, keeping an eye out for danger. Another might be skulking ahead, keeping to the shadows, while the fourth is looking for magic. If combat begins, the first two begin with their weapons drawn, ready for a fight, and they roll Perception for their initiative. The skulking character rolls Stealth for initiative, giving them a chance to hide before the fight even begins. The final adventurer rolls Perception for initiative, but also gains some insight as to whether or not there is magic in the room.

Link.

No, that was exactly what that meant.

Clarify!

Edit: thanks!

Bad new devs:

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

Why is that bad news? Power Attack in PF 1 is way too good: which is why almost every martial character takes it, and stays in permanent power attack mode.

The new power attack:
- Actually feels different when you are power attacking (slower attack)
- Has tactical depth (is my current enemy more vulnerable to many quick attacks or few slower ones?)
- Is less predictable (damage dice, not flat bonus).
- Isn't part of so many feat chains

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'.