Swallowed Pride's page

Swallowed Pride wrote:

The fighter is an amazing class already. All fighter strong points are the variety of the class, Great Hp

2 more HP per level than the Wizard (except at first level where it's a gap of 4), unless the Wizard has a higher con (which he can usually afford) in which case the gap shrinks. It's not uncommon to have Wizards with almost as much HP as Fighters.

Quote:

Attack Bonus

Compared to what? Sure Fighter's have the best always-on attack bonus after Weapon Training kicks in (assuming they have the same level of Magic Weapon of course) but Rage is better for most of play

Quote:

super amount of feats

Except most PF feats suck, and even then Rangers and Monks only get 5 fewer feats and get to skip prereqs.

I mentioned attack bonus because it is a common requirement on available feats. Stalwart feats are bad for most classes simply due to the level it is available. Dropping a feat to get up to 5 DR is awful at 8th level or more for wizardry classes but at 4th level I'm pretty sure this feat has uses. Hell wizards will never qualify for the upgraded version within the 20 levels. Generally speaking feats are only terrible within relativity. The fact that Fighter attack bonus is among the top with other melee classes and the vastness of feats he gets means the fighter can create some mad effective combinations that other classes can only dream of.

I suppose spells are the things that other classes get that the fighter can only dream of. Wait a tick... can't one just buy magic items? So the fighter can be an incredibly amazing Swiss army knife and do cool stuff like fly, turn invisible or heal his allies. Along with a UMD skill for consumable items like scrolls and wands. As I seem to recall there aren't too many magic items that grant feats.

Fighters are titans as it is and can become quite ridiculous with an archetype or 1 level in most any other class. Fighter with 1 barbarian get a sweet rage ability and increased movement. Fighter with rogue get 1d6 added onto all of his attacks while flanking or while foes are flat footed and nets him trapfinding. The class with feats to spare on skill focuses can easily obtain trapfinding and rogue already works well with his melee abilities. 1 level in wizard gets the fighter endure elements, grants him energy resistance 5 to one energy he wants when he preps spells, and the ability to enlarge himself along with familiar alertness and bonuses to super juice skills, saves or initiative.

The fighter has something that any class can benefit from. The fighter has options. Branching to a different class does not disprove his versatility but actually enhances it.

On a side note any fighter with a little buddy like a squirrel or something sounds great for RP so there are other motives for doing this sort of stuff.

The fighter is an amazing class already. All fighter strong points are the variety of the class, Great Hp, Attack Bonus, and super amount of feats.

Fighters by standard can dish damage with a full round attack but the feats can supplement his options. With vital strike feats he can keep DPR up even at times when he can't full round. A STR fighter usually gets power attack and qualifies for things like sunder and bull rush, INT get combat expertise and maybe trip or feint and DEX fighters might want to try unarmed strikes and grapples. Dodge and mobility will allow plate wearing fighters to run around the field to aid other classes in gaining flank bonuses.

His role seems more to being a jack of all trades or a one trick pony depending on how the feats get spent. Sure he can blow all of his feats to do one thing well like +22 to trips with stats and items and all of his feats will let him do stuff like provide more opportunities to trip and extra attacks on successful trips or other crazy examples. Alternately he can spend his fighter feats on combat stuff and generic feats on whatever and be good at a number of things. Like skill focusing social skills or buffing up his bad will with Iron Will.

If the goal is to make the fighter as good as classes with abilities that have limited uses a day then make fighter specific feats that only work a few times a day. Things that are really good but not tied into each other. Feats that get OP from taking all of them will just auto build the character to taking... all of the bravery feats. The Feats need to be good enough that people consider taking them over other great feats and they need to stand on their own so people don't justify taking bravery feats cause Battlefield Commander becomes near unlimited use or so Old Soldier doesn't give players +10 to climb and swim or +20 when doubled. Bonuses that high and the player could have a 1 in STR and would still be likely to pass DC's. Plenty of these feats are obtainable from 2 and up and a 10 fighter with old soldier will probably only put one rank in those skills for class bonus. Not to mention all the other frail swimmers in the party who won't need to worry. Two feats can grant +10 to swim and climb for the party. That is a crazy effective bonus worth 80 points total. The worst part is old soldier pays for itself granting an extra use to Battlefield Commander for those instances of sheer cliffs or raging rivers. Hopefully the party does both in one day so the fighter can use it more than once in these now trivial situations.

If a player knocks over the statue of a trickster god and this was his punishment it'd be okay. If an enemy other than a toilet brownie does this then it feels out of place. Like following a knock knock joke with "to get to the other side".

I don't know how sensitive an issue this is with most players considering the... atrocities I've seen committed in my local groups. I don't know if you should try it or not but I really think for this curse to get the desired effect it will rely heavily on the execution.

Personally I enjoy curses that open up mischief on people. Like a curse where they must end sentences with an obscenity. Hilarious for those crucial diplomacy checks.

These brownies and not the other thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(folklore)

I love old threads.

I think one could take a feat later. On the grounds that a player might not qualify for any feat he wants. I would still say you could only gain feats on level up. Meaning not picking up a feat when you get it means your next attempt to pick a feat would be at next level. The Delay Feat idea is a great one for doing just that.

In a hypothetical sense if someone gains a level and a feat on that level and they wanted none of any feats they qualify for would you just say they get one less feat then?

My final thought on the matter is delaying a feat is hardly munchkin. If feats are so glorious as to garner cheating then every class should take one level of fighter. +2 Fort(similar to Great Fortitude), free bonus feat spendable on any combat feat(two if you take unbreakable archetype but it must be Endurance and Die Hard or unarmed fighter for Improved Unarmed Strike and any Style feat). Alternately one level of wizard is worth 3 feats. +2 Will(Similar to Iron Will) and a Familiar that can grant the effective bonuses for Improved Initiative, Great Fort, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes and Skill Focus for just +3 on a select set of skills, all which are untyped and stack with the actual feats for a doubling bonus(Improve Initiative for +8 Init before Dex).

I think the only reason someone would delay a feat is to stay in the rules. The character in question wants to save his feat for next level so he can take EWP as early as possible. That is to adhere to the rules in essence and character concept. The other options are to ask for an exception ignoring the rules through gm law or wait till a later level and have a concept flipped on its head. An anything character concept who uses something for two levels while being bad at it sounds just as bad as a character who goes 1 level without a feat.

To start things off people seem to be forgetting the number one rule. The GM has the final say in what happens. If a GM says it doesn't work then it won't. People seem to be in agreement on the subject of Flame/Frost/Acid Weapons but I did the math anyway. It has been pointed out that the weapons can remain on indefinitely and through being sheathed and the such. If a player had a +1 Flaming Frost weapon but could only have one activated it still costs 18,300+ weapon gold. If they had two +1 weapons with one being Flaming and the other being Frost it costs 16,600+ weapons gold. It is a standard action to activate the Flaming or Frost ability of the single weapon in the case where he needs to change elements. That player in question will not be attacking that turn. The player using two weapons can return his drawn weapon to sheath using his move action if he needs to change elements. He also gets no attacks this turn but he can use his standard as a move to draw the other element weapon. With BAB +1 you could even do it as part of a move action so both players can still take a move action that turn. The player with 2 weapons also has the option to use the quick draw feat to free action draw his other weapon and make one attack that turn. If different elements don't work together then it is just better to use more than one weapon. A +1 Flame Frost Acid weapon costs 32,300+ weapon gold while three weapons that are each +1 with one element total costs 24,900+ weapons gold. It is the exact same scenario as above. The only benefit with one weapon is it saves on weight but a rough 7,000 gold difference is more than enough to buy a bag of holding. On a logic note how does a Flaming weapon made by any character later realize there is a new command word on it to activate Frost thus turning off flaming. Example: A level 10 wizard adds Flaming to a weapon with the command "Bunny" to ignite or snuff out. At level 13 he then takes the same weapon and puts Frost on it with the command "Apple" to become cold or return to normal. Anytime between level 10 and level 13 the word "Apple" would not have extinguished the Flaming ability. Somehow the new Frost ability has changed the way the Flaming ability works. It is not impossible to have purposefully made the frost ability deactivate upon the word "Bunny" but the Flaming ability would have had to recognize the command "Apple" far before Frost was even on the weapon. Anyone who thinks the magic is so advanced that Flaming knows to turn off should consider that it could also be so advanced that it can function simultaneously. Just the end of my long rant and all who made it to the bottom gain 9,600 exp and 3,000 gold in rare jewels.

I know the last post was like three years ago but I feel like sticking up for Vital Strike. Vital Strike is good for all the above reasons already mentioned. Yes it has a huge feat tax and it will do considerably less damage than full attack although usually a more accurate way of dealing decent damage. Two things to point out though with the first being that Vital Strike also works with "Splash Weapons". I know they do very little in general and few abilities buff splash weapons at all but any ranged character with any amount of dexterity can use this weapon to an even greater extent. Hitting against touch ac is pretty easy and instead of thinking about DR you get to think about energy resistance. Or should I say any energy weaknesses and capitalize on a foe who is weak to fire, acid or ice. You might say "but alchemist does that a lot better". I agree which brings me to my second point. Vital Strike feats seem to be tailored to a fighter specifically. A class that gains almost no access to elemental damage without spending tons on flaming and frost weapons that also happens to be one of the few classes that get to the highest attack bonuses required for the highest VS feats. On top of that the fighter is a bucket of feats. Its not the best way of dealing damage but VS is a good way to give the character options. Just to point out getting a splash weapon, like alchemist fire, ready to use is likely a move action unless you have it strapped somewhere on your person. So it works great with VS mechanically as well.

TheSideKick wrote:

even just the first feat is a fighters wet dream. a swift action to activate then ghosts, casters, vampires, ect... all miss that fighters touch ac with just a small focus cost. a trait, 1 skill per level, and a skill focus and you could easily have a touch ac equal to 22+ 1d20

To be fair, a trait, half your class skill points and 2 feats isn't exactly a 'small' investment, and they wouldn't be hitting 22 until 12th level plus usually (+1 trait, +3 favoured, +6 Skill Focus +12 skill points) as a fighter is unlikely to have much in the way of a Wisdom modifier.

That said, it's still an absolutely great one for a number of builds, but they do need to put some effort into it.

It gets a bit better if you do something along the lines of +1 trait, +3 favored, +6 Skill Focus, +4 Alertness(1 extra feat used here), +2 Snake Style(the forgotten 2 points) and 12 ranks in the skill for a total of 28 plus the d20 roll. Snake Style just sounds like a terrific counter to any foe that thought the Vital Strike feats were cool. All in all Snake Style is feat and skill heavy but sense motive is a powerful skill on its own. Able to foil feint checks and aid the players in detecting lies.

Before I begin let me state that every GM can allow or disallow anything. This would include any rule already existing or any rule that is wished to exist. Any GM should use that power with caution of course and possibly with fair amount of warning. Now the issue at hand seems to be of the interpretation on the "2 free hands" line. I assume that line exists to state that a character may perform a grapple even if they are holding stuff much like a torch, shield or weapon. I did not take it to mean they can grapple one handed. If it was intended to be a one handed penalty they would not need to specify it in a manner of 2 free hands. They would have just mentioned a character attempting it with one hand. The word "free" being used there seems evidence as well. If you rule one way or the other it becomes an issue of can or can not so we'll forget that for now as it is DM choice anyway. I would say a -20 penalty is the more likely way to rule such a situation. Restraining another person while only using one hand would be nigh impossible for all but the best of grappler. If the player is intent on grappling 2 people then this would seem to be an appropriate penalty. Also if their hands are not free then it would be an additional -4 as well. Not that this post is likely to be seen with the conversation happening like half a year ago.