Path of War Gestalt? Sign me up!
Focus Foible:
18
8
18
8
4d6:
14
15
17
15
12
11
14
15
17
15
12
11
Search Posts
Is there a Slayer guide in progress anywhere?
All rules are potentially optional. Your argument is a moot point. You have no proof that many DMs not allow traits, this is merely conjecture. Do not use yourself to represent the majority. You still want the Fighter to be on par with other classes out of combat, when that is not their role; regardless of character background. The build example above is a Fighter who is still competent out-of-combat for minimal investment. Regardless of whether they are -3 or -20 behind other classes in modifiers, the only question that matters is: Could they reasonably get the job done?
But, but, that means I only get a +3 STR modifier instead of +4!!!! I'm doing +4 damage with my Greatsword instead of +6!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
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). It contradicts nothing. The thread asks: How do we improve the Fighter outside of combat? That is what is being asked in the OP. I say: We don't, and I do indeed question why such changes are needed.
Largely irrelevant, and a complete cop-out. If you want your Fighter to be competent at Charisma-based checks, build your Fighter to do so.
You roll dice and roleplay anyway? I'm sorry, I didn't realise GMs just magically ignored the Fighter once they put their sword back into its sheath. Fighters have been dealing with out-of-combat situations since the tabletop RPG was invented. There are already answers to your problems within the system. They won't make you an outstanding party face, but you're not meant to be.
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. We've already established this. Way to miss the point. We know the Fighter is broken, this has been repeated ad nauseum by now.
The thread is about the out-of-combat aspects of the Fighter, specifically the lack thereof. You're simply stating the obvious. We know there is a dissonance between what the Fighter is and what is it intended to be. 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. Missing the point of the thread by a long shot. The consensus is the class as whole needs fixing. We already know this, Paizo are already on it with Pathfinder Unchained. 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 was replying to Lyra. I mentioned nothing about homebrew. Paizo's intent of the Fighter concept is quite explicit; perhaps not 100% explicit, but overwhelmingly so. Everything I mentioned is inferred or lifted directly from the description of the class in the Player's Handbook.
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. 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.
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.
All you've done is just reinforce my point. I expect Fighters to be the premier physical combatant, but that is entirely different to the point of the thread. Everyone is now completely diverting from the thread topic, which is how to buff Fighters to do better out of combat. I have said they should not be buffed for out of combat, as it is not their job to do well outside of combat. Out-of-combat performance should come from the build, not the class features. If you want a highly social facepunching Fighter, up your Charisma, build your skills and damn well deal with the fact that your Bard or Paladin is going to be much more likeable or Intimidating. The Fighter Class is not a social class. Stop trying to make it what is it not meant to be. This is not a thread about how to fix the Fighter's existing combat flaws.
Points taken, however, not all of those things are relevant to most kinds of fighters. *Battlefield navigation, certainly. They should be skilled at getting to the enemy, and getting away as well. *Not all fighters exist to inspire or guide. Leave that to classes or archetypes designed to do so, like Cavaliers or Guide Rangers. *Intimidate/Demoralize, absolutely. *Scouting, is also not the role of all fighters. Not all soldiers are skilled at scouting. This is something best left to Rangers or Fighter archetypes. *Weapon tricks, undoubtedly. Being superlative with certain weapons is what Fighters do. *Movement restrictions, agreed again. This ties into battlfield navigation to an extent. But, these things don't really make a diverse character, and they're mostly still related to combat/improving the ways in which Fighters hit things.
I never disputed this. Fighters need fixes to the job they are designed to do. As a combatant, they are inferior and have no place in a thought out party - their job and even their entire character is accomplished by other classes. A fighter character should have the same diversity as a cleric or wizard character. Clerics can be almost anything they want to be. Frontline melee, party face, healer, caster, any mix of these. Let's be careful when we use the term "diversity". Just because you are playing a character that has no magical abilities doesn't mean they should be a one trick pony. The fighter class is almost by definition, a one trick pony. They may be grunts, they may be lords, knights, gladiators, executioners, or enforcers of the law. No matter their background, they have one job - to hit things. That is all. The 'fighter character' has a profound and grand tradition within fantasy literature. The Pathfinder game needs to facilitate that tradition, give agency to the stories of Aragorn, Beowulf, Fafhyrd, Sir Galahad, and Oberyn the Red Viper. These characters can all be created within the Pathfinder system, and some arguably fall outside of the "Fighter" class. Aragorn is the oft-cited patron of the martial switch-hitter, for crying out loud. Fighter or Ranger, pick your poison, either can accomplish the role. Fafhrd is by definition and design, a barbarian. Beowulf, Galahad, Oberyn, sure. All of these can be created within the Fighter class already.
In other words...yes, you want it to be able to do a bit of everything. If you're not hitting (or trying to hit), you're healing (or assisting in combat in other ways).
If you want versatility, you shouldn't be playing a Fighter. Unpopular as an opinion as that may be, the Fighter class has a defined purpose (even though it may not be particularly good at it). I'll concede that 2+Int skill points is far too low - other than that, why does a Fighter, who for all intents and purposes is the big stick of the party, need a heap of skills?
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with. Fighters are meant, primarily to hit things hard. The Fighter is not meant to be a well-rounded class; it is a beatstick. No matter your stats, or your background, the Fighter is intended for combat. It doesn't require fixes for out-of-combat scenarios. It needs fixes to do the job that it was designed to do.
I really would like a description of these though, since at some point, most players will have likely fallen into one or two (or if you're like me, all except one).
I hate all gamers. You're all just a necessary evil that I require in order to enjoy my hobbies.
How do you overcome the penalties for dealing non-lethal damage with a lethal weapon, though? Assuming you're playing Kenshin and not the Battousai, that is.
Exactly. Studied Target looks heavily borrowed from the Guide Archetype, as well.
Most non-class skills have some sort of trait you can use, and there are archetypes that also give classes access as well, so my point there is already somewhat invalidated. I'm speaking more along what's available purely in-class.
I've played several Slayers in PFS and otherwise now. I'd be lying if I said this wasn't my current favourite class in the entirety of Pathfinder. It's certainly going to be the most skill-monkey-ish of the full BAB classes, moreso than the Ranger, thanks to its access to Trapfinding via Slayer Talents. In terms of damage, it may fall only ever slightly behind the Ranger, but that's not a bad thing for the flexibility you get in return. Rangers who lack the levels to access Instant Enemy suffer in DPR when they don't face their favored enemies; Slayers can overtake them in certain situations thanks to Studied Target and Sneak Attack. Above all else, it's the full BAB that's the real kicker. I've built Slayers as heavily-armored "Fighters", dedicated archers and marksmen, full-blown skill-monkeys and traditional backstabbing scoundrels; it's just such a wonderfully flexible mundane class that, for a non-spellcaster, doesn't punish or pidgeonhole you too much. My personal favourite build, though, has been the Switch Hitting Slayer; borrowed heavily from the Switch Hitting Ranger. Like the ranger variant, you use your Slayer Talents to take the Archery Combat Style and put your regular feats into melee feats. Just, bravo, Paizo. Bravo.
Ranger Combat Style prerequesites are not mentioned in the second version of the playtest. It seems implied that they function identical to the Ranger - all my GMs have ignored prerequisites based on RAI. It could certainly do with clarification.
I've never played a monk, archetyped or otherwise. But this looks like it's just taken the monk's more effective class features and backed it up with the "Best" aspects of a fighter.
So, mechanically speaking, why would I ever play a monk now?
So...it more or less invalidates the Bard. Gotcha.
Dotting for interest - would like to try a class I've not used before, will get back to you with app.
Consider Ancestors or Metal as alternatives to Battle. It depends on how you want to play the melee - Metal, like Battle also has access to Skill at Arms, but is more of a skirmishing mystery. It has movement speed buffs, damage bonuses while moving and bonuses to Fortitude saves. You also have access to scrying, good for assisting the party out of combat. 30ft move speed in Mithral Full Plate is pretty cool, no spells needed. Far as spells go, Metal gives you access to Lead Blades, Keen Edge and Versatile Weapon by level 8. The battle spells are much more defensive, so it's a matter of taste.
Dump Strength? Enjoy your pitiful Climb and Swim checks. And your horrible carrying weight. It will be a while before you get that Handy Haversack. You will want some Strength for your Composite Longbow. You don't get Sneak Attack, which makes damage sources for a DEX based ranger even more limited.
If you want to tweak it, and get yourself back that nice free Skill Focus; remember that in sword terminology, a "bastard sword" is just another name for a longsword. Generally speaking, of course. You could just call your longsword a bastard sword and have flexibility if offers.
4 Clerics OR 4 Druids Done.
Thank heavens someone posted the ScholaGladatoria videos. It is far less agile in one hand than most arming swords, or even longswords. The katana is not a "light" weapon. It is not comparable to a rapier by any means. It's an unbalanced hand-and-half sword; a top-heavy saber. Pathfinder succumbs to misconception and mystique by making the thing an exotic weapon and giving it Deadly. If anything, the Katana should be penalised for not having any functional guard. -1 to attack rolls, +1 to damage.
I'll see what I roll before really making committments. Set 1:
Set 2:
EDIT: NVM, Australia was still part of the British Empire in 1830. I'm interested, consider this a placeholder.
Assuming this is still open, I'll have a character up in the next few hours.
Play a Slayer. Full BAB, access to the Ranger's Favored Terrains, The Rogue's Trapfinding, Sneak Attack, plus Tracking, Quarry, 6+int skills, all the requisite scouting class skills. You get the best of both worlds from the Ranger and Rogue, and for combat-oriented variants you also get access to the Ranger's Combat styles. You basically get a feat at every level thanks to Slayer Talents.
I've added myself to the Player Queue now; If that table is still open, please count me in.
The playtest classes are a free download from the store. I'll hold off on them. This is Gestalt, it'll be hectic enough for you as is.
Playtest classes allowed, I take it?
In my experience, Gestalt just results in: full-casters being mixed with Fighter, or with another full-caster class. But g*+~!*n is it fun. Count me in.
Posting interest for Green Arrow. Potentially Archer Fighter/Ranger. |