Kwizzy's page

... Check out Seelah, our iconic paladin. We don't show cleavage, but the armor is formed so it accentuates her breasts. That is fantasy. It isn't realistic or have any relation to what works in real life. And Pathfinder Online will follow a similar aesthetic. We aren't trying to make a medieval simulation. We aren't trying to be true to the real world. There will be tons of options for everyone. But the look and feel of Pathfinder Online will be identical to the Pathfinder books Paizo publishes. If you are looking for a game that is more realistic or looks different than what you see in Paizo's books, then Pathfinder Online isn't going to be for you. If you want a gritty fantasy world with some amazing fantasy graphics, then you will love what we are doing.

-Lisa

Egads, I don't want medieval simulation either. I hate to think how misogynistic that would end up regardless of history.

So... Where's my male paladin with an accentuated, phallic codpiece? After all, I need to know he takes pride in his manhood. And what about beards? While we're talking idealized secondary sex characteristics, there needs to be much more beards.

I love everything about Seelah except that breastplate. I know, it seems like a pet peeve. But, why? Why accentuate the breasts? If it's so we know she's a woman, can I point out that we can see her face and she's not terribly androgynous? Can I point out that there's a myriad of ways visually to tell if someone is a woman besides breasts, but those get an inordinate amount of attention at the expense of sense?

I don't want to be unfair here. I know breasts are great and everyone loves them, albeit in different ways. Personally, I don't feel that not having breasty breastplates somehow diminishes the idealization of female warriors. It's not like she stops being a female the moment breasts are no longer easily distinguishable beneath her armor. I think breasts are low on the list of things that make me feel awesome as a female warrior/wizard/what have you. I think a breastplate that looks like it could take a tank shell and has a big pretty flower on it makes me feel awesome.

I'm not asking for super historical realism. Function being sacrificed for Beauty is something I understand. But for whom is the beauty meant? Is it so women can realize their idealized fantasies about themselves in a game world? Or is it for another, less noble reason? I can tell you the message I'm getting from the artwork.

"Pathfinder Online: No Surprises Here."

I wish it were different. I want to be pleasantly surprised rather than, "Well, it could be much, MUCH worse."

Kwizzy wrote:

...3) Vastly less important, but twirling in combat when an opponent is in front of you is only ever explicitly mentioned as martially sound in use of the Montante (Big Ass Sword), Dom Diogo Gomes de Figueiredo's Memorial. It's a quibble compared to my other two points, but if you are looking at more realistic fighting, I can't see sword and board being very twirly. Great swords, on the other hand -- twirl away! Add a little jump! Mr. F says to in Simple Rule/Lesson 14!

Agree on the boobish plate armor, recommend leaving the cloth, light, and medium armor selection to the character's taste but provide ample variety to select from.

I found the swordplay unexpectedly sensible and well thought. The zornhau after the spin would be a dangerous maneuver, even a gamble, but could be useful in preparation, remise, or as an overstated Quartata defense followed by beating or forcing the expected parry. I would prefer seeing a Neuvieme (Parry #9, behind the back) incorporated in the spin, however, given there was no shield.

I have to respectfully, but cautiously, disagree on both points. How Pathfinder Online approaches armor from a visual point of view will inform the overall feel of the game, yes? Choice is all well and good, and I'm not about to say any choice is wrong -- I know of at least one reported instance of a woman who fights in boobplate -- but those options add to development costs and time.

What real worth is there in more martially unsound armors that instead of 100 pieces of sensible, functional armor there are instead 50 pieces of sensible and 50 "well if I'm going to be looking at a hinder all day..." armor? Or 75 pieces of functional armor and 25 non-combat vanity outfits? Or a benefit to wearing no armor for Barbarians for all those Conan/Red Sonja lovers out there?

It's not that there isn't a place for sexy armor. I just don't think that place needs to be Pathfinder Online. It's already kinda common. The question to answer is what kind of Fantasy does Pathfinder Online want to come across as, and to whom are they trying to appeal? The message I'm getting is that someone still has the blinders on as to what "female" armor is supposed to look like, and I might have to choose between armor stats and armor looks if I play a female character. Which means I'm less interested in the project as a whole.

Without sexy options for females or males, what is honestly the downside? All characters look like they're being taken seriously? For every mythical moron who won't play consciously or not because, "not enough sexy lady armor," there will be another that will because, "awesome, sensible lady armor!" Please don't make me get into textbook subject/object differentiation and how nonsensical sexualization does not equal proud sexuality. If you wouldn't/won't put the gentleman in the design, don't put the lady in it.

Heaven knows I'm not getting the message that I can get the same things out of playing a male character as a hetero guy gets out of playing a female character. I'm not getting "No Girls Allowed" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm also not getting, "We Treat All Our Characters As Serious, No-Nonsense Adventurers," or "This Is A Fantasy So We Have Fun Making ALL Our Characters' Outfits Sexy And Awesome." I'm getting something totally unaware that anything is amiss or unusual. Men get awesome, women get awesome plus/minus reminding you that there's a lady body under there. That's the problem, because clothing characters ready for battle differently based on their gender is unusual in a purely rational sense. A tailored fit? Sure. Missing pieces? Whaaaat?

I'm asking for equal treatment. That's it. Not complicated. So, better show off some sexy man-chest or abs or thighs or oh god ANYTHING, or change the female armor, or I'm going to feel neglected.

Now, to talk swords and physics -- the really important thing in a thread about fantasy settings!

As to the twirling, I agree that I was surprised how good the combat animation looked. I may have even seen a little Italian Rotella influence. He also didn't do too many movements that would invalidate the whole point of wearing a shield -- the huge suicide movements where the shield ends up forgotten and useless. However, twirling makes sense in two contexts: someone behind you -- in which case you half-twirl to face them -- and really big swords.

As I see it, you don't generate enough power by twirling to make the tempo you lose worth it. (Yes, I'm aware of the plate in Agrippa, but this is sword and board, not rapier.) In fact, I suspect you'd generate less power twirling than taking a step and cutting from the shoulder, using the hips and core. But even if you could generate lots of power twirling, if you're close enough to be in measure, where it would matter, you're close enough for your opponent to either stab you in the back and/or get close enough to intercept your arm on the way around. At that point any power generated doesn't matter -- you're either bleeding, grappled, or have a broken arm courtesy of your own swing meeting a well-placed weapon or shield. If you're not in measure, you've spun around and swished through the air uselessly, creating a great opportunity for your opponent to move into measure and create an opening.

The difference, I think, with a 5+ pound sword after a spear thrust (the context of Mr. F's 14th Rule where he advocates swinging the sword all the way around) is that the sheer weight and mass of the weapon makes the idea that the motion will generate more power and speed swinging it 360 degrees plausible, and a thrust or thrown spear implies a wide measure that needs to be closed and fast. Because the sword is so long, there's little concern about the opponent being able to get close enough to grab your arms from measure. The other detail of the Rule (think Kata) is that to stop the initial spear throw/thrust you're supposed to knock it aside. This means, I think, that you're already moving fast and intently, and instead of stopping on the left side the idea is to continue the motion all the way through. I don't think this is advisable with weapons any smaller or lighter. If there's a longsword (two-handed, 3-ish pounds) play from any one of the many masters whose works survive that advocate 360 degree twirl I have yet to see or hear about it.

That's my armchair analysis anyway. A one-handed, two pound sword isn't going to see much benefit from a twirl.

That all said, I'm going to feel good I said it but not assume I'll be heard. Twirling is a proud choreographic tradition and boobplates and boob windows are a proud(?) fantasy tradition.

Tl;Dr version: All sensible armor is better than fifty-fifty sensible/sexy for females. Equal treatment is good. Twirling isn't sound with a sword and board setup because time, space, and mass.

Just so I don't sound like I'm coming out swinging, please know that everything I don't mention here filled me with warm fuzzies and glee. Love the landscapes, love the look, love the armor design, love the animation, love the settlement looks.

However.

1) Lose the boob-shaped heavy armor. Seriously, twirling swordsmen I can deal with to an extent, but I'm pretty sure I'll remember my character is female without her breastplate being literally a breastplate. It's unnecessary (breasts compress), martially unsound (deflecting blows towards instead of away from squishy bits), and dangerous (creating a wedge that points straight at your sternum -- that thing that keeps your ribs together). Seriously, you can have a jutting accent in the chest area to accommodate endowed female anatomy -- after all we have armor designed to accommodate quite a large gut -- just remove the steel cleavage and I'll be happy.

2) This is a reiteration from the last look we had at armor -- lose the boob window on the female light armors OR make a similar hole on the male light armor. Even if there's not going to be "night on the town" outfits to give us our sexy fix, adventurers shouldn't have exposed squishy bits for no reason. When the only reason the outfits are dissimilar is one is male and the other female I start to think there isn't a legitimate in-world reason. Not like the ogre is going to appreciate it in any other way except "Ooo! Speer go der!" C'mon. Leave that to the "Hark! A Scantily Clad Woman! Free To Play!" MMORPGs.

3) Vastly less important, but twirling in combat when an opponent is in front of you is only ever explicitly mentioned as martially sound in use of the Montante (Big Ass Sword), Dom Diogo Gomes de Figueiredo's Memorial. It's a quibble compared to my other two points, but if you are looking at more realistic fighting, I can't see sword and board being very twirly. Great swords, on the other hand -- twirl away! Add a little jump! Mr. F says to in Simple Rule/Lesson 14!

That's pretty much it.

Right now, the sword attacks are loosely based on some actual broadsword fencing maneuvers. Lee and I were looking through a German fencing manual and were both like, "there's a historical attack called 'Wrath Guard'? That's totally going in!"

Joachim Meyer's Treatise on Longsword, if I can venture a guess? Or are you looking at his Dussack manual? Because when you say "broadsword" I'm not actually sure what you're referring to because that's kind of a, er, broad (no pun intended) museum-type term designating whether it primarily cuts or thrusts as far as I can make out.

Fiore de'i Liberi calls the same guard (in longsword) Posta di Donna, or Woman's Guard. I agree that the German translation sounds better, but I'm biased since my training is all in the German tradition. However, to be fair, I'd suggest the Italian "Boar's Tooth" (Dente di Zenghiaro) to the German "Plow" (Pflug). No harm in shopping around for the coolest-sounding terms.

Hopefully it winds up feeling close enough that fighting reenactors don't think we're abusing the terminology :) . So that's to say that "Wrath" isn't really a game mechanical prefix.

Looking at the blog, Wrath Guard and Wrathful Strike seem reasonable to the terminology/technique I know (Zornhau and Zornhut, respectively). Though, from the German manuals, if a Wrath Strike (Zornhau) is performed "masterfully" it ends at another guard and does not leave one undefended. Maybe with the right feats, eh?

"Swing" is a little vague. Maybe "Beat Aside" or "Displace" to be less vague and more in line with what I think you're getting at for the attack? (Versetzen/Absetzen?)

I'm not sure what "Cross Blow" is supposed to be or if you pulled it from a manual. (All I can find for strikes is "Cross Cut" from Meyer's Halberd, and then there are half-sword guards called "True Cross" and "Bastard Cross." If it was from half-sword guards, it would actually make a lot of sense, since half-sword is how you fight someone in lots of armor.)

Delighted though that you're looking at actual period terminology! Does this mean that maybe the animation might be more nuanced than guys swinging swords like baseball bats? 8D (hopeful, wide-eyed smile)

Personally, I love the idea of actually having to pay attention to the animations to figure out what my opponent is up to and react accordingly in a more sword-play inspired fashion as opposed to "Hit 1 to swing. Hit 2 to swing harder."

Sorry if I sound like a know-it-all or anything. Most people aren't even vaguely aware manuals on fencing/fighting with western swords exist, let alone that there was actual technique involved.

(The gentleman on the left is in "Wrath Guard," for the curious. Just look at those pants!) http://wiktenauer.com/images/2/28/Meyer_1570_Longsword_E.jpg

Volron shmoltron. I prefer everyone being self contained and awesome by themselves first, and then they can work together to be more awesome. Like Power Rangers. Or something.

Even if your argument did make sense, Marthkus, that's one specific situation in which a Fighter would have an advantage over a very specific type of Barbarian due to lack of an ability, not anything intrinsic to Fighter. Now how is this Fighter now comparable to a Ranger, Cavalier, Paladin, etc.? Everyone does better with a buff. Being "buffable" isn't a class feature.

Really, you're more arguing that spell resistance is bad and specific spells can mimic or outdo class abilities. That has nothing to do with the Fighter's relative power compared to other martials.

Even if the Fighter had a class ability "improve all buffs cast on you" it would still be a little silly and unsatisfying.

Yes it's a teamwork game. But not everyone is eager to build a character that will be sub par without direct support from a spellcaster. Though, I suppose such a character could take Leadership and grab a pet wizard for all their buffing needs. It'd still be nicer to be helpful not just as the steel ball that gets loaded into the cannon.

Kwizzy wrote:

What's the historical/in-game justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?

Life in the wilds would lead to quiet a bit of skill usage and intuition I would think. Formal training with weapons and armor wouldn't lead to learning how to speak with others or knowledge of the world or perception. That would be my guess anyway, though I'm not a fan of anyone but intellect casters getting 2+.

Life in civilization requires skill usage and definitely more social skills, and has the facilities to train people in these things. And the Fighter gets survival, so that's life in the wilds anyway. Seriously, I'm perplexed.

Not to sound classist, but the Barbarian shouldn't be able to read, let alone get more skill points than the wandering swordsman. I mean, their shtick is getting mad at things and chaotic-alignment. How do you train that kind of person to carefully search and be aware of their environment? And how does the sellsword not have that? Is that why Fighters are adventurers? They can't get a steady guard-duty job?

What gets me is a Fighter is "the most customizable class" when the concept proposed by the skill list is decidedly specific. Knows dungeons, but not where to get a good beer. Can train animals to guard but can't do so themselves. Can climb and swim but not jump. Can be scary, but can't tell when the waitress is flirting.

How about I decide how my Fighter was trained, huh? Maybe I was trained in a war academy where we had to fight on balance-beams while giving orders to human chess players. Maybe I'm from an agrarian commune and sold exotic flowers to travelers. Maybe I'm a knight trained in social morays and the who's who and can perform a sonnet on the spot. Why not have the Fighter be able to be all the things it says in that nice little paragraph describing all the diverse people who are Fighters should be able to do?

What's the historical/in-have justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?

easiest way to fix the fighter (though not the best)

merge the fighter and rogue into one class ala gestalt, give the fused class the ninja's Ki pool (based off Con instead of Cha) at 2nd level with a different name, and call it the "badass normal" remember to remove armor restrictions on rogue features

drop the fighter, rogue, monk, gunslinger, and ninja off the face of the planet.

Now you get the following

Good Reflex and Fortitude
Full BaB
D10 HD
8+int skills
Martial Weapons, Heavy Armor, and tower shields
Full Sneak attack progression
Full Ki Pool 1/2 level +Con Mod
Rogue/Fighter Skill List
Full Bonus Feat Progression
Full Rogue Talent/Ninja Trick Progression
Full Weapon/Armor Training Progression
Full Trapfinding Progression
Full Uncanny Dodge/Evasion Line

now you have a fighter with out of combat options. and some in combat tactical perks.

If you haven't, you may want to look up Kirthfinder. It's a similar solution.

Kwizzy wrote:

Maybe the discontent comes from the feeling that the Fighter can be really great in certain situations, but has a harder time generalizing while still remaining great in those certain situations. Not "why can't I beat everyone at everything?!" whining but, "gee, I sure hope we don't come across x, y, z, or anything really besides a, b, and c today." Yes, Rangers and Paladins have to worry about their specific type of target, but they still have plenty they can do otherwise. Gods help the tripper who fights many- or no-legged creatures. If the problem is people specialize and thereby hose their character in most situations, I'd say that you shouldn't design any class with the potential to hose itself.

I have builded several tripper fighters and when they face eemies that can not be tripped they just use the old tactic of do a lot of damage. A fighter have enough feats to be good a t tripoing and damage, and weapon focus /greater weapon focus add to the CMB for trip attempts.

Meanwhile all that trip investment is just sitting there when it could be more attack power/AC or actual class features or skill focus or... Never felt right to me when feats are pretty much all I get. I always try to go for the sure thing, and Fighters worry me with their overt item dependence. Trying to figure out something as simple as a shield bashing sword and board has been a personal nightmare for me. And lead me to all of these delightful discussions.

And I'm in a party with a Witch, a Psion, both 20+ INT. So, out of combat, I make aid another rolls and roleplay. Even as a human with 13 INT I just can't compete with that. In combat, I mostly yell "Look over here! I'm in plate! I must be scary!" as a distraction for the Gunslinger to turn them into red spray. (Okay, I do decent damage and I'm the only melee combatant, but nothing like what people in this thread say I should be able to do easy.)

I'm new to the system though. Don't mind me.

Maybe the discontent comes from the feeling that the Fighter can be really great in certain situations, but has a harder time generalizing while still remaining great in those certain situations. Not "why can't I beat everyone at everything?!" whining but, "gee, I sure hope we don't come across x, y, z, or anything really besides a, b, and c today." Yes, Rangers and Paladins have to worry about their specific type of target, but they still have plenty they can do otherwise. Gods help the tripper who fights many- or no-legged creatures. If the problem is people specialize and thereby hose their character in most situations, I'd say that you shouldn't design any class with the potential to hose itself.

For my part, I think two more skill points, another good save (or Bravery applying to more than just fear), and the reintroduction of strikes (for all, but Fighters would likely appreciate them the most) would go a long way.

Oh, and the fourth edition blasphemy that conditions like prone, shaken, slowed, etc that you'd get through combat maneuvers apply even if it doesn't immediately make sense that an ooze can be prone. It just means you've forced it to spend a move action recombobulating itself because you pulled part of its jelly out -- jelly that would have been a leg if it had any.

Aaaand with the "denial of the relevance of imbalance via appeal to fourth edition DND" I've filled out my Fighter Thread Bingo card! Whoo!

I notice people seem to think weapon specialization/focus is a free feat for Fighters.

No Fighter in their right mind is going to fight without the rest of the party when the rest are out of resources. So it can't really be considered a class feature that they never run out of said expendable resources (seeings as they don't have any). The occasional ambush or bad luck is a reason to conserve resources before the end of the adventuring day. It's not something to base an entire class on.

Why make a class that only contributes to one aspect of the game, anyway?

Fighters should be simple to learn, robust no matter how badly you build them, but reward mastery of the system and tactical planning. Tactical being something besides fill attack.

And this won't be popular, but I liked Tome of Battle's and Fourth edition's idea of encounter resources instead of everything being daily.

P.s. why doesn't weapon mastery boost all the weapon categories to the same level instead of this "next category starts at square 1" crap? Not like it's game-breaking if I can use a bow and a sword at +2 -- can't very well use them at the same time. Or if I two-weapon fight with weapons in different categories it's worse than if I use two of the same weapon for the full bonus...

Will mass combat play into escalations/quests?

Say, a bunch of settlements (or one well-developed one) don't want to deal with the barbarian/demonic horde cycle as it rampages it's way through productive areas. So they rally as many PC's as they can and march on the infected hexes, systematically wiping out resistance and, if there is one, destroying a monster fort with siege engines. Would that be a planned or possible solution?

It would potentially give career soldiers something to do in PvE.

Think we've gotten a little off-topic here, but I'll try to clarify what I see happening here.

There's a difference between what I'll arbitrarily define as puzzles and traps, as far as how they are used in the game. Loosely-speaking, puzzles are for players. Traps are for characters. You give the players a puzzle not so they can turn to the highest-Int player and have the GM describe how the character solved the devious puzzle, but so the players can solve it.

A puzzle shouldn't require anything more than what the players might reasonably know or be able to deduce with maybe a hint or two sprinkled in from good skill checks (or the opposite from bad ones).

"Traps" are just another obstacle that can be overcome like any other -- skill checks, attacking it until it doesn't move anymore, or reasonably clever thinking.

If disabling a trap can be role-played out, I'd define it as a puzzle. If the players can figure it out and it's justified that their characters would be able to trace the same reasoning -- no metagaming -- then they've beaten the challenge the trap was supposed to pose. I wouldn't call for an all-or-nothing Disable Device roll at the end because I never intended to. I might call for rolls while they were handling the trap, or for a roll to actually perform the disarming procedure (raw Dex or Disable Device if they have it).

Now, not every trap should be like this unless the group really digs that kind of play. Using Disable Device can be a shorthand for dealing with these obstacles as traps and not as puzzles.

It's possible the Fighter can describe exactly how they disarm the trap without bypassing rolls -- just not using Disable Device. Perception can notice something awry, and Knowledge Dungeoneering or Engineering can give valuable clues as to the trap's construction and purpose. From there, it's up to the players as to how they handle it. Remotely detonate, try to disarm it with brute force? Up to them. Hopefully they didn't fail any rolls and accidentally try the wrong thing.

Not all traps are going to be in the character's range to reasonably figure out. This is a case where the GM informs them after multiple attempts at knowledge rolls that they can't make heads or tails of the trap, and they don't know if cutting the wire will set it off or not.

If the players take a risk and try to disarm the trap without knowing if that's how it works -- well that's legit. GM needs to make a call or a roll. If they've put effort into it beyond "we try to disable the trap without anyone trained in Disable Device" then they might, depending on the trap, succeed by sheer dumb luck.

Basically, Disable Device and traps shouldn't be -- and no one is proposing that it is -- bypassable by making up stuff or metagaming. But, like any obstacle, there should be multiple ways to approach it both for the players and the GM.

As for the grappling hook and key example, unless such paranoia or cleverness was unusual for the character, I'd say that such precautions are more than justified and should be rewarded. In the same situation, I'd assume that there were traps no matter how good I knew I was at finding them. And if there were no traps, it's not like you've lost anything. Besides the rest of the party snickering at your paranoia.

Short version: traps can be puzzles. Reward players for figuring them out.

I see two ways to approach being a high level martial when casters are perceived as being more powerful:

1) honest underdog, hero of the people type

2) action movie hero versus evil villain what has lots of genius

As for why character(s) wouldn't have taken caster levels if talent was there -- probably different for everyone but there's something about the satisfaction of physical skill versus studying a tome to cheat the laws of the universe.

So, since people are already talking about the totems and all...

What is the general direction of the the feats/traits and how are they different from what we've seen before, I.e. the oath traits in Knights of the Inner Sea (lackluster, I thought), and many feats that require you to be able to channel divinity first anyway?

Like, I'm playing a LG Fighter trying to replicate the flavor of the old Knight class. I miss having some benefit to keeping to a code of honor, besides warm fuzzies. Is there anything at all here for me?

Anything for Fighters?

Anything at all?

Y'know, a combat feat or two maybe..?

/sits in lonely Fighter corner

Tome of Battle.

Maybe do the three martial adept classes as one class with three "paths" or beefy archetypes for established classes.

I had a chance to play a Crusader in my Pathfinder Eberron and I picked a Fighter instead because shield fighting is feat intensive. I'm not sure I made the right decision.

@Atarlost

It's just a draft of the concept, really. I'm not familiar enough with all the weapon feats and builds to do anything but the roughest estimation at the moment. And oops on the non-Paizo feats -- I was using a PF srd and that has all the non-core and 3rd Party. But thanks for the feedback!

As a traditional Sword and Boarder, I definitely can appreciate the weapon diversity problem. While a traditional Two-Weapon Fighter can use two of the same weapon (or go archetype) to avoid the issue, a S&B Fighter kinda just has to suck it up and decide whether the shield or the sword (or whatever) is priority for Weapon Training, Focus, Specialization, etc. Usually, the shield is the better choice since it's going to get all the goodies from feats and such. But then you have a main hand weapon that feels neglected because you don't get a free Bull Rush whenever you hit with it. Though, part of it is my fault since I refuse point-blank to dual-wield shields. Ever. Just. No.

If you want to read more frustrated Fighter ranting, try S&B discussions! :D

So, I agree that Fighters should be best with all weapons as their shtick, not just whatever one they choose to focus on.

Random idea -- what if on top of Weapon Training, Fighters got access to a "special effect" from a weapon group and/or weapon damage type? Like, for any given group, a Fighter is considered to have X Feat when using a weapon from that group, regardless of whether or not the Fighter would qualify normally for that feat. Maybe even something from the Improved Critical family. Or heaven forbid as the Fighter levels they get more and more "free" feats they are considered to have while using a particular type of weapon. If the Fighter already has the listed feat, they are considered to have whatever one they'd get next on the list.

This way, you avoid most of the problems with endless feat chains that become instantly useless once the Fighter picks up another type of weapon, and the Fighter can instead spend those Combat Feats on either specific Weapon Focus/Specialization if they want to be more reliable with one type of weapon or on more general combat feats that aren't weapon dependent (Step Up and Friends, Stand Still and Friends, etc.) Instead of having a few extra feats instead of class features, a Fighter is actually versatile and they get ALL THE WEAPON FEATS IN THE WORLD, mwa ha ha!

Something Like:

Weapon Type: Xth level "freebie", (X+Y)th level "freebie", etc. with probably the same progression as Weapon Training.

I threw in four feats for most, but there could be a fifth that you gain access to at 20th with Weapon Mastery -- I tried to make these tougher to reflect the capstone happiness. Keyword: tried.

Axes: Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Bleeding Critical, Improved Cleaving Finish
Blades, Heavy: Combat Expertise, Cleave, Cleaving Finish, Bleeding Critical, Improved Cleaving Finish
Blades, Light: Improved Feint, Vital Strike, Impaling Critical, Penetrating Strike, Imp. Impaling Critical
Bows: Deadly Aim, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot
Close: Step Up, Improved Reposition, Tiring Critical, Repositioning Strike, Exhausting Critical
Crossbows: Rapid Reload, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Crossbow Mastery, Pin-Point Targeting
Double: Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Firearms: Rapid Reload, Amateur Gunslinger, Point-Blank Shot, Shot on the Run, Parting Shot
Flails: Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Tripping Strike, Disarming Strike, Critical Mastery
Hammers: Improved Sunder, Dazing Assault, Sundering Strike, Staggering Critical, Stunning Critical
Monk: Improved Disarm, Cornugon Stun, Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath
Natural: Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick
Polearms: Improved Reposition, Lunge, Monkey Lunge, Crippling Critical, Repositioning Strike
Siege Engines: Siege Engineer, Siege Commander, Siege Gunner, Master Siege Engineer, Leadership
Spears: Lunge, Let Them Come, Monkey Lunge, Impaling Critical, Rhino Charge
Thrown: Point-Blank Shot, Distance Thrower, Close-Quarters Thrower, Charging Hurler, Imp. Charging Hurler

Now that's a class that can confidently pick up any weapon, or get in a fist fight, and has a reason to keep around a variety and pick different weapons for different situations. I think it compensates option-wise for having no spells nicely.

I totally understand what you're saying Cranefist. I love playing a Fighter because I like to get in a monster's face so the casters are free to do whatever sadistic casting they can come up with. (I was trained in 4e DnD, and I found Defenders to be my game.) But sometimes this nagging doubt creeps into my head that the party would be better off if I'd played a Magus, Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger, or Paladin.

Out of character, I know that as a player I'd be much better at a caster class in the Pathfinder environment. I only wish I could utilize my intellect more with the Fighter. As is, I make do with what I have.

Sometimes the effects that casters can conjure up are just so perfect in a situation. We had a mass battle where our Witch cast two Sleet Storms and turned the fight around. Of course that gave me the chance to run in and do what I do best without getting shot 10+ times (touch attacks, no less), but I'm not sure I can exactly reciprocate when its me that needs to do something terribly clever that will overturn the odds.

Even in my element, there's not a lot I can do to control the field, and certainly not counter swaths of enemies. Vast effects over 40+ feet are definitely not among the things my Fighter will ever be capable of. She's great, but she's not exactly "turn the tide of a battle far above our capability of handling alone by doing something only a non-caster can do at the right time/place" great. Seems like my skill set in its ideal situation -- say, a narrow bridge that I can Bull Rush to my heart's content -- can be replaced with a well-placed Wall of Force or somesuch. The Gunslinger out-damages me to a degree I'd call embarrassing if I actually cared about doing damage.

I desperately want to be useful to the party, but sometimes I feel like the plucky comic relief.

Though, maybe I just don't know my own strengths yet. I admit I'm still very much in a 4e mindset of "keep enemies from eating squishies, take damage like a champ." You don't know how shameful it is to me that just about everyone has more HP than me.

Here's my question: does the Fighter succeed as advertised in the class description?

Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.

The fluffier aspects in the description before the condensed Role section aside, does the Fighter class itself accomplish and deliver all that it says it does?

Let's break it down. Fighters:

A) Excel at combat.

Full BaB, extra combat feats over what other classes get, proficient in all weapons and armor (though not exotic), and bonuses/penalty negation via Weapon and Armor Training. I'd say so far so good, at least on par on paper with other martials.

How do they excel? Subcategories:

I) defeating their enemies

Okay, sure. As long as that enemy isn't physical immune, fair enough. Fighters also get access to Weapon Specialization and Focus feats others don't. I'll check this one off, though with a few notes.

To take advantage of Fighter-only feats one has to take said feats, diminishing their pool of bonus feats. It doesn't help if you never plan on using it, and you can't trade out for something else. But the same could be said of meta magic or channeling feats. Weapon Training is a nice class feature boost, but all of this is dependent on the Fighter's weapon. So, yes the Fighter does do this as advertised, with the potentially problematic caveat of proper weapon in hand and feats. Fair enough -- weapon-based class doesn't fare as well without weapons. The overwhelming need for specific weapons is where I worry.

II) controlling the flow of battle

This is where I stop the train. The only advantage a Fighter has over other classes in this category is the extra feats. No class feature really gives them this. The Knight from 3.5 does this with their class features, but not the Fighter. Yes, one can choose battlefield control feats that other classes won't ever have room for, but a Fighter who only takes combat feats when they are bonuses (reserving level feats for noon-combat feats) will have nothing tactically-speaking over the other guy who spends all their feats on the same. Last I checked, there aren't any combat control feats that are Fighter-only besides the caster lockdown chains, which are admittedly situationally fabulous. So, I see this as on shaky ground. A Fighter *might* control the battlefield, but is not guaranteed to based solely on class features and it might not be anything over and above what others can do with their level feats (and keep in mind these classes have class features of their own).

III) survive sorties

d10 hit die, and armor proficiency is all that I think I can apply here. Again, yes they can take armor/shield-centric feats that give them bonuses, and they have access to the Greater versions of these feats where others don't. But that's it. Armor Training only removes penalties, it doesn't give a bonus. There's not a whole lot that separates the Fighter here from their fellow melees except that they don't have to sacrifice non-combat feats for combat effectiveness so they might have extra room for Toughness, Endurance/Diehard etc, if they choose. But then it's a choice that isn't built-in or guaranteed to the class. It isn't like Lay on Hands.

When it comes down to it, (A) provides a list of "or" options rather than an inclusive list of "ands" that the class will provide whether you like it or not. Even with all the bonus feats it would be difficult to fulfill two of those simultaneously, let alone all three. And again, to do it requires the right feat selection at the right time.

And once we get to B) weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, we see a similar exclusivity, which may or may not be the point.

No two Fighters need be anything close to similar, and if that's all it means then great, we're done, but if it means one Fighter is capable of that, that's different. One Fighter can pull off maybe two varieties of tactics. Weapon Training can give them a boost in using two different weapons, absolutely, but by design one will lag behind the other. And again, they need to pick the right feats to pull off tactics other than shooting/attacking the bad guy. If they neglect to pick the right ones or if the right situation never presents itself...

And I may be missing something, but weapons by themselves don't seem varied enough for me to represent vastly differing tactics. Broadly between categories, yes, but within two-handed and one-handed and ranged it doesn't seem too terribly varied. And does anyone else think it might be challenging to convince their DM that your character carries a polearm, a shield, a one-hander, and a bow all at once? Assuming that's not a problem, how do you squish in all the feats to take advantage of each of those weapon's unique properties without coming out with less effectiveness than if you had just focused on one weapon? Brace and reach are great, but is it worth the time to pull out the polearm when you're getting less of a bonus because you picked something else for your Weapon Training? Or is the feat you spent in Weapon Focus (glaive) to keep up worth it? Are you really gaining all that much by spreading out?

I'm not even going to go into the nightmare of keeping those weapons competitively enchanted.

And what makes a Fighter any better than another class at doing this? Weapon Training can sometimes cross the right boundaries, I guess, and extra feats certainly don't hurt.

These are honest questions. I don't know the answers.

I'm not going to argue with sheer battle prowess. That's a little subjective but I feel Weapon and Armor Training fit the bill.

I'm not saying Fighters fail to live up as advertised. I don't know. It's just not all built-in and all inclusive. You can't really have everything advertised all at once, which can be somewhat frustrating. "Yes, my Fighter can take out a Giant's kneecap with a single blow, but has about as much control of the battlefield as a cat-herder." On top of all that, you can fail at advertised features by failing to pick the right feats or pursuing an expensive chain that makes it impossible to do much else.

Is it reasonable to expect discretion and thoughtful choices on the part of the player? Of course. But why not just build in to the class a few features that guarantee a Fighter will do what it says instead of pointing to combat feats and saying "grab the ones of those that do those things we said your class does"? Or toss in specific, non-negotiable bonus feats that display abilities you'd expect any generic Fighter to have?

Say, Combat Expertise (survival), Power Attack (defeat enemies), and Combat Reflexes (battlefield control)? Since those are prerequisites to just about every combat feat anyway?

Just some thoughts. I really don't know the answer to my own question. I'm trying to think of this in relation to just the Fighter, but it's hard not to wonder if other classes do the Fighter's role description better. Maybe the Fighter is supposed to be the gray middle area between Barbarian (damage), Cavalier (control), and Paladin (survivability)?

And I'm sad to say nothing in that role description leads me to believe the Fighter has out-of-combat utility.

Sorry for the length.

Oh yes, I'm sure our Gunslinger wouldn't mind the power upgrade, but our casters struggle enough with spell selection and such already -- a Witch and a Psion -- and the Gunslinger is already terrifyingly effective. I'm the malcontent here who stays awake at night trying to make sure the single melee heavy in the party pulls her weight.

Scaling feats is a term I've heard used for feats that improve with level or BaB. In fourth edition DnD they improved with tier usually. Iron Will would give you a bigger bonus when you hit 11th and 21st.

For example, I loved that Kirthfinder took Step Up, Following Step, and Step Up and Strike and essentially rolled them up into No Retreat, which basically gave you the same effects at the BaB it would be appropriate to have it in. Feats keep on giving and scale up to your power level so they remain relevant in a character's tool box of enemy crushing.

Power Attack and Combat Expertise in Pathfinder already do this numerically.

Step Up by itself is worth it for a few different builds and classes, but hopping down the whole chain starts to get painful for any build that isn't exclusively focusing on single target lockdown tactics, no matter many bonus feats Fighters get.

Or, at least, that's what I concluded for my sword and board heavy -- already a feat-intensive build just to make it work.

Unfortunately, explaining Kirthfinder to my GM only made me realize that, compared to other Pathfinder classes, Kirthfinder classes and feats are very, very tough. I'm pretty sure our Gunslinger wouldn't be happy about my Fighter running around with Grit. And no way I'm convincing that particular group to change systems a second time. (4th DnD -> Pathfinder/3.5 Eberron)

Addressing the item double standard accusation, let me try to clarify what I think is going on.

Items that replicate a class's features are, in my opinion, a design no-no from both a role-playing and balance perspective. No one wants to see someone able to do the things that make their class special by buying a magic item, no matter how much it costs. Enhancing class features they already possesses, yes, giving them features from another class no.

That said, the celestial/mithral Full plate debate isn't the same as, say, a +4 magic longsword. Both ostensibly replicate the Fighter's main class features -- less penalties while wearing armor and a bonus to attack and damage. However, a Fighter picking up said longsword would still be able to benefit from it because it stacks with Weapon Training and still do more attack and damage than a Paladin picking up the same weapon. (We'll ignore Divine Weapon chicanery for now.) This is not the case with the celestial/mithral full plate, or adamantine after level 19. To take full advantage of high-end armors a Fighter has to have ridiculously high Dex. This makes Armor Training seem irrelevant because it doesn't provide any further benefit to a Fighter while replicating a Fighter's class feature for others who have the gold.

This is the argument -- not that a Fighter without items is inferior (obviously) to others with items or even that a Fighter must bulk out on items to keep up with other classes (which may or may not be true). It's that a Fighter's edge can be bought and utilized in item form by everyone but a Fighter.

I'm long at you, non-stacking capstone and adamantine.

To add insult to injury, celestial armor is an item most people will buy for the flying and not the ease of movement.

This would be less of a problem in a setting where magic and magic items are super, super rare and you are unlikely to find even the components required to craft it yourself, but a class shouldn't depend on a specific setting to shine.

We could say that it's a problem with the item, but at that high of level things get pretty awesome.

Personally, I believe in scaling feats and an actual AC bonus or DR attached to Armor Training.

Why would it? Not all leather armor looks exactly alike. It depends on character preference.

Funny how female characters more often "prefer" to wear less leather armor as their preference, isn't it?

The sexy armor issue is so subjective I've stayed out of the discussion. Appropiate clothing/armor is determined by your culture. There are plenty of real world examples of female clothing that is counter-intuitive to its function but women still wear them for the same reasons women of Golarion might.

Remember the armor in PfO is also "everyday wear" so men dressing in full plate to go to the market is about as realistic as a female wearing a chainmail bikini in combat.

Fashion is subjective, yes. Functional armor, no.

If you wear armor that does not work, you are more likely to die, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. Armor can take on many forms and shapes and sizes based on culture, absolutely, but all are engineering designs tested by real situations. If it isn't up to snuff, people die. Engineering and fashion are totally different spheres, and armor falls solidly into engineering.

Neither physics nor biology have cultural bias.

Male and female characters share the same potential and capabilities in Golarion, ergo there's no reason for a gender divide on what armor will keep them alive.

Chainmail bikini in combat does not say, "There's a fashion in Golarion for women warriors and this is it, isn't our world unique and realistic like our own, full of its own social morays and expectations for women's wear!" It says two things. In context it says, "Those warriors are morons, because if there were any advantage to being three-quarters naked in combat, their male counterparts would dress the same way." Out of context, it says, "We think sex sells," and/or "The artist thinks girls are prettier with less clothes on."

Fully-armored man in fullplate at the market says, "I'm going on an adventure today," and "this is a video game and because it isn't The Sims I don't have to worry about showering, eating, or using the lavatory either."

I don't think your comparison works well.

To pre-emptively counter the "But it's a world full of dragons and kobolds and things, so why not stylized armor," argument, let me just once again beat the horse I thought I killed with my original post: If the males aren't wearing it too, as a participant in the same context of a fantasy world, you have to ask why. The answers aren't forthcoming when you consider both are presumably adventurers trying to stay alive and get loot.

Now, when the PfO: Fashion Show Expansion comes out, I will not be making these same arguments, because then it will apply that it is a subjective thing that is culture-relative within the context of the world. Unless there was a blog post I missed, that hasn't happened yet.

@Mbando

Not exactly sure what you're getting at with the Marines comparison, but I understand the overall point of something looking silly in an unexpected context =/= a situation of unfair objectification. Seeing a man in a big froofy wedding dress or a woman in a James Bond tuxedo might seem silly simply because it's unexpected, but that does not mean that anyone's personhood is being devalued. Culture includes the collection of things we're used to.

Not unfamiliar with Kant -- I have a degree in philosophy. I just avoid technical language for the most part because either no one has heard it and won't understand it, or everyone has heard it and already has an opinion one way or the other. (That said, Kant totally rocks and the means/ends dichotomy is a very useful way to frame the issue.)

Don't get me wrong, like I explained to Greedalox, I'm not interested in neuter or saying sexy is wrong. But the larger problem is that one can talk until blue in the face about how boob windows, thigh-slits, and latex costumes aren't diminishing the personhood of anyone and aren't making anyone a means instead of an end -- because women dress that way and don't feel objectified, because skin itself isn't evil or demeaning, because men aren't threatened by excess body-flaunting, etc. etc. -- and it starts to sound like a justification for the status quo and the same old stuff is given to female characters again while the males gleefully run around fully-clothed. I'm not going so far as to play the false empowerment card in this situation (I've worn far more revealing outfits myself -- never on an adventure though), but I find trying to use a more general heuristic like means/ends makes it seem more of an issue of legitimate differences of opinion/aesthetics/one's self-identity and less an issue of imbalance between fashions on male and female character models which is the problem I see.

It has come up more than once in this thread and others, and I don't begrudge anyone who is 100% sick of the conversation. I am too. That's why I proposed a rather rigid solution that will cut down on further fussing by forcing it to stop being an issue divided on strict gender lines, i.e. girls get this outfit, boys get this one. Instead of agonizing over whether the female outfit is okay or not, bypass the question by saying, "Well if it's not okay, we can be sure we're not isolating her because of her female-ness."

By its nature, the discussion at this level gets mired and ends up being a trench war where few are going to budge. Where is the line between demeaning and sexy, desirable and exploitative? I present two extremes, both not extremely helpful as far as I'm concerned in this situation.

1) For some people sexy is by definition demeaning because it relies on others for its power; it's debasing because it is not a strength from within -- it's passive. It's giving power to another by thinking that you will be only be seen and therefore admired and worshiped, when in reality you are being looked at, judged, evaluated, consumed. (Simone Beauvoir's language, I think.) Simply, it is a trick and will never lead to self-fulfillment/power but only serve the desires of others and make one weak and dependent, self-enslaved.

2) For others, no matter how strange her body appears to anyone else she's still an empowered woman because she is desirable, she knows it, she works for it, and that is always an advantage or power over others. It's self-fulling because she is assumed to be an agent looking towards her own interest. Put more elegantly, we can't judge what makes another person feel powerful and it's wrong and hypocritical to impose our idea of empowerment on someone else. You can't claim to be freeing someone from one cage made by someone else by putting them in another of your making.

It's easy to say that we just need to treat the characters as means instead of ends -- after all every player is inclined to have their character be an end instead of a means -- but it's harder in practice due to the unresolved battle lines drawn above. It's one of those things so perfectly obtuse that it's a great subject for a formal debate because each side has an equal chance at victory. Unless, of course, you have camp set up on one end or the other...

My attempt was to make a rubric that would feel fair regardless of where on the spectrum you fall because it removes the bias (conscious or otherwise) towards a predesignated look for one gender or another.

Less altruistically, and probably more help to the developers than my musings above, I like a little peek at the man-flesh myself and feel often neglected on that front in comparison to those who like woman-flesh. I mean, what does a girl gotta do for a little -- well -- anything? Sometimes even seeing a face is a stretch.

And yes, I know exploiting both genders might not actually make it non-exploitative just as two wrongs don't make a right, but I never said I was Good. Just Lawful. ;)

I think we all agree here that bigger is not necessarily better or worse and both are legitimate aesthetic and play-style choices.

You may take that as a euphemism if you want.

@Greedalox I don't think we disagree.

I'm on my mobile, so I'll be succinct.

I am not endorsing sexless, neuter outfits. That would be boring and it would pretty much make the choice between male and female characters meaningless, which I do not want.

I am encouraging that the gradient between sexy/aesthetic and functional be shared by both genders. I too am interested in armor sets with roses and lions and skulls and suns. I would not be pleased if everything that had a masculine/feminine association was scrapped out of hand. I just don't think that whether you have any one of those or the other should be based on your character's gender. It should have to do with the theme of the set and crafting customization options.

Historical pieces of armor did have floral print/etching without being for ladies.

Like I said, we don't disagree with you. It's just the old "only girls can wear pink" habit. I'm not calling for a game without pink -- that would be silly and ultimately arbitrary. I'm calling for a game where male and female characters can wear pink.

Now, stats are a while different discussion.

On a lighter note, maybe some armor could have keyword "Sexy" on it that gives a bonus if you have trained or have the right feats just like other armor keywords!

I'm totally kidding. Please don't do that.

On the other hand...

As another of the females planning on playing a female character, I humbly offer my coppers -- okay there's probably a few silvers here at least -- on the subject.

If I can steal a suggestion from people more clever than I, if you want to know when something crosses from "desirable" to "exploitative," just take the outfit in question and put it on a male character. Does it look silly? It's probably not good. (Please google "Hawkeye Initiative" if you are uninitiated in the effectiveness, and hilarity, of this technique.) To take an example from the blog and this discussion -- that "boob window" (excellent phrase) would actually work on a male character as a "chest window," I think. Why the male version of the same outfit doesn't give me a peek while the female's does is a concerning question, don't you think?

Let me present and defend a hard line position that would simplify things greatly asset-wise but might not be the most popular idea given the current fantasy-gaming milieu and extant expectations:

Don't make separate outfit designs for males and females.

"Madness!" you might bellow indignantly, but hear me out, fellow adventurers!

Firstly, clarifications. Obviously there will need to be slight adjustments for different body types, of which male and female will surely exist at the minimum. This does not, and should not, mean that every piece of flat male chest armor should be adapted via pounding outward two round bowls like great big letters that say "Hello, I am boobs under here. Don't panic. I'm indeed a lady." The fact that such armor is dangerously impractical has been discussed and the message I heard the devs put across from previous forum kerfuffles was that they were not going that direction. Personally, I'm not going to throw a hissy-fit over ample leather corsets because they at least make a smidgen more sense than boobplate. I reserve the right to throw a royal, screaming, throwing things fit over chest plate armor with boobs, however. Hollywood has gotten it right at least twice with Snow White and Elizabeth. No excuses.

Now that we know where I stand there, let me explain the benefits of keeping the same armor design between males and females besides the cut-down on assets and concepts needed. A little bit of skin on a male character doesn't always have to be sexual -- as it doesn't on a female. If it doesn't look unintentionally sexual on the male model, you know it won't on the female. Traditional, Conan-inspired male Barbarians can be put into this camp -- assuming one believes that there is such a thing as non-sexual full or partial nekkedness in the first place.

The moment you pose that Conan male Barbarian furtively clutching someone's leg in a desperate pose, head thrown back, shoulders hunched in -- or gods-forbid a broken-spine chest-and-rear (read: T&A) pose... Something changes. The character no longer exists for their own sake, but to be my passive, consumable plaything. Sense and function no longer factors in because poor Conan is only there to look sexy. He's not a person, fictional or otherwise; he's a decoration, a pin-up, an ideal that belongs to me. We're less used to seeing males that way on the whole in fantasy art (or, y'know, most everywhere).

The gender-pose/outfit-switch is, practically put, a roughshod way to trick our acclimated brains into telling us if something is sexy in an exploitative way.

I'm taking "exploitative" here to mean: "nonsensical in favor of sexual appeal at the expense of the presupposed person-hood of the looked at." I think that's pretty rigorous a definition and I'm quite proud of it.

(Here is where I have to be careful to not sound homophobic or trans-phobic or sex-negative, because I think all those things are bad juju. Please know that if anything I say sounds that way it is not my intent.)

I believe men can be intentionally sexy without making other males uncomfortable or exploited -- same goes for women -- especially in the medium of video or paper and pencil games. Sometimes, we enjoy playing a character that is what we want to be. Not everyone cares about being sexy, but as long as it isn't the one and only, overarching, painfully tunnel-visioned thing about the character to the point that sense is being woefully torn from the poor thing right along with all of his/her clothes, it shouldn't be a deal-breaking issue if there is a sexy element. (That said, why would you cut out a window from a long-sleeved, ankle-length robe, anyway?) I would bet money that the archetypal swashbuckling male Rogue with an open, billowy shirt doesn't make male gamers feel overly uncomfortable. I mean, there's a reason the "swashbuckler" keeps appearing in the game in one form or another, right? Can't be entirely the fault of us lusty girls and our insatiable desire for beautiful, long-haired, smirking scoundrels with the perfect, tanned seaman's chest.

The long and short of the conversation is this: I believe in equal-opportunity sexiness if there is sexiness as a vector of appeal. There is no good reason that the female's version of an outfit should have skin here or there where a male's shouldn't, given that we are going for practicality with some desirability (or visa versa) and we aren't wading into Golarion's unique gender politics. (I'll grant many typical male Monk outfits present an interesting challenge to compliment.) I'm not going to mind seeing a bit of chest -- or midriff or back or shoulder or hinder or thigh or calf -- on a male character model, and I don't think most others will either. Someone else may not enjoy it quite the way I do, but if it is the same difference between the male and female model there's really no gender-split or gender/orientation-privilege to talk about.

It is, dare I say, fair, at the very least.

So, for every boob window, there shall be a chest window. Mysterious thigh-slit robes/pants will be gender neutral. If a collar is going to cut loose and explore the southern regions of a body, we will see belly buttons of both genders equally often. Sexy, sexy belly buttons, y'all.

To me, it's that simple. I hope it doesn't sound ludicrous, because it shouldn't be that outrageous a request. There's nothing that soothes the sting of "this armor set shows too much skin for my taste" quite like seeing one's male counterparts running around in the same getup, and nothing better for preventing such situations from arising in the first place.

If there are some options as to relative modesty of armor sets, you can sure as hell bet I want an option on male outfits to have more skin showing. Even if I personally never take full advantage of this, I'm positive that some of your players will, and that prevents the problem of a world full of roughly 50% scary-looking walking suits of armor and 50% bikini-chainmail babes. (I won't name names.)

Here's the best part: for a lot of players it will tell a different narrative to choose to be, rather than be defaulted to, more scantly-armored -- badass mercenary, devil-may-care attitude, wild and untamed -- that has nothing to do with sexual appeal and that's good! For others so inclined, one might not be particularly attracted sexually to his/her vixen/scoundrel assassin but they might enjoy playing a character whose archetype has that sexy-dangerous component and will want to communicate that aspect of their character concept to others in the way they choose to dress and equip themselves. And isn't that the entire point of being able to customize the look of your character?

I'll grant that interpretation over whether someone's character is supposed to be an unfettered wilderness wanderer or a cold-blooded femme fatal based on what they wear -- or rather, don't wear -- might be as varied as it is in real life. I'd hope that the artistic design of minimalist armors will vary in its intent enough to make that distinction possible.

Last but not least, some people just enjoy looking at a nice, well-dressed, pleasing -- whatever that is to them -- body while they summarily batter monsters or harvest resources or whatever gameplay aspect is most fun for them. That's fine too, as long as no one is required to have their characters look like someone else's erotic fantasy. That's really the heart of this whole discussion, and why it can get so heated; and why people might freak out at a relatively tame "boob window." One person's seemingly innocent treat, a patch of nice-looking flesh, is another's reminder "this isn't for you, it's for that other guy because we either don't think you care or don't believe you exist."

It... gets old, and raw, and can make us impatient. To say the least. I've been a gamer since before I can remember and this has been an issue the whole way. I think that great strides have been made, and I can't tell you how good it feels to play a game and not feel reminded that the people who made it had a target demographic that I am not part of in mind when they made it and in their attempts to please that demographic they encouraged aesthetic choices that preclude my enjoyment because, try as I might have not to in more innocent times in my life, I can't help but identify with some of those "aesthetic elements" that just so happen to share with me the shape of an odd little phenomenon we call "female." When my shape is used as nothing more than eye candy for someone else in a context that has 100% nothing to do with actually looking at and appreciating the form -- not to mention against all other reason and sense -- it isn't something I can always hand-wave away easily "oh those sillies and their loving of curvy parts that I have, so much that they made them inhumanly disproportionate and forgot to put any sensible armor on them." There's a point where one no longer feels like a fellow adventurer -- which is the proper context for every character in a game -- but instead like a decoration not even afforded the dignity the magic artifact gets. Clothes, armor, body shapes, such as they are, are really only one facet of a gem of issues surrounding this potentially explosive bag of cats, but I think a significant one that warrants the most careful thought. If some people seem overly critical or sensitive on the subject, the above testimonial is probably why, regardless of any opinions or feelings they have on modesty as a moral issue.

If I may briefly parse one thing that people seem to be unconsciously associating here, it is a mistake to think that a request for less revealing outfits is always, or even often, tied to a prudish, "conservative" sensibility. To do so is conflating the issue and trying to make it a legitimate (i.e. unassailable) difference in moral opinion rather than the harder, more uncomfortable situation of fellow human beings asking why their characters can't have full-body robes too just because some other human beings think that type of human looks more pleasing with less robes? Why is what one type of human thinks is pleasing illegitimate or irrelevant while another's is?

Let me be clear, I am not accusing any parties involved here of even entertaining the kinds of ideas that reduce female characters to objects. In fact, I'm only bothering to assemble all these words because I have hope that these fine people have their heads set on straight and want to hear what I have to offer.

I truly, fervently believe that keeping the armor sets consistent across genders is the best solution that will be fair and fun to everyone involved.

It's a slightly kinder compromise than my husband's take on it, which is: "If you wouldn't put your sister in it, it's stupid." (My husband is one of the Legend of the Five Rings Art Directors, so he has dealt with these sorts of things in practice. My brother is the artist half of their duo, and he also has rather articulate and staunch positions on the subject in the same vein -- while still drawing many very pretty, sensibly armored, and highly competent-looking women.)

A last note: if we're going to talk about body types, I must throw my "here, here!" out there with those that have asked for female body types that are actually different -- none of this "boob slider" option nonsense. I don't want to see 4 hourglasses with differing heights and widths and be told that's "different body types" while the males have everything from Hulk to Dr. Horrible. I do want to see a range from big girl -- and I mean swarthy, Northern Europe kind of girl that can punch out a dragon's tooth -- to a veritable pixie. They're all beautiful and desirable for someone to play, and variety is the reason this project even exists in the first place, so don't reject it.

And kudos to you for armor so far that has mass and thickness, and isn't some magical steel latex paint. Along with the golden kudos of, y'know, actually asking us what it is we would like to see.

Thanks and I hope this helps despite its length. I have a habit of being thorough. And I seem to recall being asked.

If I'm going to be in full plate as a female character and I don't have a choice to not look like a fetishized bikini knight, I will be displeased. Fantasy is fine, but I'd rather look like I deserve my armor class.

To be honest, I'm hard line enough to say that having nice, round breast impressions in a breast plate is retarded from any practical standpoint, as has been mentioned. (Yes, it's great for gender identification.) Armor is supposed to deflect away from your organs, not towards your sternum. Breasts will fit better without giant steel cups, I promise. And, I don't know if anyone here can confirm this, but I've heard it's uncomfortable as hell because breasts are soft and pliable and metal is hard and unyielding and bruising.

It's too much to hope for, but if it were to be one extreme or another -- super sexy skin form fitting laughable excuses for armor or armor so realistic you can't tell the difference between a male or female in heavier armors -- I'd favor realistic. Plenty of cheese out there already, folks.

Plus, you can dramatically take off your helmet and swish your hair.

It would also make sense if the alignment flags gave appropriate bonuses to the relevant social skills. Or at least give you a choice.

Enforcer - Sense Motive
Outlaw - Intimidate
Champion - Diplomacy
Assassin - Disguise
Traveler - Bluff

I'd also imagine SAD interactions would be modified by the relevant skills of the players or parties involved, and that parties add up their skills or use the highest player's score with "aid another" bonuses from others who have the same skill at a high enough rank.

Intimidate: look tougher than you are in comparison to target. "Tougher" being level, skill, equipment, overall threat rating, whatever.

Bluff: look weaker in comparison to target.

Diplomacy: look friendlier to target. Closer to alignment, higher rep, something like that. Maybe scales with your actual reputation or gives you a boost to the rate you gain reputation/alignment at.

Disguise: appear as different race, class, alignment (?), or as an NPC.

Sense Motive: gain better, more accurate, and/or more specific information on target. Counter to intimidate, disguise, bluff, and diplomacy.

The idea is that players have the perception versus stealth dichotomy, and this is it's social equivalent. They shouldn't overlap much.

I'm unsure about reputation modifications using these since that might function more of a meta indicator of a player's, as opposed to character's, overall trustworthiness and reliability. But, on the other hand, that would make Sense Motive more valuable in the skill economy for both PvP and PvE. And reputation modifications would make the "aggressor" skills valuable. A character who has worked on their diplomacy skill will look like they have a higher reputation and thus gain access to places, people, or things they otherwise wouldn't (not too much of a stretch from how diplomacy is used in the tabletop).

As mentioned before, Intimidate would be a deterrent to keep people around your level from preying on you, where Bluff would be good for baiting people around your level or making you look too weak to be worthwhile for higher level people.

Disguise should be self-explanatory. Obviously, disguises farther from what you are would be harder to pull off, and I imagine looking like an NPC would be, like, one of the capstones or something.

Considering the high emphasis on player to player interaction, I think it would be a mistake to leave the social skills to PvE content.

So, um, I might be missing something here, and this is way zooming in, but I noticed that the Golden Legionnaire Role takes two classes, Cavalier (Emissary archetype) and Ranger. Preferred Prestige Class is Golden Legionnaire. Simple enough.

One problem: taking Golden Legionnaire requires heavy armor proficiency and the Emissary archetype takes that away from Cavaliers and Rangers don't get it with either suggested archetype. Doesn't suggest heavy armor proficiency as a preferred feat, sooooo... What's the point of using this role?

Have the Golden Legionnaire's prerequisites changed before/after this supplement or the Paths of Prestige book was finalized? Or is there some Pathfinder-world specifics that I'm missing? The words "woodland commando" and "heavy armor proficiency required" seem a little incongruous.

What are roles?

God forbid I can also take the Spiked Destroyer feat:

You can attack with your armor spikes while using bull rush or overrun.

Prerequisites: Worshiper of Gorum, proficient in spiked armor.

Benefit: When you succeed at a bull rush or overrun combat maneuver, you may automatically make an attack roll with your armor spikes against the target of the maneuver as a swift action. This attack is made using your highest attack bonus.

and get another attack as a swift action. Gorum and Dol Arrah are pretty close deity-wise, right?

Building (neurotically, several times over while I wait for the campaign to start) a heavy-armored shield-bashing Fighter and wasn't sure about some nuances -- especially when they involve 3rd Party Feats.

If I take Shield Slam:

In the right position, your shield can be used to send opponents flying.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.

and Exalted Bull Rush:

You know how to slam into a foe in a way that is both damaging and effective at relocating him.

Prerequisite: Str 13, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, BAB +1.

Benefit: You can charge into a foe and use your body to damage him, while simultaneously pushing him backwards. When you make a Bull Rush, you also make a normal melee attack roll. (This is considered a charge.) If your attack roll succeeds, you deal melee damage. The damage is 1d3 if you are unarmored, 1d4 if in light armor, 1d6 in medium armor, and 1d8 in heavy armor. You add 150% of your Strength bonus to this damage.

Does that mean that every time I hit with a shield bash I enact a cascading effect where I substitute my attack roll for the CMB for my free bull rush (adding or not adding feat bonuses) and then make another attack roll with charge bonuses/penalties: effectively getting two attacks, a bull rush, and -2 AC out of my shield bash if I so choose?

I figured yes for these reasons: 1) a free bull rush is still a bull rush and 2) it's not an extra attack in the traditional sense; it's a damaging bull rush.

But I'd still like to know if I'm missing something here or if Super Genius Games/Other 3rd Party feats should be discouraged for this very munchkatwinky reason. And, more importantly, if this is really effective or a good way to end up playing "Let's watch the Sword-and-Shuffleboard move enemies out of reach like a moron and watch them charge the caster."