Mondoglimmer's page

If you don't have the Weapon Specialization from the barbarian class it does not have the "You gain your instinct's specialization ability" text in it.

That's true, and really the only reason I've had to ask the question. Pathfinder 2 uses plenty of reminder text, which is very useful. A player casually developing their character as they go would certainly benefit from being reminded that they gain an additional benefit listed elsewhere.

But the Instinct abilities don't specify Barbarian Weapon Specialization, they only say Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization. Taken on its own, as I think things in the book are meant to be taken, you don't need the Barbarian version.

But it's entirely clearly laid out, so I was wondering if there was anything official about that anywhere.

Barbarian instincts gain bonuses when you have weapon specialization. Many classes have weapon specialization and can get Barbarian instincts through multiclass archetypes. Do Barbarian instincts specifically require Barbarian weapon specialization, or just weapon specialization in general?

Anyone whose armor proficiency caps at medium and isn't a Dex class? That's quite a lot of classes (Clerics, Oracle's, Inquisitors).

If you're shooting purely for higher armor, sure, but we're still only talking a couple of points for that speed drop. I'm not sure if it's normally worth the trade-off.

Just taking a gander at the equipment list, who really benefits from medium armor? That speed penalty is absolutely fatal. Anyone with 12 or less dexterity should definitely be in heavy armor, and anyone with 18 or more should definitely be in light. If you're at 14 or 16 you could eke out a couple more points of AC from medium armor, but at the loss of 1/3 of your speed, would that ever be considered worth it? Is it only used on low dex characters who lack heavy armor proficiency?

I have been using the books on the PRD and nothing else for like three years. In that time we got essentially one new book. I might argue that it was rather silly and superfluous, but I'm certainly not worried about "bloat". Even back in 3.5 the books available to any given campaign were usually limited. Sometimes to Core, sometimes to a selection including the "Complete" series. With all the ton of books released, there was not a time that my gaming groups got worried about bloat.

Bomb Thrower specifies that the Master Chymist's bomb damage increases with Master Chymist levels. The Vivisectionist gets sneak attack damage instead of bomb damage. Does Bomb Thrower apply to the supposedly equivalent damage of sneak attack, or does it only apply to bombs and I just can't progress as a Chymist?

So one member of the party decided they wanted to roll for stats and the other two didn't bother to oppose that decision (the fourth was missing at the time) so I said "Hey, sure, roll for your stats." Simple 4d6d1 method. From my end of the table things are pretty fine, but the players are less excited. In terms of point buy, three members landed around 20 points, while the fourth landed somewhere past 50. The lower members are having trouble picking up everything they wanted with their random stat arrays and are worried that the fourth's high everything is going to have them cowering behind him for the entire game.

Does anyone else use a rolling system and have to deal with imbalance like that or does everyone use point buy to avoid this problem in the first place? Should I switch to a point buy system even now that the rolls are out and on the field, rolling back the rolls? Should I just provide some extra points to the weaker members, or should I also rein in the powerhouse? Or is everything just fine as it is?

Sounds like I might just have to make up the scrying rules as I go, then. That's fine. I'm just trying to cover my bases.

I'm trying to figure out this spell in advance so my players don't call foul later if it comes up. (Which they might not anyway, they're pretty chill players.) Specifically, I'm trying to figure out what counts as "meeting" the subject, or having a picture. None is an obvious level of familiarity, but secondhand says you've heard of the subject and firsthand says you've met the subject. If you view them through a telescope, as an example, have you heard of them or met them? If you're looking at them through the telescope, do you have a picture or likeness of them?

Barring that, what does count as meeting them? Do you have to see them in person and look at them? Do you have to shake hands and greet each other? Do you have to explain to each other who you are? If the scrying target lies about who they are, does it still count as meeting them?

Classes:

Barbarians get Beast Totem for natural attacks an pounce.

Alchemists are great natural attackers with access to both monstrous physique/Giant form and Discoveries that grant attacks like Tentacle.

Rangers are a solid choice with the Natural attack combat style.

Wild Shape Druids

Races:

Half-Orcs have three ways to get a bite attack
Goblins have a bite with an alternate racial trait
Catfolk get claws
Tieflings can get a Bite or Claws
Aasimar can get Wings
Tengu can get Claw/Claw/Bite
Skinwalkers as Arcturus said

Those are all pretty cool options, but what are Skinwalkers? I can't find them anywhere.

So I was recently looking at playing a Summoner, but our party is fairly spellcaster heavy, so I'm looking at a few different options.

1. Just play a summoner. If I focus on eidolon use, it's like I'm a buffbot with a pet fighter. I'm barely a spellcaster to begin with.

2. Ditch my spells and charisma and dive into the fray alongside my eidolon.

3. Play a fighter.

For option 1 I was hoping to play a small race and just ride my eidolon around. For options 2 and 3, though, I was thinking I could be something with a lot of natural weapons. I could spend evolution points to grant me extra attacks when I reach that level, I know, but are there any officially published races that naturally have natural weapons? Are there feats I could take to give me claws or a tail slap or something?

One thing I might suggest is the Longhammer. No reason to have to choose between reach and a big hammer.

Ah, that'd work, yeah. Neat. Thanks.

Looking around at stuff, if I wanted to make Greater Magic Fang permanent, I would need to be a level 5 druid and level 9 wizard? At a minimum? I know in 3.5 there existed feats that let you take spells from other classes, do any such feats exist in Pathfinder, or do you have to be a level 14 multiclass character to cast a permanent Great Magic Fang?

So I have a separate question, but it's kind of related. If I have claws, and I'm a monk, can I use my "unarmed attack" (which according to the rules does not requires my fists in any way and can be made with my elbows, knees, and feet) and still attack with my claws (as secondary weapons because the unarmed attacks would be primary)?

Actually, reading things again, does dual wielding shut off said abilities at all? I noticed one ability where you can't use a shield, but that was it. Is everything else just open?

Ignoring complications in making the combination work well, does the combination work? Does holding a spell in your off-hand count as dual wielding and shut off the Duelist's abilities?

Addiionaly, I would like to point out that, if you really wanted to, you can always have a Phaser Pistol! Even if the GM does not allow guns. You simply just need to take a Wand of Magic Missile and jerry rig it onto a hand crossbow base! BAM! Phaser Pistol. And it the best part is that not even a storm trooper can miss with it!

A friend of mine actually had a "gunslinger" character once, but it was actually just an artificer with pistol shaped wands. He eventually took the feat to dual wield the things so he could be especially western.

You know, for all of you who are hating on the gunslinger for hitting Touch AC, you are fully aware that the ALCHEMIST has been hitting touch AC forever now right?... Oh, and the Alchemist can very easily do MORE damage per "shot", can cause a wall of debuffs, and can throw more bombs in a single round than most Gunslingers... Oh and on top of that they still have their STILL PERFECTLY USABLE mutagen for free, get all of their extracts (which they can easily make into infusions to effectively create an allotment of free potions for the party every day), AND thier bombs are free, AND their bombs also hurt everyone (that you want anyway thanks to precise bombs discovery) around the guy you hit.

Oh and alchemists are fun vs swarms xD (for those following a certain otehr thread xD)

Isn't that just with their limited use bombs, though, or am I missing something about alchemists?

Yeah. Unfortunately, instead of being especially resistant to magic via force of will, they're actually incredibly vulnerable.

It's trivial to show that it's not the general case that taking away an option can never create more fun. Imagine that there is a class called the Savant. Savants are basically like Rangers in every way, except that they have an ability called "Solution", which they can use at will. Solution instantly solves any problem, defeats any enemies, and flawlessly deals with any problem with no chance of failure and no drawbacks. It's pretty obvious that "Solution" is an ability that makes the class less fun, because its existence makes it the answer to every question. Character options that are too universally applicable and reliable can indeed make a class less fun.

Now, no class in Pathfinder has an ability that's anywhere close to Solution, but having more limited options can absolutely be more fun, as it forces creativity. When you can produce almost any effect, it's not nearly as great of a creative challenge as when you can produce a more limited range of effects. There's a floor on things too, of course; if you can't produce any interesting effects, that's generally less fun too, which is why the commoner class isn't all that fun. The middle ground is extremely wide, but I wouldn't call somebody crazy if they said that certain classes are above or below the idea range, at least by a little bit.

The 3.5 iteration of Wish was basically Solution, but with the caveat that the DM had to be the one to shut it down rather than actual rules. Fortunately, Pathfinder added some extra rules to Wish, because Solution isn't really a very fun ability.

"Fun" is kind of subjective in general. There's at least half a dozen goals people have when people play the game, and which one is more prevalent changes from person to person. Many changes to the core game are going to make things less fun for one person and more fun for another due simply to player preference. Some might say that wizards getting some spells removed would be less fun, but perhaps those spells weren't actually fun in the first place, or the presence of those spells made things less fun for the non-wizards. Taking things away from people doesn't always mean ruining their fun.

Kthulhu wrote:

If this means toning down spellcasters, then that IS an option.

It's not an option.

Making another class less fun will not make martials more fun. No amount of changing other classes will fix martials.

Actually, that's exactly the issue in some cases. Some casters (not all of them) actually just obsolete the other characters to the point that it is not fun to play. Take the rogue for example, as has already been mentioned in the thread. If the wizard in the party can cast invisibility, the rogue is left to wonder why it put points in stealth. If the entire party is decked out in swift action healing belts to keep them going, then the cleric's Cure spells stop being fun because he doesn't get to show off what he can do.

In another game I'm playing, all homebrew based on Fallout, there isn't any incentive to doubling up on most non-combat skills, of which there are already very few. If two people decide to specialize in lockpicking, one of them just isn't going to get to do any lockpicking. If an energy weapon drops and two players have skill in energy weapons, one player gets the shiny new toy and the other one does not. In every system, it is important that the party's abilities are unique to each character, such that they are all able to do the things they have committed to doing. If the wizard is capable of trumping the skill system in so many ways via spells like Knock of Invisibility, then other character might not get to do their thing.

Personally, I think a similar issue comes up with things like Bags of Holding, wherein characters with high strength don't get to muscle their carrying capacity into the party.

Anzyr wrote:

So... you mean the book that covers level 11 to 15 right Pan?

Ha-Ha thats pretty funny. No I would prefer that book be beyond 20. In fact I think martials are fine and casters are the problem. Forgive my ignorance but does Mythic not allow for high octane martials? We are probably on opposite sides when it comes to what we want from PF.

For the most part I agree. The problems of martial disparity and what have you come from issues with what casters are able to do rather than what martials are not able to do. All the stuff I listed in my last post? Most of that is fairly possible. I wouldn't mind some fancier effects here and there, but a Fighter geared with fairly basic stuff that easily fits within the amount of money he should have at a given level can absolutely take on an equal level dragon. That's pretty impressive stuff in my book, going up to adult dragons and standing toe to toe.

In terms of gameplay, a lot of people are upset that the way the fighter would battle said dragon is by standing still and using full attacks. I've also ignored the fact that the dragon can just kinda fly away from the fighter, something that would also be nice to find a remedy for. Perhaps they could attempt to grapple the dragon and ride on its back while they make their attacks? I'm not sure what would really make the fight more interesting, but in terms of capabilities, martial classes are still quite strong.

This was a neat idea that Evil Lincoln came up with a while ago: Brutal Maneuvers.

The idea is that every attack is essentially an attack + combat maneuver. If your attack was good enough to hit but not beat their CMD then you just damage them. If your attack was good enough to hit them and beat their CMD then you do damage and inflict the maneuver. A neat idea.

I rather like this idea as well. At higher levels, the blows from a martials weapon should be at least powerful enough for a free bull rush if they swing from the right angle. Against a sufficiently light or weak opponent, you should be able to golf swing that guy a few dozen yards.

Levels 1-6: Ordinary Person

A martial should be a competent combatant. Holding her own against a single foe, or perhaps at the upper end of this tier, 2-3 slightly weaker foes. No fancy tricks to speak of, she pretty much defines the martial as people know her now, the gal who walks up to things and hits them with her sword.

Levels 7-14: Superhuman Person

This is where a few more exciting things should come into play. Fighting multiple enemies at once should no longer be an issue for her, and she should be able to do so in style. Performing impressive feats of either agility (such as dodging attacks by leaping over people and landing on their head to disable them briefly) or strength (grabbing an opponent's attack with her hand and then assaulting them with her other).

Levels 15-20: Holy shit please don't hurt me.

The martial can now simply stand there and get shot out without so much as flinching. Physical and magical assaults alike are brushed aside as she stares you down. When she bothers to unsheathe her weapon, expect her to kill multiple opponents in one swing, shatter the earth as she walks, fight things ten times her size without breaking a sweat. She should move at speeds that the normal eye can't follow, with strength that appears to have no limit. By level 20, she should be able to fight the Terasque into a stalemate, even if it's impossible for her to actually deal a killing blow.

I would like for magic items to be able to better replicate spells. That way martials could just gear up for spells AND then have martial prowess on top of that. Casters keep their advantage by having access to more spells at the same time, but martials would then have something over casters that casters could not easily emulate.

What about just wands? Use Magic Device isn't a class skill, but it looks like the DC for activating a wand is a flat 20. Just as a thought exercise, you could take a "face" martial with a nice chunk of Charisma to it, maybe give it one level of Rogue to acquire UMD as a class skill, take Magical Aptitude or Skill Focus (or both), and that's a...

+4-5 from your Charisma
+3 from being a class skill
+2-10 depending on level and combination of feats

You'd be casting spells of any type you wanted with no chance of failure by the time you're level 10. To fit in better with the fact that you're a martial character, you could make like...sword wands, or something, so you don't have to draw the wands out to cast things. They'd need a recharging use mechanic of some kind, too, rather than having to simply by a new sword every time. Perhaps just paying to have the charges restored (preferably for some amount that doesn't cost as much as adding the charges the first time).

was that fighters are simple numerical machines of damage, but that is both boring and non-scaling.

My point is that if this is boring to you, perhaps you didn't really want to play a fighter at all. It really sounds like you just want to play a wizard. You really like the things wizards have and are complaining that martials don't have them. I wasn't being snarky, I was literally asking why you aren't playing a wizard if you want the things offered by wizards. Perhaps you could play some sort of melee cleric, instead, that seems like it would be fairly viable. Or perhaps the magus? Your claim that "Everything good and fun is tied to wizards" goes against my common knowledge of people that enjoy playing fighters and barbarians. If playing the martial classes truly had nothing fun going for it, people would not be playing them, so I don't think we can leave the effects you're mentioning exclusive to spellcasters without any problems. The fighter is a completely non-magical class and adding things to that class that are very obviously magical in nature is going too far and breaks the feeling of the class.

Now some affects you've mentioned could fit pretty well, too, so long as they don't step on the toes of your attacks too much. Party buffs in the form of some inspiring speeches or yells seem pretty believable and have definite precedents set (I still think there are actually classes specifically for that floating around in either 3.5 or Pathfinder itself), similarly, some debuffs could be applied in the same way. Intimidate actually does this already, but could perhaps be expanded. The usefulness of combat maneuvers shouldn't be understated. Knocking people over with a trip or overrun attempt, bull rushing things off a ledge, or even just getting some attacks of opportunity as things attempt to run past are all definitely things that go beyond the Full Attack Action in some way.

I'm just worried that the items will take up important slots. The Big 6 are just such a huge part of the game. No one thinks about cool cloaks to take since everyone needs a Clock of Resistance.

I think that might fall into a core design problem again. Magical items in general are very powerful and closely tied to character progression, such that you're expected to have a certain amount of stuff in addition to your actual levels, and that certain amount of stuff needs to be well geared to your character as a result. This limits the amount of creative options you can pursue when your belt has to be one thing and your cloak has to be another. Even in situations where your items aren't spelled out and chosen for you, there's usually some obvious "best choices" that provide more bang than the others, though perhaps adding things with spell effects would change which choices are best.

I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but I think you have a good point as far as martial damage being calibrated at a very high level across the board.

Where I might disagree is in the (implied) assertion that melee damage is exceptional in its ability to end foes quickly. I agree that it can stack up very swiftly if a full attack goes through facing no defenses other than AC.

I'm just not sure that a very dedicated blaster's blasting, a witch's save or lose or neutering of opposition, a god wizard's battlefield control and locking the foe in a corner, a save or die caster's save or dies... or even just an archer's full attack, rather than a meleer's, work any slower.

So against the victim-of-his-own-success point of view, I have to say that the whole game seems calibrated to similar standards. Melee damage doesn't seem to be the nail that sticks up above the board here. At least, not at high levels where the distinction between a melee full attack and having to move matters the most. Most classes have options to assert their power just as swiftly, and many of them don't have to worry about moving while doing so.

Arguments could be made about the balance between health levels and damage, or how AC can quickly scale to near immunity, but I think changing those things are beyond the scope of the topic, which wants to follow the core ruleset. And while that definitely might make things more fun, since it is a problem applied to every class, I don't think fixing it would allow the martial classes to gain more abilities.

Mondoglimmer wrote:

There's a beauty to tabletop games that you don't find in things like an MMO, and that beauty comes from how the game is balanced. Which is to say, it isn't always balanced. It doesn't need to be.

On the other hand, the game is built in a way it tells you a team with 4 monks is as balanced as one with a wizard/druid/cleric/Arcanist of the same level, and in the same way, you could emulate a more powerful character in a game where everyone was more balanced by just having a higher level character ideally. Additionally, none of the not so on par classes say "Hi, I'm not quiet as strong as the others!" they're presented pretty much equally.

Edit; Talking about this sort of thing also derails from what the OP asked.

That's a good point again, so I apologize for that. So to pull directly from the title, I think if you wanted to simply expand on the virtues on the core martial classes, it would probably be in the form of combat maneuvers. I don't really know what you could add, though, which is why I'm asking what people want. I really don't think flight and reshaping the earth or anything falls within the realm of what a martial class can do, though. I'm at a loss to what those characters could get or what they might need, since they seem to do everything I'd expect them to do already.

The problem with Martisls is that they had an arms race and the Martisls lost where it hurt them and won where it hurt them.

They lost the ability to resist what Casters toss at them, but they won in the ability to do insane amounts of damage so that if you remove the ability for casters to simply shut down a Martial then the Martial promptly splatters bits of Caster over the landscape, so the casters will keep the shutdown advantage because if the Developers don't do so the casters get wiped.

It also seems like you're viewing this as a PvP game, when in reality the martials and casters are on the same side and fighting other martials and casters (usually in some kind of monstrous form). The fighters getting shut down by spells is kinda bad, but not really related to how balanced class choices are, which is what people are concerned about. If fighters are shut down by ridiculously powerful spells and casters are shut down by ridiculously powerful melee attacks, then I'd actually wager that this balances out for the most part, as both types of character have weaknesses that can be exploited. It's up to the party to prevent those weaknesses from being exploited, and really also up to the GM to make sure your Fighter isn't just getting shut down every combat because he keeps throwing powerful casters at you.

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Have you considered just playing a wizard? Why do Fighters have to also be wizards?

I'm not who you asked, but if you don't mind me saying so, everyone can do a lot of the same thing but in their own way. There's a lot to be said with how much you can do and how much variance you can create. At the moment fighters don't do much of anything, and that... kinda' sucks. Like I said earlier though, it looks like pathfinder itself wants to stick with vancian casting and full attacking martials, while a lot of people will point to 3rd edition examples because they spread out quiet a bit and there's a lot to love and dislike about that. Mind you that's filled with personal opinion and nostalgia, and its all important to not have an edition war.

I feel like there's a lot of people who enjoy being a martial class that mostly just hits things, so I'm hesitant to say that it's a requirement to give things like the fighter or barbarian spell like abilities to put them "on par" with the casters. There's a beauty to tabletop games that you don't find in things like an MMO, and that beauty comes from how the game is balanced. Which is to say, it isn't always balanced. It doesn't need to be. The game does not require you to have fighters in it to be played, a party of four to six wizards would not only function, but probably function decently well (and possibly have some cool roleplaying effects). So even if everyone hated playing a fighter, they could just choose not to play the fighter. Furthermore, a Fighter does hit things very well, they are good at this. Even at high levels, so long as you're in combat, a Fighter/Barbarian is absolutely contributing to the party and should really not be seen as a detriment by anyone. They do have skills, and if they don't dump their int they might have a good three or four going for them, with enough feats that they can add a ton of extra ranks, too. A way to get some extra class skills might be handy, but in Pathfinder that really just amounts to a +3 in the skill, which feats already apply and then some.

And all that said, it's important to point out that these rules aren't absolute and they aren't enforced. Right in the core rulebook itself, like a dozen times, it says that you should feel free to alter the rules to fit what works best for how you want to play. That's how tabletop games work! If you want Fighters to have spells, you can totally just give them spells. Just gotta get the rest of your group to agree with you. That's the second half of how beautiful these games are when it comes to balance. You can tweak it as much as you need without having to run it by the gods of Pathfinder.

To answer the other half of the question:

I think martials should be able to impose unconsciousness akin to Sleep, gain extra attacks akin to Haste, Fly, create difficult terrain, gain 50% miss chance, nauseate opponents, heal themselves or gain temporary HP on command, etc. You know... things a wizard/cleric/druid can do. And I don't mean all of this on one character that spams it repeatedly. Limited numbers of times per day and earned at a pace with which a wizard/cleric/druid could do them.

"I think things that aren't wizards should be able to do the same things as wizards."

Have you considered just playing a wizard? Why do Fighters have to also be wizards?

you should not need spells to be motivated, any moral or emotion effect can be martial.

I'm sure I've seen "commander" type martials around that buff the party without using magic. I don't have the details on hand, though.

Seriously Martials have plenty of combat options but that's all they have and has been noted repeatedly the Caster just takes them down. Caster - "I toss a Will Save or lose spell at the Fighter" - Fighter "that's ok. I have Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. Crap, I only rolled a 15. Reroll, damn still failed to get the 17 I needed. Guess I lose". And also give them something to give them a fighting chance against the "no save you lose" spells.

I'm worried you're supporting some kind of bizarre arms race here. I think rather than giving more things to Fighters so that they match wizards, the wizards should just not be able to do so much stuff. Maybe spells that make the fighter automatically lose if they don't pass their save shouldn't be used? Maybe the save DC should just be lower? Do they work equally well on other casters?

Similarly, if the complaint is that casters are too versatile, should their versatility be shut down? Should they have to specialize to get things like invisibility? I remember Knock was an incredibly early spell that basically replaced the rogue's ability to pick locks, and I think spells like that should mostly just be removed. Casters have plenty of damage, they have good utility, they don't need to also have the utility of all the other classes, and the other classes definitely don't need the versatility of the wizard, which would not only be ridiculous (Do you really expect your Fighter to fly and and regenerate their wounds? Stop watching so much anime or houserule the Book of Weeaboo Fightin' Magic into your campaign, 'cause that stuff doesn't need to be anywhere near the core.), but potentially game breaking.

How about "anything beyond DPS"? Note that this is the only this your post ever references. You assume martials are about DPS only (and just one way to generate said DPS), so of course this conversation must be confusing...

Okay, that's fair, that's fair. Can I get more specific examples, though? I mean, anything is pretty vast. Theoretically you can put skill points into Craft and do more than just damage, but I feel like you aren't content with that. What is something you think a Fighter or Barbarian should be able to do that they are not able to do?

If I remember correctly, DR doesn't stack. I could be wrong, though.

I hear a lot about how worthless martial classes are compared to casters, but I'm just not seeing it. Damage remains pretty strong throughout their lifespan, and not having a limited number of spells per day seems to be a boon regardless of level. Sure, Wizards might not actually run out of spells, but if all they're using is a 5d6 Shocking Grasp attack, they may as well be out of spells compared to a martial, who can charge in and swing for something like 2d6+20 every round (if not far more), repeatedly, while dishing out multiple such attacks if they don't have to move.

I guess to refine my question, what is it that martial characters want to do that they are not currently doing?

Mondoglimmer wrote:

Okay, I am rereading things, and the way things look is that you can just kinda go ahead and use an oversized weapon without any issues other than a -2 penalty for every size above you it is. So if you're a medium creature wielding a large two handed weapon, that is one size above you. Assuming you have the strength to wield these things, you could probably go one or two higher, too.

Or am I missing something important?

For every size larger a weapon is, the weapon increases a step on the handiness chart as well. That "chart" only has three steps: light, one handed and two handed. If the size increase would push a weapon off the handiness chart than you can never wield it. Titan mauler was supposed to be able to get around this but it was changed before printing and can't actually do it. The exotic one handers, bastard sword and dwarven waraxe, are the only way to cheat the handiness issue and that only gets you a large two handed weapon for a -2 hit penalty.

Oh, I suppose that is what it says. That's unfortunate. I'm still transitioning from 3.5 to 3.5.2, so I missed that errata.

Okay, I am rereading things, and the way things look is that you can just kinda go ahead and use an oversized weapon without any issues other than a -2 penalty for every size above you it is. So if you're a medium creature wielding a large two handed weapon, that is one size above you. Assuming you have the strength to wield these things, you could probably go one or two higher, too.

Or am I missing something important?

Alright, I get ya. I'm not a huge fan of the criticals myself 'cause I tend to have really bad luck and prefer to spend my focus on steadier things. It's true that they really did incentivize putting a full 20 levels into your base class, though. Not only did they fill up every level of every class with things, but they did add "capstones" to things, too (to take a phrase from your guide). Furthermore, prestige classes are actually really uncommon, with a greater emphasis put on class archetypes instead of something you have to build into.

3.5 was way different by comparison, where not only are you likely to shift into a prestige class as soon as possible, you might multiclass into multiple prestige classes, which got pretty silly sometimes. My last 3.5 character was a wizard/master specialist/fighter/rune smith/effigy master, I think, and I believe he managed all that by the time he was level 10. (Edit: forgot that I took a level of fighter for heavy armor proficiency)

So with my random tangent over, I've been playing my Dwarf Fighter a bit more. He's level 3 now, just a pure fighter is what I went with, and he's really tearing up those orcs, taking on 30 at a time thanks to his ability to kill a lot of them before they reach melee (I have a few of them throw javelins sometimes, but my AC is actually 24 now with the first level of Armor Training and some Full Plate, so they're really not very likely to hit me). Once they get into melee range, though, I really run out of things I can use to deal with that. I'm stuck to taking a five foot step back and swinging once a turn. I've considered just taking Cleave instead, which should theoretically let me get multiple hits in a turn as well. You mentioned in your guide, Darksol, that it's better to refeat the thing at higher levels? When and why does Cleave stop being useful?

The Stonelord Paladin archetype replaces spells with defensive stance. It wil also let you stance-cycle with the fatigue mercy.

Going full Stonelord will probably be a better deal than entering Stalwart Defender and it will have the same feeling. Alterantively, Stonelord 4 / Unbreakable Fighter 3 / Stalwart Defender is good starting combination that will give you access to Defensive Stance at lvl 4 and the Stalwart feat at lvl 5.

I see that now, yeah. That's actually a really cool concept. Even without spells, though, the Stonelord is still pretty magical. I was originally going for a completely mundane hero, but the Stonelord is tempting enough that I might just rewrite that.

The issue with multi-classing is not only putting off your other abilities, but since the Fighter's best abilities are at 20th level (Weapon Mastery is beautiful), it's difficult to find a class whose 1st or 2nd level dip supersedes what the delayed progression and permanently lost progression can provide.

Is Weapon Mastery all that great? Automatically confirming crits and an inability to be disarmed are nice, sure, but I think I could live without them. Both of those events are fairly rare as it is, and they aren't always difficult checks to pass, even then. The bonus to my crit multiplier is nice, but again, criticals are a fairly rare event, so I don't know if it's worth planning for really impressive ones.

I think I'm gonna avoid the paladin class, despite how much better it would probably be for solo play. Just magic in general is on my avoiding list for the moment. I will check out some of these other things, though, thanks. Dwarfy things are pretty cool for my Dwarf hero, which is what made me consider the Stalwart Defender, which is basically just a free for all version of the Dwarf thing from 3.5. I liked the extra AC, and the interesting version of Rage, and there's also a Defensive Power that keeps people from approaching me if I hit them with one of my AoOs. The polearm master gets extra attack on AoOs and readied actions, though, and a couple neat talents to boot. The basic fighter also gets some extra AC in the form of an increased Dex bonus, and allows me to pick up all the nifty high level fighter feats. Now it sounds like I have more stuff to consider, though!

I'm contemplating a character build for something solo I'm running during my downtime. Mostly just a hack and slash thing, since I'm otherwise writing the story as I go, having to play both sides and all. I've reached an impasse, though.

My character is a dwarf tasked with guarding his small village from orcs and goblins and other things that don't like the dwarves too much. Since he's literally a guard I figured the Stalwart Defender would be a good choice for a prestige class and I really like the things it offers. But I'm not entirely sure if it's worth it to lose the stuff I'd get from just going straight fighter, or perhaps a variant fighter.

As it stands, my dwarf is only level 2, and my DM has very graciously allowed me to switch things around as needed because he's pretty much the best DM ever. I want to focus on reach weapons, but can't decide on a plan between the polearm master from the Advanced Player's Handbook, a pure fighter, or a stalwart defender. Any advice on what might be better for a solo campaign?