Human Fighter's page

Only problem I see with the FAQ is that the reasoning is that it specifically states in the rules text of the Invisible Stalker that they aren't subject to invisibility purge.

Originally Will-o'-wisp didn't have "Natural Invisibility" in their defensive spot, or originally that wasn't a defined Universal Monster Rule? I would it find it very convincing if originally you just referred to the monsters specific rules without the Universal rules existing yet.

LordKallas, you'd be agreeing with my 3rd option I believe, correct?

Move action it essentially does the spell Invisibility, and can at will preform this.

Xenocrat, if it is just like the universal monster ability, then how can it possibly ever become visible again?

I've experienced an issue concerning the Will-o'Wisp a few times, and I would appreciate it if people could weight in. There is a strong disagreement, and I'm hoping this thread can be useful to settle the matter.

Will-o'-Wisp states that it has Natural invisibility in it's Defensive Abilities.

Natural Invisibility (Ex) Will-o’-wisps have the ability to extinguish their natural glow as a move action, effectively becoming invisible, as per the spell.

.

This ability is constant—the creature remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell.

Format: natural invisibility; Location: Defensive Abilities.

I know there are many creatures that have things listed in their stat block that you can refer to the rules in the Universal Monster Rules, but in their stat block they write out unique things. Do you ignore what specific things are listed in their stat block and go with the Universal rule, or do you follow their specific text in their stat block?

In this matter specifically does the Will-o'-wisp

1. stay invisible for the end of time by never shining light once it uses its ability?

2. The creature is never visible in the first place because it is always invisible, and it is the glow that turns on and off by using a move action and on the conditions of the invisibility spell (hostile actions turn it visible again etc.) the glow will return?

3. The creature is visible and glows, but as a move action can turn invisible as per the spell (hostile actions turn it visible again etc.) while extinguishing it's light?

I appreciate you tracking that down.

The relevant places in my mind to look were under armor, magic armor, and the rules on how bonuses work. I would have never thought to look at the combat section for that.

I checked my book, and it is there, plus I went on the d20pfsrd in the combat section and found it.

This was making me feel like I was doing things wrong all this time. Thanks a bunch, Lost In Limbo!

What in the rules should I be reading to clarify this?

Also, I think you meant Studded Leather.

I looked in the Core rule book FAQ to see if I could find something, but I didn't see anything. I always took it as the enhancement was exclusive to the item, then you applied it on as one thing, but I don't see language backing that up. At the same time I don't really see anything that elaborately explains armor/shield and armor/shield enhancement.

Let's say I have a +1 Buckler, and something that will grant me a shield bonus to my AC that is of a higher value of 1, and let's say it grants a +2 shield bonus specifically. What is my end result for my total shield bonus?

I know you wouldn't stack the buckler and the other thing giving a +2 shield bonus, but what about that +1 enhancement on the buckler? Take the higher shield bonus (+2 shield bonus), and then applying the shield enhancement bonus (+1 from the +1 buckler)?

I was trying to look how armor enhancement bonuses are figured out, and maybe I am just missing some language in the rules. Are there rules that clarify if the enhancement bonuses are exclusive to the item?

I would appreciate it if people could help me with the actual rules to better understand this. Thanks!

Could anyone give details on the Fighter archetype? Do they keep Armor Training?

If the familiar dropped a tarp on an enemy, would the tarp be considered part of the enemy?

You need to have the thing do things so it makes things be things. Like things to make them things like total concealment, or total cover. If the things you do with the things make those things be things, then the things won't do things to you.
Hope that helps, Frak

tarp wouldn't be heavy enough to matter I'd imagine.

Familiar would be invisible, and move action pick up tarp, and ready to cover you. Ready action from the familiar would be when you use a free action to say "Tarp me, little baby boi! I'm feeling lucky tonight, and I need your lovin' to get me through till tomorrow" and then it would standard toss it on you. Just repeat forever. And yes, you'd move action move the tarp off you on your turn.

Anyone know how I can be submerged in a 5 ft square of water during combat? I can attack out of it, but anything outside of it not submerged will have total concealment to deal with. I want to add this to my shower curtain and bush.

I'm going to add this to my 20% concealment bush I attach to my character, so it'll be another layer of defense.

I am thinking of using an Unseen servant to close a shower curtain that I'll affix onto my character with a harness. So on my turn I'll open it, and do my stuff, and as soon as I'm done with my standard action, the Unseen servant will close the thing. This will make it impossible for anything to do line or sight and line of effect on me unless they do a ready action.

This also protects me from melee and ranged projectile attacks with my total concealment. They'd have to attack my curtain.

I would use a transparent curtain too, so I can see through it.

If someone didn't do an action on their turn, I would prob not open the curtain.

I can also be immune to provoking AoOs too.

Oh come on.

I'm with blahpers! This is a really exciting tactic, and I'm glad you inspired us to use it in our games. Great post!

1. you just have the thing do the thing when the thing happens. It doesn't need to know what the thing is to do the thing, like specifically, but just that the thing was a thing so it does the thing.

2. you just have the thing do the thing whenever a spell seems to be cast.

3. A tarp will block line of sight, and line of effect. It will work.

I'm helping

Details on the Fighter archetype, and the Swashbuckler archetype, please?

Tough Guy (Ex): At 3rd level, an unarmed fighter gains DR/— equal to half his fighter level against nonlethal damage or damage taken while he is grappled. This ability replaces armor training 1.

So the fighter is the only one that starts with attacks of opportunity? does that mean AoO is a feat?

Looks like it's a class feature of the fighter, so you don't need to buy into it.

" Other classes can get this ability—and numerous monsters will as well—but only the fighter starts with it a core feature."

so it seems they'd get it level 1, where other classes might get it later on. Also that other creatures might have it too.

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Human Fighter wrote:

Flying magic man in the sky rains down fire death, while if I put up my shield as an action, I get a bonus to reflex saves.

FMM spends one action to concentrate on Fly so he doesn't plummet to the ground.

FMM now has a choice, spend 2 actions for a decent spell, or spend an action to move and 1 action for a single magic missile dart.

Also, Normal Fighter Dude, with Master Grade Athletics (so, lvl 7) has literally been said in a blog preview to be able to leap into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

FMM needs to rethink his plan.

You can get master proficiency by level 7....yikes.

at the earliest, so I figure not many classes can do it by then.

Where can I find this blog about the crazy jumps? I have them all open that I can find on Paizo blog section that relate to 2e, and I'm having trouble finding it.

I believe spell casting components will cost an action each, or at least in most cases. I could be wrong, but hopefully that is one of the smaller steps Paizo is taking to balance things out.

Human Fighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Human Fighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Or you jump up and smack magic man down to the ground.

I can't tell if you're being serious, but magic man I'm sad to inform you is beyond your jumping capabilities, and can see your house from where he is.

That's an assumption you are having.

Are you hinting that the fighter will indeed be able to jump extremely high?

It has been stated that one of the boons of the higher rank Acrobatic Proficiency is high/long jumps. I'm hoping we can reach John Carter levels.

Was it just said it would be easier, or was there something solid to give you actual reason that you'd be able to jump up from the ground to a flying magic man who is extremely high in the air? I feel my assumption was absolutely reasonable, but your reply ends with you saying that you're hoping it can be done, which seems like you too are making an assumption with your original statement.

Human Fighter wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Or you jump up and smack magic man down to the ground.

I can't tell if you're being serious, but magic man I'm sad to inform you is beyond your jumping capabilities, and can see your house from where he is.

That's an assumption you are having.

Are you hinting that the fighter will indeed be able to jump extremely high? I feel foolish for making such an assumption that they wouldn't be able to jump so high on their own.

Or you jump up and smack magic man down to the ground.

I can't tell if you're being serious, but magic man I'm sad to inform you is beyond your jumping capabilities, and can see your house from where he is.

AoO's seem like they'll rarely be triggered, the rules seem to be more restrictive on what triggers them than in 1e, you get an attack penalty, and you'll have to spend a resource of your reaction. I don't think most classes will have the hint of jealously over this class feature, and people will normally forget it exists from how irrelevant it right now seems it'll be. If there isn't going to be some grand AOO feats coming out, then this feature will be a small annoyance to enemies.

If this thing is supposed to be a special fighter thing, then make it unlimited, and remove the -2 penalty. If it's important to have limits on it, then do 1 + Dex bonus, or maybe even after a few levels it improves.

I do feel this is going to end up like 1e where they think they're balancing out the fighter, but they're really not considering other classes, and how the game is usually played. Even though we don't have spell information now, comparing the fighters features and feat options with a spell of that level I feel will really put things into perspective.

This blog post actually has nothing I'm thrilled about at all, other than me going, "I'll probably take sudden charge". Looking like a life of class features that try and fool you into thinking they're acceptable, and buying "exclusive" feats that do underwhelming things. I predict that ranged combat will dominate, especially with everyone spending all their actions putting up shields, pulling out their weapons, and running around. Flying magic man in the sky rains down fire death, while if I put up my shield as an action, I get a bonus to reflex saves.

My quick impressions on what I just read.

"good at taking damage and even better at dealing damage."
That caught my eye. I don't want to take damage if I don't have to, and that quote makes me fear that this signals for the MMO style of combat where you make a "tank". Scrolling down, I saw on the first page of comments that Armor Training is taking a backseat, which it is personally one of my favorite class features of the fighter.

The class feature to do attacks of opportunity. A feature that triggers IF you're in reach, with a -2 penalty, costs your reaction, I imagine you'll need to have a weapon that threatens (unless you can punch it), and is conditional if they do a thing that will allow you to do it. I actually don't like this, because even in normal pathfinder, having a reach weapon, and combat reflexes, AOO's don't happen too often unless you create them, or the creatures move through threatened squares. I see the language of "move away from you", which makes me feel it'll be more 5e where they move out of your reach to provoke. AOO's being more rare I suppose would make people more reckless with their actions, but once they figure out you can do AOO's, I figure they'll wise up. This seems to be like, "Hey, look at this cool thing we're giving fighters that is rare", when it in my opinion extremely underwhelming, and reminds me of "Hey, look at this Bravery class feature. Pretty cool, right?". Oh, and lastly I'd like to point out the -2 penalty for the thing you'll rarely do is disappointing.

Next you write about the proficiency rank increasing, and I hope that all other classes are WAY slower than the fighter with these increases, and not just the later ones. I hate to be the guy who wants things and others not to, but Pathfinder 1e has quite often pretended to give fighters special exclusive things while actually not. The good old, "Why be a fighter, when all this stuff exists", and by how proficentcies sound including opening up other options from having it increased, I sure hope their speed increasing it isn't matched.

Here is another thing I feel people will not realize until it's pointed out. Fighters have long been without perception as a class skill, which is one of the many things that confuses and upsets people when seeing the fighter is a class to pick. So from what I'm seeing, first I am happy with having perception be good, but it seems there is a caveat that it only applies to when rolling for initiative? Like I guess I appreciate it because the usual argument for why fighters should have perception as a class skill is related to spotting combat, which it looks like what you're going for, but this seems like it'll be another one of those underwhelming things where people go, "Hey, look at this Bravery class feature. Pretty cool, right?"

Sudden Charge is something I would most likely take for my character, especially when the game lets you make multiple attacks if you have the actions. What I'm curious about is if it's exclusive to melee attacks, or if someone with ranged weapons can maneuver so there is a better shot (no cover etc). If it is exclusive to melee attacks, then I think this is a neat feat that people will use a lot.

Quick reversal is something I don't think I would ever take unless there are details that are missing, like if you'll reroll for both the 2nd attack miss, and the 3rd attack miss etc. This honestly seems to be a trap feat, and if feat taxes exist, then I am feel this'll be one of them. For you to make use out of it you'll need to first have at least two creatures within your reach, flanking you, and for you to use your actions to make more than 1 attack, but miss with the later attacks. There doesn't seem to be any incentive to create this situation on your own, but you'd want to try and avoid it, so you have this feat that you hope you'll never use. Unless the fighter will be the "I can't hold all these feats" meme, then this doesn't sound appealing to me at all. I imagine it also needs to have you spend your reaction, but if it didn't use a resource, and triggered for any of your attacks past the first, then maybe I'd consider taking this. Overall, I'd rather take a feat that helps me hit the thing, assuming there are any.

"We've talked before about how fun and tactical shields are in the game."
These shields don't sound fun to me, but overall I have mixed feelings. Originally you put this thing on your arm, and most of the time unless you had something to cause an exception, you couldn't use that hand for anything other than getting the shield AC bonus. Like if you ran your game paying attention to the rules, shields caused you to have a bad time if you wanted to open a door, climb, and manipulate other items if your other hand had a weapon in it. 2e shield requires an action to lift up so you gain the AC, and I just imagine if you don't just have your weapon and shield out all the time, that you'll have to eat away at a lot of actions when combat starts. Like the reaction to shave off damage is what I like, and I don't know if the shield will get wrecked over time or not, but I'm down to spend my limited reaction for that, but I feel like I have invested enough of my limb to the shield that I shouldn't need to spend actions to make use of it. But to talk about that feat related to the whole shield thing, I think it would be better if you gave another reaction to block damage immediately, and kept giving more over time, especially if people are going to need to spend an action lifting up their shields. I am reluctant to even use a shield because of the action I need to invest into it to even gain the most basic benefits.

I passed power attack, and it seems to be vital strike in a way. I'm not sure if the damage die is some set dice depending on the size/amount of hands of the weapon, or if it doubles the weapon damage like vital strike, but this feat doesn't sound good. I'm assuming whatever ability score mod you have doesn't get added in again, so what you're looking at is spending 2 actions for a chance to roll another die into the damage, which could end up being a 1. I saw a dev talk about situations where you're fighting things that are hard to hit, and how you'd rather want to power attack than just do another swing, but I disagree entirely. You have to buy the feat in the first place if you want to use it, and if I'm attacking something with high AC, then I think I rather take the multiple attacks because if it's likely I'll be missing even with that first swing, I still have that natural 20 (5% chance) if it really is that bad (assuming natural 20's auto hit in 2e). Seems like a trap feat to me unless there are details they left out, and again, I rather spend my feat on something that'll let me hit better instead of power attack.

I would have really loved to have heard more about the ranged feats, or at least more about the one that was mentioned. An attack that causes an enemy to lose an action seems like it's actually pretty cool, especially for someone who wants a more tactical fight. Not that I want to take away from the ranged feat ideas, but if this included melee attacks too I'd definitely take it even more. Speaking of melee and ranged feats, I am curious if power attack will be inclusive as a replacement for like a Deadly Aim, especially since it sounds like vital strike, and vital strike could be used with either.

I would have loved to have read an example of a fighter archetype, and how to implement it, but I do appreciate the post and especially that fighter was first up. I am trying to be optimistic with how fighters will turn out in 2e, and if my name didn't give it away, I do have a strong passion for the class. I feel that fighters haven't gotten a fair shake, and this will solely be what I judge paizo on.

Also, I need to mention the world of fighters in regards to their options over time from what is published. I'm unsure if fighters will continue their path of bonus feats as their class feature, but if they do, PLEASE put in plenty of content for them, or at least for those of us that have spent so much money on random materials just to have access to the combat feats inside, PLEASE include like a list of what in the past can be used, and how it can be converted into 2e. Again, all I really care about are fighters, so if fighters get a fair shake, then I'll be happy.

Details on the Tribal Fighter and Skirmisher archetypes?

Any new Advanced Weapon or Armor training options?

Any cool combat feats?

Any of the Fighter Archetypes get a flat dodge bonus as they level?

The Skirmisher anything like 3.5 where you need to move like 10 feet in order to gain benefits?

The Viking archetype a reprint of the People of the North fighter archetype?

Any new Advanced Weapon or Armor training options?

Could someone please say if there are any archetypes for the Fighter class?

Would anyone mind giving information about the combat feats, please?

I ignored some of the other conversation about the Lore Warden, and I see that people think the weapon training applies to the CMBs. Not to make this a rules thread, but the weapon training will only apply to the weapons in the given weapon group, and to only certain few Combat maneuvers, such as Trip, Sunder, Disarm, and with the right weapons Push and Drag. Lore Warden I admit does help out a lot with a +2 to your CM's, but CM's sometimes can't do anything against certain enemies, plus if you don't get the improved, then you're going to be provoking. Lore Warden wasn't the best archetype, but rather was barely something decent. I'll reserve full judgement until I see the rules myself, but it sounds like this is awful.

Can anyone give info on the combat styles, especially the Diva style feats?

Agile Maiden, Falling Water Gambit, and Unbreakable details?

Any of the combat feats work with Charisma at all?

technarken wrote:

I like most of the book (finally got the pdfs this evening), but the nerfs to a couple PFS mainstays are kinda jarring to me.

** spoiler omitted **

Personally, I think the new lore warden is better. Not only does it no longer have some obviously garrulous trades, but it actually gives you choices in when you get the lore warden's abilities. It's like a built-in archetype-unique advanced armor training option.

So given my name, I am a fan of the fighter, and as you have maybe seen on the paizo forums, there are many who believe the Fighter gets the short end of the stick. The Lore Warden had its ups and downs before, and it's sounding like it got pretty screwed. Many took the archetype so they could get combat expertise, because they hate the feat, and all the awful pre-reqs to do certain combat maneuvers. So all I'm getting is it got nerfed, and I find this to be upsetting, but you think it's better. Can you give me some details on why you think this, especially since I don't have access to the reprint.

Also, I've been excited over this book for awhile, and I have been a subscriber of companions in the past, but I have been disappointed. Hearing a hardcover has reprints, and especially a Lore Warden nerf as one of the archetypes really upsets me. Alone that I was excited for some fighter love and instead am hearing that it's kinda the opposite saddens me deeply.

Secret Wizard wrote:

I'd assume they changed the "this replaces Bravery I" if they had to change something. That's the biggest balance and editorial issue, and not such a big deal to fix.

It now replaces Bravery and the 2nd level bonus feat.

David knott 242 wrote:

Okay -- Do the game mechanics of that archetype differ in any way from this earlier version?

Ye gods, yes. It's much more streamlined.

The only change is that it got nerfed?

Any neato combat feats?

FallenDabus wrote:

What are the fighter archetypes?

** spoiler omitted **

Are there changes to the Lore Warden? If so, what are they?

I saw there are 3 new Fighter Archetypes. This please me.

Perhaps details at like one feat that you think might be better than the rest?

Could someone please give details on the combat feats?

Any new slayer talents?

Orb, could you give details on other combat feats, please?

Any deets on Style Feats Here?

Whoa, if those exist in this book, I also want to know! Horror themed style feats sounds nuts.

Any details on combat feats is appreciated.

Any of the combat feats work with critical hits?

I'm just glad to hear there are combat feats. Thanks.

Thanks for the slayer info.

Does the book have combat feats, or no?

Verzen, I'm interested in hearing about the Slayer archetype, and combat feats if you don't mind. I love me some combat feats!

I'm disappointed there's no fighter archetypes.

Anyone give details on the slayer, please?

Details on combat feats, please?