Lyra Amary's page

The biggest virtue of PF2, for me, is that it provides an accurate and reliable challenge rating for encounters, which allows it to provide a consistent and enjoyable experience for players and GMs. So I might be an outlier here, but I definitely don't want mythic rules to introduce "game-breaking" anything. (I went through the pain of trying to run a 1st edition mythic game, and it's an experience I never want to repeat.)

This was one thing I struggled with while trying to make mythic encounters in 2e. Mythic characters and monsters are supposed to be stronger than non-mythic ones, but the rules don't tell you exactly how much stronger they make you, so you're just sort of expected to trial and error until you get it right, which is a disappointment after how reliably accurate the system's encounter balance has been up until this point.

Frankly, I feel like it would've been easier just to make mythic give you levels. That way we can properly raise enemy levels to match their power. But right now we're in this weird halfway point where mythic supposedly doesn't give you more power than a level, but still increases PC power to the point where encounter balancing stops being fully reliable.

Add alchemists to the list of classes that mythic shafts, since no mythic strike abilities allow you to use quick bomber.

Frankly, pretty much every class that deviates from the standard martial/caster paradigm doesn't have a good time with mythic. Runesmith will also have this problem when it comes out.

The Foundry devs are ultimately making decisions on how this works just like the rest of us are and aren't infallable in that regard, though they generally do a good job and the trust they get is well earned, just like all the folks making tools. They also need whatever they do to work in code without being a nightmare of exceptions. So, "all resistances work this way and resist all isn't a special exception" makes a lot of sense in that context.

I tend to think that makes sense in general because it doesn't make sense to me that resist all can resist slashing and fire damage from a flaming sword, but "resist slashing and resist fire" can't despite covering the exact same damage types in this context (the ones that are happening).

Having weakness work the same way similarly allows the one implementation to cover every scenario, rather than having it work differently than resistance and having weakness all work differently than resist all. That's going to be dramatically more complicated to code, and for players to understand what is going on.

Indeed. In all the groups I've been in, the resistance to all clause has always tripped us up because it's written as if it's an exception, and in either reading of resistance/weakness rules it seems to contradict what the rest of the rules are telling us.

If an instance of damage is per strike or effect, then as you said, resistance to all and individual resistances function differently even if they are being struck by the same several damage types.

And if an instance of damage is per type per attack/effect, then the resistance to all clause is redundant and stands strangely with the rest of the rules because it seems to be written as a special case.

Ultimately, either ruling works for me. Though the groups I've been in have usually seen any given attack/effect as an instance of damage, rather than all the individual damage types inside it. It makes playing outside of automated systems so much easier especially when martials start getting their rainbow elemental weapons at high level.

That does bring us back to the Prophesized Monarch. If weakness to all damage truly does affect all damage types then martials can easily see upwards of 80 extra damage per attack, which seems like an extreme amount. Maybe that's what the destiny needs since I'd pegged it as really weak beforehand, but that number seems excessive, especially when compared to every other option in the game, mythics abilities included. I don't think having a single ability with an effect this outsized is a particularly healthy option when nothing else compares to the damage boost it provides.

Agreed. I really miss the FAQ that PF1 had at times like this, because this is a perfect case where a couple of examples would clarify what the intention is far more effectively than more rules text could (especially since it seems clear no errata is coming on this).

Like, take a scenario where a weapon doing 14 slashing, 6 fire, and 1 acid damage hits a creature that has weakness 10 slashing, 5 fire, how much damage does it take? If Paizo answered that question officially (and a similar resistance one) as an example, then its crystal clear how they intend the rule to work and we're on the same page.

Alas, that just isn't the kind of communication the community has with them anymore.

It's a shame. I can think of multiple rules that could use a round of clarification, but I doubt any of them are happening anytime soon.

Peacelock wrote:

I know that it’s a more than a bit unclear in the books what exactly an instance of damage is, but my understanding is that weakness to all does in fact work like that and that’s how it’s automated on the PF2E Foundry system with behind the scenes guidance from the Paizo devs.

In it, an instance of damage is effectively defined as each damage type within a single source of damage (whether that be attack/spell/hazard/whatever). So if a monster with weaknesses to both fire and slashing gets attacked by a flaming longsword, both weaknesses are triggered. However, as the book describes, a monster weak to slashing and cold iron only takes extra damage once since both those weaknesses would key off the slashing damage in a cold iron longsword.

It’s the same reason champion reaction resistance applies to each damage type in an attack or spell rather than to the collective damage like hardness would. It sounds like you may not be running Resist all/weakness all RAW. (though like I said with how unclear the books are about what constitutes an instance of damage that’s totally understandable)

Re: Monarch, while DoE is certainly the highlight, the other decrees, Bloom of Health, Kneel before the rightful heir, etc are all very solid and many don’t cost mythic points.

Agreed, this is how this works RAW, and its also how Resist All works. That applies to Champions, but also Incoporeal Resistence: if you do multiple damage types, all of them get hit by it, and it's pretty rough if you can't get through it.

I'm not sure I've ever seen an instance of "Weakness All" outside of this ability, though. Weaknesses are almost always specific so you just don't see something like this happening in practice in a normal game. So I'm not sure "it takes Weakness 20 three times because it's a Slashing/Fire/Sonic Ranseur" is the outcome they had in mind.

It's something where a Paizo clarification/example on what's intended would help a ton.

It's strange because according to RAW the resistance rules also state that multiple resistances don't apply to the same instance of damage except in the case of resistance to all damage but weakness doesn't have that specific allowance.

As far as my experience goes, Foundry doesn't follow that first rule and applies multiple resistances even if a creature doesn't have resistance to all so I'm uncertain if they can be counted as a perfect rules source here.

I suppose if an attack that deals multiple types of damage are all counted as separate instances of that damage, then weakness to all damage would work like that, but then it seems weird that they would specifically need to give an example to allow resistance to all damage to function as it does.

I'm surprised Prophesized Monarch performed as well as it did. It seemed very weak to me when I read through it. Did you apply the weakness from Decree of Execution to every damage type the party did on an attack? If so, I can see how your party melted Treerazer. Thats an insane amount of damage, though weakness isn't supposed to work like that.

Were there any other abilities from it that were noteworthy?

It'll depend on how they implement it. If its like pf1e where certain amounts of mythic tiers grant equivalent power to a level, it should be fine. Its basically just standardization of the different ways they used to make enemies past CR 25, and would be a good way to represent how power is attained past that level.

It'd certainly be better than pf1e where you had creatures of CR 26+ with no mythic powers, level 25 and below creatures that had mythic powers that made them equivalent to a CR 26-30 creature, and CR 26+ creatures with mythic powers that apparently had no effect on CR.

Of course if they make it so the only difference between a level 25 mythic and non-mythic enemy is a few resource based ablilities and a passive that says "non-mythic things cant kill me ever lul," then yes, it'd be a disappointment.

Volley 60 is borderline unusable. For most ancestries it requires 3 (!!) move actions simply to move out of penalty range.

They should've gone in a different direction for changes since we already had a d10 single shot simple weapon in the Crossbolter, which only has 20 feet less range in exchange for not having the ruinous Volley 60.

They may as well have deleted the Seeker Rifle with this change.

As an amendment of my previous statement, it seems area fire/auto-fire does compare favorably to cantrip damage when taking into account weapon specialization and upgrades that increase damage like flaming or frost modules.

Still, being comparable to cantrip damage on a character with 0 spellcasting capability is not that impressive. I still wouldn't use area/automatic weapons on any class without the Soldier's Primary Target feature.

You have to look at things in context.

Area fire does significantly less damage than even cantrips and can only target Reflex saves. Frankly I would never even consider using any area fire/automatic weapons if I wasn't playing a Soldier. It needs the bonus to DCs to be competitive, and likely still isn't unless you also have the Soldier's Primary Target ability.

I remember the musings the devs had during the Field Tests where they concerned about giving the Soldier legendary armor, and primary target didn't give a free attack on top of area fire, and to me that version of the Soldier was one of the weakest classes I'd ever seen.

I'm glad the Starfinder devs are not afraid of giving their classes legendary proficiencies in things.

I'm with ya, it should be called "Challenge" or something like that.

It'd be a nice callback to PF1e Cavalier, though that might also be what prevents the devs from using that name.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Guardian getting delayed weapon proficiencies in principle. It's just right now they sacrifice their offense to not even be tankier than the Champion.

Even during the four total levels that a Guardian's armor proficiency is higher than a Champion's I still doubt they're tankier due to the lack of innate self-healing in their kit.

I don't think Taunt necessarily needs to make an ally tankier than the Guardian's in order to be worthwhile. It's not like AC is the only lever you can pull here. Like if Furious Vengeance was implemented well it could force a taunted enemy into two unfavorable situations:

1. Attack the Guardian, the guy with the highest AC.
2. Attack their ally at a penalty and grant the Guardian a damage buff.

Of course, the Guardian's unnecessarily poor offense makes the punishment for ignoring them far too low, but I think the idea there is solid. You just need to tweak the numbers until it works.

I tend to find discussions that certain classes are "unnecessary" and should be a subclass of another to be a slippery slope because you can make that argument with a lot of other classes, depending on how arbitrary the criteria is.

At the very extreme end you could theoretically argue the whole class list down to the classic four, with every other class being represented as subclasses, archetypes, or floating lists of feats. In which case why not go even further and reduce the class list down to just martial and caster, with everything else being a subcategory of those? And at that point, why not just go classless altogether and let people choose what they want for ultimate freedom?

Obviously that's not what I want, but that's what people saying certain classes shouldn't exist sound like to me. Like Guardian right now is clearly undertuned and needs improvement in both numbers and usability, but I think it's a worthy addition to the roster, if nothing else than to have a tank without the thematic baggage champions and monks have. And also to have another defender past the two that were released at the very start of PF2e.

We already have a lot of damage dealer martials, many of which have overlap with each other. So why not another tank?

If taunting an enemy for a simple stat debuff makes you fume, then so should demoralizing an enemy or affecting them with bon mot, and those are actions anyone can make.

It's not like taunt is a mind control. An enemy can straight up ignore it and target someone else, just with a minor penalty because the big guy in armor yelling expletives at them is distracting af.

It also suffers from the swashbuckler problem of being difficult to land on boss enemies, arguably the time when you need it most.

I ran my players through a good portion of book 4.

They tore it apart. The PCs were not mythic. Only when I buffed and altered encounters did they become challenging.

Encounters in Wrath are low CR for the amount of power you're expected to have if you're mythic. With the exception of three specific encounters in book 6 (Korramzadeh, Areelu, and Deskari), I doubt you'll have much trouble at all getting through the campaign.

If your players are good at optimizing, which they seem to be, they might even find those three encounters mentioned to be a fun challenge.

I agree completely with this assessment, especially on Rangers, who allow a new player to explore the game from multiple angles.

However, I would steer new players away from TWF, especially for the Ranger. Not only is it a suboptimal way to fight, but it also forces a certain feat path and makes players use different bonuses for different types of attacks, which can be overwhelming for a new player in an already numbers-heavy game.

I remember the first time we introduced one of my friends into the game, and she excitedly rolled up a Ranger, only to be discouraged because she kept forgetting what bonuses she needed to add and when. She had trouble with when she could make two attacks, when she could make one, when she needed to apply the TWF penalties, which weapon she declared as her main hand and her off-hand. I remember seeing her change from enthusiasm to discouragement and lack of engagement because she felt her turns were overly complicated when they had no reason to be.

Later on in the campaign she lost her two weapons and picked up a greatsword, and decided never to TWF again.

After we stopped playing that campaign she still refuses to go back to playing Rangers because of the needless penalties and complications of TWF.

Make them all level 20 and give them incredible wealth by level. Then laugh as they all get slaughtered anyways.

Mythic tiers or artifacts are the only things that can really compete with Cthulu. Even then, only a lot of mythic tiers or really strong artifacts will do it.

A level of 20th level characters, non-mythic can kill Cthulhu, easily. Though it obviously depends on optimization levels of the party.

Cthulhu really is not that hard.

Add in a single mythic tier, and well, Cthulhu can die in the first round. Mythic is absurd.

I like the idea of hemming in wizards to fit a specific idiom (frost mage, fire mage, summoner, necromancer, etc.), but finding a way to do it without simply making certain wizard builds T1 and others T2 or T3 would be difficult.

Many classes already split what the wizard can accomplish into specific themes, kind of like the kineticist being basically any elemental mage, and the summoner.

The problem is that the wizard is all of these at once. They can have several specialties and switch them every day, while also occupying the top end of power. Spontaneous spellcasters are better, since they're locked down in what spells they can take and don't increase in power for every rulebook released, but even they are getting increasing amounts of ways to add new spells. They are better in terms of appropriate power compared to prepared spellcasters, though still too strong.

But basically yes I agree with this statement. Each of the schools of magic can easily occupy an entire class. If nothing else, prepared spellcasters should have to choose their specialization and have to focus on them, to avoid them being not only capable of everything, but best at everything.

That's also because 3/4 BAB 6th level spell classes are more easily able to be made unique, with class abilities that allow them to do things no other class can, without making them overly strong.

9th level spellcasters lack class abilities because so much of their power is located in their spell lists, so adding more abilities will give them more power than they should. Considering the fact that even without many class abilities, they still dominate the high end of the power spectrum indicates that their spell list alone gives them so much power that adding more in class abilities is too much.

Full BAB martials without spells tend to be unable to do much more than full attack without spells, and abilities that give them more options just tend to be spell-like in nature, which means that they might as well get spells in order to gain variety.

Not to mention that since the CRB, classes focus on more specific and narrow niches in gameplay and theme, which favors 3/4 BAB 6th spell levels.

A lot of people use RAW because it's the easiest method of playing. Each house-rule added also adds to the complexity of running and playing the game. To some, they'd rather use their limited time playing the game and not 'fixing' it with home rules. You get a stack of your own rules going and you can spend a gaming day explaining them all to a new player. RAW isn't just for PFS, but the common ground that allows everyone to play.

I find myself agreeing with this.

In my home games we tend to follow RAW, especially in Pathfinder since not even my players, who have played for years, can remember every single rule. A lot of the times we even brainfart on some of the most basic rules. Adding on a home rule adjustment to a class, ability or item would be another layer of, "What does this do? Oh yeah, here's what it does. Oh yeah, we adjusted it to this. Let me find that piece of paper/note/something else where I recorded what we changed it to."

If a rule is problematic or unclear, we just disallow it before continuing. With erratas, I'm glad I can allow some of the options that were unclear before.

Personally, the deformity's origin looks perfect for the Sorcerer, who gains strange abilities from some sort of heritage or influence on their ancestry. Even bloodrager could work, if you see the demonic influence granting her abilities and strength that she can summon.

If you don't see this character being a spellcaster, you could always take the Eldritch Heritage line, or variant multiclass into Sorcerer with the right bloodline (Abyssal seems to fit).

Her survival skills and living in the wild seems to suggest that Ranger or Slayer could be an appropriate class.

I think just sticking with elf as a race would be fine, take a martial-inclined class for weapon skills and Eldritch Heritage or VMC Sorcerer for the demonic influence.

I enjoy Pathfinder a lot, though at times I have issues with certain parts of the system that I find needlessly complex. I GM most of the time, and some of my players have told me that at times doing character building work feels more like homework than fun, and a lot of the time, I'd agree.

Regardless, I enjoy the variety of options the system offers, and I'm experienced enough with the game to be able to quickly sift through the options that are mechanically bad or needlessly complicated.

I am also probably in the minority in the fact that I like most of the recent errata.

Alright, you announced your return in TL's thread, so I think this deserves a bump.

I also want to mention I think the unchained barbarian finally makes a two weapon barbarian or sword and board a reasonable idea, given that it's a flat attack and damage bonus per hit, rather than a strength bonus, and the inherent benefit to two-handing is lessened compared to traditional rage.

I doubt it. TWF sucks up feats and requires a big investment in dex, which takes away points that can be otherwise allocated into str. The Unchained Barbarian, while slightly less focused on THF, still doesn't have enough to make TWF worth it.

Sword and boards seems like a better idea. You do get somewhat more ability to shrug off hits with the temporary hp.

I would avoid playing Hunters at all if animal companions are banned. Synergizing with it is basically the entire point of the class, after all.

The Hunter is pretty powerful as a fighter, but at first glance it seems really weak because it's not obvious. But when you think of the possibilities like Pack Flanking+Outflank+Precise Strike+Broken Winged Gambit+Paired Opportunists while using Snake Focus you can see that the Hunter's fighting power can be pretty impressive.

The ACG created a class stronger than the Wizard? That's news to me.

It didn't even invalidate the Rogue. The Core Rulebook did that already.

I tend to describe it as a type of barrier that appears around the character that disappears once all the temporary hp is gone.

I'd disagree with many of the Ninja class and go Stygian Slayer. You'll get the ability to become invisible but with an arguably more accurate flavor.

It's probably the best archetype that trades out the animal companion. You have some nice options in the blessings. If you really wanted to you could take one of the alignment blessings and summon creatures as a replacement for your animal companion anyway.

Mythic has shown up already occasionally on monsters encountered in current APs after Wrath.

But unless they make a few erratas fixing up Mythic, I doubt they will release full APs where players have permanent access to Mythic tiers. It's simply too easy to break the game.

Anzyr wrote:

Oh she was a Ninja? Ninja's are fine. Not super mega-awesome, but fine. Much better then Rogues anyway.

Eh... I'd say they are a very underpowered class with a couple nice tricks added to the mix. They are... Passable.

Pretty much this. They still inherit the over reliance on Sneak Attack for combat power that the Rogue does. Before level 10 their options for Sneak Attacking that the Rogue doesn't have really is just burn 1 ki point for 1 Sneak Attack. At high levels they run into the trouble of every creature and their mothers having some way past invisibility.

And my experience with a rogue was one that was so weak that he could never contribute to anything useful mechanics-wise.

The player of said rogue had his character commit suicide ingame. Turns out, that character suicide is what we remember now when thinking of that specific character.

Tangent101 wrote:

I think the fear was that a CR 30 creature was too powerful for four level 20 adventurers to face. So either they could use nerfed Demon Lords, add plot coupons (aka artifacts) to fight the Demon Lords, or add Mythic to enhance the characters.

So for those of you with experience with this AP and its combats, would a CR 30 creature be too powerful for four level 20 PCs with appropriate WBL? I have no experience with this AP (but have been following this thread) and I have no interest in Mythic, but I wonder if removing mythic powers makes the endgame of this AP impossible? I had plans to throw level 20 PCs (and I have 6 PCs with 25-point builds) against Orcus at the endgame of my homebrew campaign is why I am asking. Thoughts?

I haven't actually built classes for it but after looking at the final encounter of this AP I'm certain its possible to build a level 20, non-mythic 4-man party with appropriate WPL that could defeat it. You'd need to avoid the weaker classes since they'd be deadweight and you'd also need some good teamwork but it's definitely doable.

Add in two more characters and make them all 25-point buy would make it much easier. If you allow it, allowing them to cast Ascension for a tier of mythic also would make the fights easier if they're struggling.

You'd also get the Studied Target bonus to Assassinate DCs, so it should not be that bad.

Having an out of character chat with your players could be helpful. If you suspect that they are being influenced by faster paced games, let them know that the game they are playing is different, and that their characters represent living, breathing people in the adventure world. Mention to them that their characters would likely consider their inexperience with the cold and should consider looking for help, at least until they adapt to such conditions.

Just be sure not to come off as too confrontational. If they don't heed your advice then, let them learn by experience.

The only classes I'd consider doing TWF with is the Ranger and Slayer, who can bypass the dex requirements for the TWF feats and get bonus feats.

You can pull off some pretty good damage with classes that add extra damage per hit, like a smiting Paladin or something with Sneak Attack, but good luck pulling off a good build without bonus feats and needing to split your ability scores to reach the high dex requirements for some of the later TWF feats.

I would avoid Bloodragers and Barbarians for TWFing. Their rage synergizes better with two handed weapons, and they don't have bonus feats to help dampen the feat heavy TWF chain.

As much as I would love doing that, I'm also hesitant on just trying outright to avoid character deaths. My players always know it when I'm pulling my punches, even when I'm not rolling in the open, and they've said that, while they hate dying, they also hate it when I'm just blatantly trying to avoid killing them. It takes away from the drama and tension in the game when they know that I just won't kill them.

I may try Hero Points one day, but some don't like it, and most of them will likely forget about it anyways, so I doubt that would actually change anything in my group.

I had a pretty funny moment in Reign of Winter at the end of book one.

After clearing out pretty much the entire tower, my players readied themselves for the final confrontation with Radosek, who they had gathered a fair bit of dislike on the journey to him. When they got to the top floor of the Pale Tower, they were assailed with multitudes of ice elementals and Radosek blasting spells with his Icicle Wand. After fighting through it, eventually Radosek sealed himself with walls of ice behind a corner of the room and continued to throw Ice Spears from behind it. Without an easy way to get through, the gunslinger of the group (and the sole remaining member so far with the Black Rider's mark), decided to look around to see if he could find anything to help in the fight.

He wandered to Nazhena's treasure room and was threatened, but he went, "Eh, I'll deal with her when she comes to fulfill that threat," and then just walked into the room. Nevertheless he was shortly -6 to his Con, which dropped his hp to exactly negative his Con score, killing him. Oops.

We decided to raise him as a ghost bound to the Black Rider's quest and to give everyone else a story reason to continue, since he had not shared his quest with any of the other characters. Meanwhile, Radosek had escaped out a window to play his last trump card. My party, joined by the ghost of our gunslinger, went to the courtyard to confront Radosek and his animated dragon. After a harrowing fight with the entire party low on resources, Radosek emerged victorious, having slain my entire party.

Then, triumphant, Radosek limped away from the courtyard of the Pale Tower at 3 hp, with all of his items used up and his useful spells cast, returned to the top floor, and then was promptly punched out by Nadya, who the party had left up there.

Most of my players commented that, at that moment, Nadya basically got the entire dungeon's worth of loot plus all of the possessions of the AP's BBEG as well as all of the belongings of all my player's characters. Talk about a good turnout for her.

My party has been struggling through Reign of Winter for the most part as well. It's the campaign that has caused the biggest amount of character deaths that I've run so far. Quite a few people are on their third characters already, and we've only finished the first book.

The environment caused them a lot of problems at the beginning. They got the hint before trekking out of Heldren to get cold-weather gear, but even then the multitudes of saving throws eventually caused them to take a fair chunk of damage. I didn't get any character deaths from this, but it certainly softened them up enough to make fights tougher.

I also had trouble keeping the players focused on the quest itself. After finding themselves in deep winter most of them immediately thought something along the lines of, "Oh crap we're in way over our heads. We should get out ASAP." I had to have the winter spread to cover Heldren before they decided they should go back into the forest.

I also had the trouble of characters who had the Black Rider's mark dying. All of them died, and after chatting with the group we decided to have the last remaining member with the mark to be risen as a ghost to continue the quest. But I know the amount of character deaths have discouraged some of them, especially one who joined when they were about to storm of the Pale Tower. He had a detailed backstory tying into The Shackled Hut, but then died in the final battle against Radosek. With his next character he just kind of gave up making any sort of backstory and is just going along with it just for the sake of it.

How many skills do you need to be good in to have the OoC utility you're asking for? Having combat expertise means you're getting at least 3 per level. Toss in your favored class bonus as a skill for 4 per level and you're at as many as a barb gets. Perception, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Linguistics. Its not like you need the other skills to be useful in combat. Grab additional traits and make em all class skills if you can spare a trait to not grab a +1 will save and the feat. Find the appropriate item to get a +5 modifier and suddenly you have 4 skills all with out of combat purpose with a +18-20 Modifier. DC 30 Diplomacy, Perception, Sense Motive, Linguistic checks are of some value to a party I'm sure. All at the cost of a feat to gain 4 traits instead of 2 and 3 buy points to get 13 INT. Play a human and grab a bunch of skill focuses. and suddenly you're hitting 36 on a couple of your skills.

Add in allies aiding your check from a five man party and you're pushing 38-40 or 44-46 with skills you have skill focus in and depending on other people's builds. Maybe other players like the Halfling Aid another bonus and you get even more. Who know's as a real game scenario hasn't even crept into the vacuum of the boards yet.

Throw in 5 buy points, play a human and rock the 6 skill points per level you get.

STR 15+2
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 7

Its really not that hard to have a decent number of skills and a well rounded PC if you're willing to have less than an 18 in a starting stat. If you have a 25 point buy go nuts and grab the 18, but less than that and you're hindering yourself in other aspects.

The main concern is that if you put that same amount of effort into another class, you always get better results. And whatever class you use to compare to this Fighter can still fight just as well.

I'm sure anyone can make any class work at least viably if they tried hard enough. But if the result is still worse in comparison to a similar class, what is the point?

This is not a thread to point out the overall flaws of the Fighter. We already know what they are. It is about suggestions on how to improve the out-of-combat (or argue that no such changes are needed).

I don't understand. This contradicts your statement:

So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.

I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.

First you say that this is for suggestions of out-of-combat improvement. But before you questioned why they needed to be in the first place.

What is your point?

The Fighter doesn't FEEL like a master of arms, because of it's rules.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that Paizo intends for it to be so.

If the Fighter is supposed to be a master of arms, but doesn't feel like it, then by default there is a serious problem with the class itself.

So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.

I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.

I have a feeling this wasn't directed to me, but I'll respond in case it was.

I personally am neutral on the Fighter's capability outside of combat. You'll note that I did not make any suggestions for how to improve the Fighter, both in and out of combat. I merely commented on what I saw was a flaw of the Fighter's thematic concept.

If you were to ask me what to do with the Fighter, I'd say a complete rework of the class might be necessary. But at the same time, I also think that one could even do away with the Fighter altogether, but I can imagine that suggestion would result in some heated discussions.

Trogdar wrote:

The weird thing is that, in a class based game, the fighter is not really a class. What I mean is that no part of the fighter informs the player of their standing in universe. What is the fighter? An adventurer could never be something so limited as that, "I fight".

If you need this to be explained, then I think there's no hope here.

A Fighter is a master of arms, not necessarily an adventurer. A Paladin, or Barbarian or Ranger, while skilled in the use of many arms and knowledgeable of various forms of combat, is not a dedicated master.

Weaponcraft is the Fighter's vocation. That is your standing in the universe: You study the ways of combat and martial prowess. You are a master of warfare and battlefield tactics.

Other martial classes study these just enough to do their job (hell, Barbarians don't study - they just pick up steel and let rage do the talking), but for a Fighter, this IS their job. Combat is what they live, excrete and breathe.

The thing is, it doesn't feel like the Fighter is a master of arms. For one to be a master of arms, I'd expect them to be able to overcome limitations and perform feats with their chosen weapon that no one else can do. The Fighter does not get this, since all they do is simply increase damage with one weapon. This is not special, since any class that fights has a way to increase their damage.

For example, I could say the Zen Archer is what I expect a master of bows to be. They can, using the bow, perform actions like shoot around corners or negating an enemy's invisibility through their training with their weapon. I'm sure someone can come up with even better examples of a character that has mastered a weapon, since the Zen Archer still isn't even that great of an example.

Melkiador wrote:

I always feel that monk suffers because it tries to do without equipment in a game that is balanced around having equipment. And it's a martial class in a game that doesn't support late game martial classes.

It gets all of the whammys. But if you are only playing til level 12, I don't think it's that bad.

Even then (at low levels) I had a lot of problems every time I rolled monk. It boiled down to, "you only have the ability to be a melee-martial, but you are not as good at it as any 'real' melee-martial class."

Random thought, with little concern of power-balance, if a monk was Full BAB, would that make it good, too good, or still not good enough?

It probably wouldn't change anything unfortunately. The Monk is full BAB in many situations that matter. Pretty much if they have troubles without full BAB, they'd still have troubles with full BAB.

But honestly they should, by all means, have full BAB. There isn't much reason why they shouldn't be. They're not casters, and their main role is to fight. It'd be nice to just have the consistency.

Combination of any of the alignment Blessings and Quicken Blessing allows it. It seems that a lot of people overlook this fact and fixate on the fact that Warpriests lost their full BAB.

Or at least the one that stands the best chance of surviving some of the do or die spells that get tossed.

I believe the class you are looking for is the Paladin or Barbarian.

Lyra Amary wrote:

Saigo Takamori wrote:

Feat. It's really easy for a fighter to get some ''save boosting feat'' early.

And what, exactly, is preventing a Swashbuckler from doing the same? What pressing options is the Swashbuckler forced to take that prevents them from taking such feats?

He can do that, sure. But let's face it: a human Swatchbutler will have 4 feat at level 4, a human fighter will have 6. Chances are, the fighter will get spare feat for Iron will, toughness (...) sooner than the Swatchbutler. It's not much, I know, but it's an advantage. And the extra feat are a ''unique class advantage''.

In practice the extra feats that the Fighter has are not as numerous as expected. They are forced to go down the Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization line. Without these feats, the Fighter loses out to rival martials in terms damage. Since damage is all the Fighter excels at, it should be clear why this is to be avoided.

That's why I said ''chances''. Sure, if he want to do whirlwind attack, he will not get those feat. But a classic two handed weapon fighter will probably get 3 ''support feat'' at level 6 (and I'm pretty sure an fighter archer will do better than the swatch in DPR...)

I haven't run numbers to compare. But the Swashbuckler still can add their Precise Strike damage to ranged attacks, so their ranged DPR should be no slouch if they pack a few javelins or something.

You may need more than that. You may need precise shot to ignore shooting into melee IF there is another melee guy in your party that would be in the way, but other than that all that matters are attack bonuses.

Neither a melee focused archer or barbarian is likely to have much dex so it should be about even. The fighter might have an edge if he took weapon training in archery, but it is not a huge gap.

Coincidentally most non-archer fighters don't take archery feats either in my experience so it is likely a wash in real play.

Ah, i neglected Precise Shot because I assumed that if one guy could hit an enemy in melee, so could you.

In terms of attack bonuses, the Barbarian can get some really nice ones using Reckless Abandon. The downside of it that ability is negligible since you're attacking from range. I also figured that the Barbarian can afford one or two archery feats if they were so inclined; unlike the Fighter, the Barbarian has few feats that must be taken, so they're pretty free in terms of what feats they wish to take, despite their small feat pool.

My main concern about Fighters is that a fair portion of their damage comes from feats that specifically affect a single weapon. Switching out of that weapon to a secondary weapon will cause a hit in power more than what other classes would be affected by.

Though to be honest, if you want to switch hit, Rangers are better than either class anyways.

Feat. It's really easy for a fighter to get some ''save boosting feat'' early.

And what, exactly, is preventing a Swashbuckler from doing the same? What pressing options is the Swashbuckler forced to take that prevents them from taking such feats?

Also, note that I said class-unique options. There are no feats, to my knowledge, that are Fighter only that boost saves.

Sure, he may have a bow, and probably should. But the chances are that he will not have any feat in that, while the fighter can easily get the Point blank/Precise/rapid combo, and probably more. Chances are, the fighter will do far better than the barbarian with a bow, and that was my point.

This is actually incorrect. It is quite easy to have a Barbarian that is good at archery. In fact, it is probably easier than a Fighter. All you need is Reckless Abandon, an Adaptive bow and Deadly Aim.

I never said that. I said it is the least important of the 3. That is because with a d10 character you will likely have a decent amount of hit point and failing a reflex save will not normally end your character or take it out of the fight via other methods. Now if you fail 2 or 3 reflex saves you might be in trouble.

Dazing spell may or may not be picked up so it is situational, and even that requires a will save in order to daze you. I can just as easily counter with the the party could have energy resistance, but the conversation is easier without assuming who might have what.

Fair enough. Although to clear it up, Dazing Spell relies on the original save of the spell. Failing that causes you to be dazed in addition to spell's original effects. It's only if the spell does not already have a save that it defaults to forcing Will saves.

Charmed life depends on the swashbuckler pushing another stat, and it is limited in uses per day. You can get a fighter to a decent will save, even if you don't use a dwarf. Well actually you can do it with a swashbuckler also, but it requires more effort, and someone with less optimization skills won't do it. The fighter being easier to shore up might have the advantage here, depending on how long the adventuring day is for your group.

How does the Fighter get a decent Will save in ways that the Swashbuckler doesn't? I may be missing something, but outside of the very limited Bravery, Fighters do not have class-unique ways to boost their saves.