Salamandyr's page

Maybe give the fighter class enough skill points to actually feel like a competent, skillful character and see if that improves anyone's desire to play one.

As another option, give your monsters a custom feat that allows them to automatically close any time someone near them makes a five foot step. That'll get rid of the annoying "melee archers" who back up and full attack repeatedly.

If you don't want to houserule, just keep sundering their bows.

-The problem is with Combat Expertise, not the fighter itself.

Correct, but the fighter has the biggest problem with the borked up stat requirements most feats have, of all the classes, and giving them a way to get around them is an easier fix than re-doing all the feat qualifications. The BAB requirement is a much smaller issue, and also has unintended consequences (like getting a second off-hand attack before they get a second main hand attack), and not much of a reward if they don't have the feats slots to get an earlier feat. Letting them take feats they otherwise wouldn't qualify for on the other hand is a solid power.

By the same token, the fighters skill points are less of a problem than that the game doesn't institute diminishing returns on skills (higher levels of skills demand more skill points than lower levels), so dilettante levels in a skill quickly become useless. But, if you're not doing a system wide fix, then giving the fighter more skill points is a work-able patch.

Something needs to replace bravery, since bravery currently is a big pile of stinky, mcstinky cheese. I just don't don't think strong save progression screams "fighter". Again, it's a system problem rather than a fighter problem--the weak save progression is TOO weak across the board. Which is why I suggested giving them a +2 bonus to both weak saves at about level 10, which kicks em up closer to where I think they ought to be.

But giving them a strong will save at least gives them something, even if I don't think it's particularly thematic.

I really like the concept of Bravery though, and would hate to see it go away. Fighters ought to be practically impossible to scare. Which is why I'm in favor of keeping it and giving it a bigger bonus. At some point they should get an "improved bravery" ability that reduces the fear on a failed save to "shaken".

For quick study, I'd like it rather to lower or eliminate the stat requirements for combat feats rather than the BAB requirement.

Fighters play a lot differently in a low point buy vs. a high point buy game, more than casters (which is the opposite of what you'd expect). In a low point buy game, playing a fighter with interesting tactical options becomes much more difficult without sacrificing effectiveness, and that's not right. For example, letting a fighter with a 10 Int take Combat Expertise just opens up a lot more options, and is flavorable to boot.

Resilience: Move to higher 10th level, flat get a +2 bonus to reflex and will saves. with iron will and lightning reflexes, and decent attention to stat bonuses, that actually puts their saves up their where they have a hope of making them, but not so high that they start to overshadow monks and paladins, who are supposed to be unhittable.

Change the armor mastery to no longer increase max dex bonus, but just give a +1 to AC building at the same rate that max dex bonus increases now instead...reason being, again like my point above, your class abilities ought to benefit you no matter what your stats are. (Fighters shouldn't get screwed by low point buy games).

Bravery should be around +1/2 fighter level. As it is, even with the bonus a fighter's fear save is worse than a wizards.

Weapon Master; each time a fighter gets to choose a new weapon group, all weapon groups have the same bonus. This helps two weapon fighters, and switch hitters. The fighters pinnacle ability for 20th level-their weapon mastery now applies to all weapon groups! Athletes hyper focus one thing--fighters are warriors; warriors kill you with whatever is handy. So a fighters mastery should get larger and larger, not remain super narrow.

With the change to armor master above, I don't really think they need DR.

Fighters definitely need a way to make full attacks at the end of a move, though I think it can wait until 11th level.

I really like the career paths, and of course 4 skill points a level.

I think you have some good ideas, and I'd love to see a swashbuckler base class, so thank you for your take on this. However, I have some criticisms that I hope don't seem too harsh.

OK, you've got a class that specifically has a type of shield in its name, yet it can't use one? Neither can it use a dagger in the off hand? So the English swashbuckler with sword and buckler is out, as well as the Italian Florentine style of rapier and dagger. So is my favorite swashbuckler-y style, the 'case of rapiers', ie fighting with two swords. Also, thanks to the way the parry mechanic works, and the fact that it has no movement abilities, it appears to be a very static fighter, which doesn't fit the theatrical idea of the swashbuckler very much, who ought to be swinging on ropes, jumping on tables, and flipping over obstacles pretty much every round.

Also, why can they not wear light armor? The brigandine was pretty much invented for swashbuckler types.

I'd take the parry mechanic and turn it into a reaction. Once per round a swashbuckler can attempt to parry an incoming attack, which if they roll high enough they can make a "riposte" attack back.

Maybe in addition, the swashbuckler could recieve mobility, and spring attack as free feats somewhere along the way, and maybe the ability to make a full attack and move in the same round at higher level?

Have you looked at E6? It's a community based effort to create a ruleset based on 3.5 that runs from levels 1 through 6. It sounds like this may be very similar to what you're going for.

Since my dislike of the Gunslinger class and guns in Pathfinder is based on the mechanics, which I think do a poor job of modelling guns and what I want from gunplay in my games, then if they were using the mechanics for something else, especially for something that has no real world analogue, then yeah, I'd probably have less of a problem with them.

All swordplay involves kicks, bites, punches, grapples, sand in the eye, and whatever else necessary to make your opponent fall down and stop trying to hurt you. Yet up to now all of that has been considered part of the abstract nature of "I attack with my greatsword". Do we really want to change that?

Can I also count my longsword as a double weapon because I occasionally hit my opponent in the face with the pommel rather than swing at them with the blade?

Salamandyr wrote:

The druid and bard aren't European?

Not as portrayed in the game. They share the name with European druids and bards, and that's about it.

They bear more resemblance to their European progenitors than any other in my opinion. But YMMV.

As far as I'm concerned, creating separate classes for regional archetypes like the samurai and ninja do more to reinforce "European-ness" of the base game than just having samurai and ninjas be fighters/cavaliers and rogues.

Level 10, or at least, that's about the top end power level I prefer. If they took levels 1 through 10, and stretched that out over 15, 20, or even 30 levels, I would be fine with that too.

When I flip through the rules and see Djin or Gelatinous Cubes or even the Druid and Bard, I'm struck by how very non-European the game is.

The druid and bard aren't European?

Multiclassing is a lot more painful these days; it really feels like you lose a lot, and class abilities that seem great at level 7 don't feel all that special at level 11. The way a lot of the bonuses scale based on class level means that, too much multiclassing and it takes even longer for them to become meaningful, or they might not become meaningful at all.

Most times I've planned out characters, I started to look at multiclassing and quickly decided the costs outweighed the benefits. The only possible exception to that is, if I wanted to play a fighter, I'd perhaps take 3 levels of bard over my career for better skills, and a boost to saves, in exchange for 1 point of BAB, a feat, and a slight lag in armor and weapon mastery acquisition.

What is it you are looking for? You want a stealthy skill laden green beret? Why not a use a ranger? Why does it have have to have the tag "fighter"? A ranger is a 'warrior' just as much as a paladin, fighter or cavalier.

Well, in my case, I wouldn't want to use a Ranger to make a Green Beret because I don't want a pet, I don't want favored enemies, and I don't want spells.

The thing about the Ranger is that their skillset and powers are pretty focussed, and if you use the Ranger to simulate a lot of "skilled, stealthy warriors" or Green Beret types, you wind up with a bunch extraneous abilities that don't fit your character, or you don't use them, in which case you've gimped yourself compared to the other classes.

Fafhrd was was highly skilled fighter, skilled at stealth, mountaineering, woodlore, sailing, and tracking, who fought with two weapons. Sounds like a Ranger right? Except he had no pet, he had no spells (yes, I know they can be traded in), he really had no major enemies he really hated; his vendetta against the Thieve's Guild was quickly resolved. The powers and abilities of a Fighter make a lot more sense for him. Yet, if I build him as a fighter, I can't actually build him as skilled.

Fighters -good, bad...I'm the guy with the sword. Unfortunately they're also listed in my "least favorite classes" because of mechanical issues.

Rangers -as above, only now I get to sneak around and actually know stuff!

Magus -I get fight with a sword in one hand and a spell in the other? Yes, please!

Any other class for whom sword use is a primary component.

Monks, because of the way they spit all over other people's narratives.

Ninjas, for similar reasons to monks, though as far as I can tell, not to the same extent.

Fighters, because...man, 10 years and they still have no skills, no resistance to every "take my character away from me" trick the DM can pull, and their archetypes take away what versatility they do have in exchange for making them even more wedded to one, easily defeated schtick. Oh, and the two weapon archetype is objectively worse for two weapon fighters than the no archetype fighter alone.

But mostly, I hate monks.

You could probably give them full BAB and take nothing away and they would still come in under Summoners, witches, druids, clerics, wizard/sorc's, and diplomancer bards on the power charts.

You could take away the ability to add plusses to their weapons that stacks with the enhancement bonus that's already there. That ability essentially gives the magus a full BAB as it is, though they lag in number of attacks (which can be made up with the use of Spellstrike).

The thing is, everywhere else in the game, better armor penetration is represented by a higher damage die, or a higher crit chance. The fact is, armor is resistant to bullets, the term "bulletproof" comes from the testing of armor to show that it would resist a bullet. Guns did not destroy the armored knight, the death of feudalism did. Leather armor is less resistant than plate, but that's one of the reasons for the lower AC bonus.

It just seems wrong that a suit of +5 fortified full plate, something that, if it existed would be massively stronger than today's bulletproof vests, in game is going to be useless in stopping even mundane bullets.

Why are firearms resolved using ranged touch? The entire reason for the invention of full plate was to counter firearms! Armor, especially magical armor, should defend against guns just as much as against bows and war hammers.

Honestly it sounds fine to me. The game already has base attack bonus to represent relative level of skill, and weapon focus feats to represent specialization in particular areas. Weapon proficiencies on top of that just seems like overkill to me.

One caveat to abolishing proficiencies; your players will be able to grab the most powerful weapons available rather than the most thematic. Weapon proficiencies keep the cleric using a mace and the fighter using a greatsword, and the wizard using a staff, absent investment in feats. So there's something to be said for them.

You might consider just considering improvised weapons a simple weapon with a base damage based on size. Small improvised weapons do d3/x2, one-handed do d6/x2, and two handed do 2-8/x2, for instance.