Valeros

Chaotic Fighter's page

621 posts (629 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You had me at Wombo Combo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
With Gang Up, sneak attacks are all but a guarantee unless your solo, which should never happen.
I find it is less than guaranteed, as most times by the time you get into position with two of your allies, the enemy is dead.

And I've found it very simple to manage, even on the first round of combat, if I delay until other players have moved.

If combat is ending before the second round, the party is either hugely overpowered or the encounter is way below APL.

They must all have power attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

That isn't to say that Power Attack is a definite for every character. A dual-wielding Paladin (probably with a light spiked shield so his hand remains free, or a spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, etc) might not even want Power Attack since he's going to be emphasizing throwing as much raw damage onto every attack and wanting to increase the accuracy of his +3 extra attacks.

Taking Power Attack out of the equation and dropping TWF, Double Slice, ITWF, and GTWF, our attack routine would instead come out to +44/+44/+44/+39/+39/+34/+34/+29 (8 attacks at +19) or +54/+54/+54/+49/+49/+44/+44/+39 when smiting for +39 damage on each hit, auto-confirming critical hits vs evil foes (smiting or not). However, such a Paladin might still wish to try to find room in his heart for Power Attack so he can pick up Dazing Assault, since each hit landed would also force a DC 30 Fort save vs losing 1 round of actions (essentially if the Paladin gets into melee with you, you are dead unless you are another meat-tank from hell).

Actually I think if a paladin is in front of you the last place you want to be from is hell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do what I did once. Make him a two weapon warrior(Fighter archetype) and laugh hysterically as every one of the those provokes TWO AoO's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Seranov wrote:
And now you can't charge through difficult terrain and your damage is still much lower than a Strength-based Sacred Fist. I just personally don't see why you would bother with it for a couple points of AC, Reflex saves and Initiative.

1) Charging is not the be-all and end-all.

2) Different characters, different priorities.

3) A Dex-focused character is not a "charge...SMASH!" type; instead of charging opponents, maybe they should use ranged attacks since they have a high Dex (like a composite longbow that they have proficiency in because of that swashbuckler dip)?

4) For a Dex-focused character, leaving Str at 12-14 (which Slashing Grace and a 5,000 gp amulet of mighty fists agile let you do pretty quickly, since you are now applying Dex to melee damage) and pumping Dex up to 18+ (and past 20 ASAP) is more than a "couple points of AC, Reflex saves and Initiative" over a Str-focused character (or do your "Str-based characters" have to divert resources to improving Dex, as well?).

If you're gonna be an archer why not try some other class completely? Say... Swashbuckler since you want the dex stuff so much...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well the op was saying the slayer should be nerfed. We're just saying it doesn't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Everything can be improved. To be complacent is to be obsolete.

This.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grijm - CK wrote:
You can't dip into MoMs

Parent class restrictions no longer exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Ahunting wrote:
Now they are subpar divine casters who gave up domains and 9th level spells for weapon focus at first, and couple bonus feats. Not a good trade. If they are part fighter make'em fight like a real martial class.

Except domains are more caster oriented while blessings are combat oriented.

Sit down and read the blessings. They're really, really good. Even the alignment domain blessings.

And also, you're forgetting about fervor, which is essentially a slower-progressing lay on hands coupled with the ability to quicken your buffs when you need them fast.

The warpriest is very, very good.

Which blessings are we talking about here?

Liberation Domain, Destruction domain, Animal Domain, Strength domain, and the plant domain and all their subdomains are very combat oriented. Not to mention things like the anger inquisition.

The domains have many combat applications on top of granting you extra spells. Blessings are just bad for the most part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Third Mind wrote:

I... will take that as a stick with my other build for it. :)

Pity though, I thought that the Brawler would have hit that sweet spot of face punching I was hoping for. Maybe an archetype down the line will shore that up though. I'm sure full BAB helps a bit and that I could wait for dragon style & dragon ferocity if I did a larger level build, but meh...

Perhaps a Brawler / Bloodrager (abberant) and have an unarmed fighter with reach that can hit sort of hard.

Remember you can combine master of many styles with the Brawler(class) now. I made a pretty decent avatar type character using Suli Elemental abilities and the elemental fist style chains. Picked up the first two of each for WIS to damage and used martial flexibility to pick up the third feat in those lines situationaly. You can also just take Efreeti Style, Shaitan Style, Djinni Style, and Marid style and use martial flexibility to pick up the second set of feats whenever you need the elemental resistances. The Brawler counts as a monk for elemental fist attempts so you end up with plenty a day.

This gets really crazy if you make him mythic.

Edit: Although I admit I used the Suli's Monk favored class bonus to increase the damage. Speaking of which. Did the new classes get their own favored class bonuses?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Troodos wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Remember, the fighter's thing has always been feats... but the ranger and now the brawler AND the slayer can just about match him tit for tat... if not be better than him at it (skipping pre-reqs).. kinda hurts the poor fighter a lot... seeing as he really doesn't have much else (Weapon trainign is ok... armor training is alright... bravery is a joke...)
This class has a different theme than a fighter. Classes aren't about power they are about different play styles and character archetypes. A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer, they are going to be fighters, cavaliers, and similar classes.

Unless I say it's a different theme. Which I will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Ok I'll go ahead and say this. You try to duck and dodge correctly with an armored abdomen. As someone who fights frequently that would be dreadful. Probably doesn't need to be bare but oh well. As for the thighless chaps look. You ever try and kick in tight pants?

But I will say this. That knife could be placed less precariously...

Anyway. I like her.

I think I get why the clashing design opinions are happening. It seems to me that this image is going for both MMA fighter AND adventurer. I don't really think these go together. on the one hand you have the need for flexibility, which leads to the exposed abdomen, crotchless chaps, etc. On the other hand, we have the need to think about the surroundings she'll be in on a given adventure. how much more important is it to be able to duck and weave against a dude with a sword than it is to not be disemboweled by a big monster? less armor means less to grab onto only if the thick plating wasn't there. And as you said, this doesn't mean these areas on the body need to be exposed to the elements and every knife to the back she'll take.

Could have been worse though, she could be dressed (and I use the term loosely) up like the iconic Oracle or Sorcerer.

TLDR; How much you like Kess' look depends a lot on what you think of her first as. Arena fighter or adventurer.

Actually if we were being realistic here(As much as could be allotted) Armor would actually, in my opinion, be less effective against monsters than other people. I think it would actually be preferential to get out of the way of the giant maw of death than to try wearing something that could stand up to the crushing force of say a dragon bite.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok I'll go ahead and say this. You try to duck and dodge correctly with an armored abdomen. As someone who fights frequently that would be dreadful. Probably doesn't need to be bare but oh well. As for the thighless chaps look. You ever try and kick in tight pants?

But I will say this. That knife could be placed less precariously...

Anyway. I like her.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the archetypes have the right of it and it goes along with what Loup said. If the fighter is supposed to use a certain weapon he should be able to use it better and differently than other classes.

Much like some archetypes already have.

Two Weapon Warrior- Attack with both weapons on standard attacks and AoO's.

Dragoon-Spinning Lance, Able to hit adjacent squares with a lance.

Tower Shield Specialist- What penalties?

Roughrider- I don't believe in not charging.

Phalanx fighter- One handed reach polearms without the cheesy small weapon.

Point is it looks like they found what they wanted to do so maybe they should just expand on that idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Multiclass, Pick it up because it does have a good amount of feats. The shield thing isn't a huge problem to circumvent but I still think it should just be built in to the base class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?

To dip MoMS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I imagine it's not something they'll do in combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If people think the class looked too overpowered based on what has been revealed and then they reveal that they've given the class even more to work with I think their criticisms are justified...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drock11 wrote:

The backstory is alright if a little done before. I wonder how his lack of memory will be fluffed into his class abilities.

I'll be honest, the artwork is just not good. It contains both a very implausible and ridiculous weapon and armor. One of the worst Paizo has did for an iconic. It's not even handwaved away like with Amiri. I hope Paizo eventually gets the memo on this type of stuff, although after years of this...

If Reynolds really is knowledgeable about weapons it just makes they way he does his artwork all the worse, as there is a lack of excuse.

Quit trying to ruin my fantasy with your realism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah. I also made Vash the Stampede.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I keep refreshing but it's not showing up...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As with all of these classes I will wait for the ACG to release before judging harshly but things are looking grim for the Warpriest...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:
Disciple of Sakura wrote:

First 3.0 campaign I played, I was a fighter with weapon focus: Heavy Crossbow for thematic reasons. I fired at a creature climbing up towards our location along an almost sheer cliff. I asked how far away it was, the DM replied "120 feet" and I fired at it. Rolled pretty high, DM responded that there was "no way" I could hit it because it was "120 feet away. That's too far to hit it." Needless to say, I quit that game after that session.

My first 3.0 experience, I built a gish sorcerer and gave her Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword at first level. The DM refused to allow it, because she didn't know how to wield a longsword, and there was no way someone could learn to use a greatsword without knowing how to use a longsword first.

I actualy got mad reading about the level of stupid you have encountered.

Quite a few of these are making me wonder where you guys meet these horrible people...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maximilian "Max" Maximus.

His End:
I was very attached to him. Grew him from level 4 to 16... Killed an orc chief and took his greataxe as his trophy and weapon of choice. He was a fighter I had way back when in what was only my third campaign. Our party of five ended up going against two strange armored creatures (GM creations) and in a fool hearty attempt to rescue the groups rouge he charged in at both of them (as was his way) unfortunately these things were way stronger than we had initially thought and max ended up on the ground trying dead... Cue breath of life from my very helpful cleric. Then cue getting chopped to death again... Then a time reversing belt thing that my cleric had (He was good at his job) got me alive again...

We had decided to retreat but Max had to stand up and run... He ended up eating an AoO and then eating another one to get away but he managed to survive due solely to the fact that he had endurance and diehard... But sadly his staggered form could not get far enough away from the creatures in time and they both converged on him at once. Knowing that his time was at an end he chose to turn and cleave both of the creatures in an attempt to maybe take one of them down and to at least buy more time for his comrades escape... He did very good damage but not enough to stop them and he was cut down. Everyone else escaped. He was forever remembered by the players and the PC's.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok that stirge one is actually funny enough for me to believe it wasn't a bad call...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

His logic is flawless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:


Want to hear another joke? Weapon Training.
Weapon training is the only thing the fighter has going for it that allows it to Hit BBEGs. It's boing math, but it is the only thing that allows Fighters to be able to say "A least we can do a decent job of fighting if we can full attack, even if we have no way to reliably make a full attack, have crappy saves, and no skill points worth mentioning."

Weapon training isn't the joke. The joke is weapon training being treated as five separate class features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well nobody learns that way...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
FanaticRat wrote:
MattR1986 wrote:

Some of them do have prereqs (greater spell focus, preferred spell, spell perfection etc) and Fighters get a new feat at basically every level. Its not really like the feats are a tax either when weapon focus is useful and I generally don't see fighters that need a golf bag of different weapons. They have one or two trusty weapons they get used to.

Alright so what about the martials who aren't fighters or the fighters that want to branch out to more things?

Or a fighter who will never ever EVER use combat expertise. And then there's the intelligence requirements. I don't see metamagic feats having strength requirement because can't have them needing more than one stat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter doesn't have lunch money. He had to bring a lunch from home. Fighter doesn't need your stupid lunch money. Has lunchables and juice box.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okama Kenpo!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Tail terror debacle?

*puts in pipe* A long time ago back when I was but a wee lurker (like three months or so), someone came onto the boards with a simple question: can a human take Racial Heritage to qualify for feats specific to other races. The feat in question was the Kobold feat tail terror, which gave you a tail attack (or increased the damage die? Not sure in my old age...). Arguments raged, FAQs were clicked, dogs hid under sobbing mothers, and all sorts of debates and interpretations showed up. Some said that you couldn't take the feat because the human did not necessarily have a tail to begin with, some said it worked fine, others still said it could be taken, but didn't do anything until the character worked out a way to get a tail, and so on. To this day, I dare say the whole thing was pointless, as I recall the exact response from the developers was "no response needed." A bit silly a scenario to begin with if you ask me. *keeps pipe in because the image of a lizard with an old-fashioned pipe in his mouth pleases me*

What this? I've always had it.

I'm sure I would have noticed you had a tail.

You never pay attention to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
SonicArrow wrote:

In the campaign I am playing my character recently died... I'm thinking of making a 4 armed fighter is it viable?

Here are my plans ...
Human alchemist taking extra discovery two times to grow 2 arms
Fighter the rest of the way...

I don't really see a downside being alchemist I can create mutagens and use extracts

Unfortunately the DM will not allow Kasatha...
EDIT: this is a 4th level PC I'm making

Consider going Ranger instead of Fighter to get TWF for free without the Dex pre-req.

Having said that, if you think about it, there's no way this would work in the practical sense.

Fireballs n' stuff. Nuff said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I feel as though fighters could benefit from a special destiny mechanic.

I feel like mundane is fine as long as something in the universe is routing for you, otherwise you may be screwed.

Oh god so much this!

If you must be completely mundane, I want some kind of mechanic that does this. I want to have a shot at succeeding crazy stuff.

Or maybe I just want my characters to be Ta'veren. Hrmmmm.

I actually made a Mat Cauthon character with all of the luck abilities I could find. Including racial heritage catfolk for black cat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm kinda hoping to see a Cavalier/Samurai archetype in the ACG or something that forsakes the animal companion. I mean I enjoy mounted combat and animal companions (Even in spite of this recent conundrum.) But I'd like to play a samurai with challenges, resolve, and banner and the like without having an animal companion. Same with the cavalier since many people have complained about his reliance on an AC.

So. What should go in place of the animal companions? I know I'd like Samurai archetypes more along the lines of fighter archetypes. Like the Polearm fighter and the Two-weapon warrior. Like making a Samurai with neat abilities with that focus on the Naginata or something. I don't really know at the moment. What do you think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It does restrict casters pretty heavily. Pinned and Silenced is pretty bad for spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll get to work building the Team Rocket Base then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm one of those weird people who thinks Casters are boring to play. I've played just about every class in this game and the fighter is my favorite by far. The barbarian is a close second though. I sort of prefer the fact that the fighter can't afford to be skilled in everything. It's kind of funny praying that my dice roll will counter balance the fact that I only have 1 skill rank in diplomacy at level 13. It's the versatility of casters that kind of makes the game boring. I don't like the idea of circumventing every problem in an easy and almost lazy way. But that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I also think Flurry should be an option or just remove it completely. Even if it means the option of taking two paths(TWF or no TWF) at character creation.

Multiple paths is actually exactly what I'd like to see...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spoiler:
Close Control (Ex)

At 2nd level, a brawler becomes skilled at forcefully moving his opponent around the battlefield. The brawler gains a +1 bonus on bull rush, drag, and reposition combat maneuver checks. The brawler also gains a +1 bonus to CMD when attacked with the bull rush, drag, and reposition maneuvers. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels after 2nd (to a maximum of +5 at 18th level).

This ability replaces armor training 1.

Close Combatant (Ex)

At 3rd level, a brawler gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +3 bonus on damage rolls with weapons in the close weapon group. Both of these bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of +5 on attack rolls and +7 on damage rolls at 19th level).

This ability replaces weapon training 1 and 2.

Close Weapon Group: bayonet [APG], brass knuckles [APG], cestus [UC], dan bong [UC], emei piercer [UC], fighting fan [UC], gauntlet, heavy shield, iron brush [UC], light shield, madu [UC], mere club [UC], punching dagger, sap, scizore [UC], spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, tekko-kagi [UC], tonfa [UC], unarmed strike, wooden stake [APG], and wushu dart [UC].

Menacing Stance (Ex)

At 7th level, a brawler constantly harries and distracts his enemies. While adjacent to the brawler, enemies take a –1 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty on concentration checks. These penalties increase by 1 for every four levels after 7th level (to a maximum of –4 on attack rolls and –7 on concentration checks at 19th level). Creatures do not take these penalties if the brawler is dazed, helpless, staggered, stunned, or unconscious.

This ability replaces armor training 2, 3, and 4 and armor mastery.

The Brawler (Fighter Archetype) got a better weapon training(2 more damage), an up to +5 bonus to 3 combat maneuvers(not including the weapon training bonus) and menacing stance which reduced enemy attack by 4 while still maintaining his armor proficiencies.

Like I said the vanilla fighter is the wrong thing to base the Brawler class off of. And yes Fuse styles is a NEED.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They just don't want me dipping Master of Many Style with my Brawler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

This is the one I was excited for, but now I'm a bit iffy on it.

Martial Maneuvers is neat. Glad one of those "The Fighter should have something like this!" abilities made it in somewhere.

Bonus Feats are always nice.

Here's where I get a bit disappointed though, I was hoping it wouldn't get just "Flurry, but renamed".

I was hoping for something to do with Style Feats, really, with the TWFing thing as an OPTION (since it has a bunch of Bonus Feats the Monk doesn't get), not a built-in class feature.

I don't mind the Light Armor deal, mostly because the Brawling property exists. =)

Knockout is a cool ability, shame it comes so late.

Awesome Blow as a capstone was the real WTF moment of this class. It's just a combat maneuver. That you can already get.

Granted, only if you're Large, but still. A Prestige Class (Brother of the Seal) gets it potentially at 13th. That's a seriously crappy Capstone, to be honest.

Glad to see you agreeing on the Style Feats and Capstone Rynjin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Three things.

1 it's been brought up that the Brawler's bonus feat section say it gains a bonus feat at 2nd level and every two levels there after but the table doesn't reflect that. Which one of those is correct?

2 Does the Brawler's flurry allow the Brawler to take two weapon fighting feats such as two weapon rend?

3 Shouldn't the Brawler focus more on style feats considering the line that states that the Brawler focuses on "perfecting many styles of brutal unarmed combat." If anything will there ever be an archetype that uses a master of many styles motif such as a Mixed Martial Artist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As long as it's just under impassible terrain Dragon Style don't give a *&$%


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose in a world where the crossbowman is an archetype that makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a great idea. I should make Syrio Forel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Regardless of what drops there's always that optimal weapon you really want. Of course if your sundering your probably built to do it and if you do sunder the fighter's main weapon the fighter is way more screwed than the ranger who had his weapon broken.
If the ranger animal companio nget killed in the middle of a dungeon the the ranger is pretty much screw too. Ans since we are talking about trowing optimals things against the fighter, the DM can easily desing an encounter to One shot the AC.

What? That's a ridiculous comparison!

Chaotic Fighter wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
if the fighter can be disarmed or sundered then so can the ranger...this entire point is invalid.
That's not how that works. The point was how well they handle it.
Did the ranger burn a feat on improved unarmed strike? I almost always do. In that case yes. The ranger is better off because the FE still applies to his fists, or natural attack, or what have you. BUT! I don't think I've ever played a fighter that only carried one weapon he had training in.
Golf bag of +1 greatswords? I'd believe it.

Screw that. A Cad fighter with a Golf bag of actual golf clubs. And Golf balls for those pesky flying enemies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darvan The Purifier wrote:
doesn't that mean that it can any weapon that has a handle can be wyroot?

Yes under the literal definition for haft the hilt of a sword qualifies but when most people (myself included) think of the word haft they picture longer hafts suck as the staff portion of a great ax, naginata, or scythe. Under that logic the best weapon you could get to qualify for wyroot would be a nodachi.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No. Just no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh god I can't unhear it now.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>