The Genius Guide to the Talented Fighter (PFRPG) PDF

4.60/5 (based on 8 ratings)

Our Price: $3.99

Add to Cart
Facebook Twitter Email

The Genius Guide to the Talented Fighter rewrites the classic fighter class to use talents instead of static class abilities alternating with bonus feats. Rather than require all fighters be brave and balance their efforts between armor and weapon bonuses, each fighter can custom-fit the classes abilities to match a player’s specific concept. This increased flexibility allows the fighter to be the default combat-oriented character without limiting it to just one or two styles of fighting. And like a rogue, a fighter character can pick and choose from a range of similarly-powered abilities appropriate for the fighter’s role without making the class overpowered. The talented fighter still fills the same role in the party, but can customize his combat style and abilities to fill a much broader range of concepts.

Product Availability

Fulfilled immediately.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZOPDFRGGOWC5213E


See Also:

1 to 5 of 9 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

4.60/5 (based on 8 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Amazing work!


I bought this a while ago and just had a chance to sit down with it. I am impressed! This shows that not only does Owen KC Stephens know what he's doing with the Pathfinder system, it shows that the fighter doesn't need to be set in stone. You could theoretically build a fighter straight out of the Core Book, but why would you want to?

I really like the idea of using other Rogue Genius Games products to enhance this. The Bravery substitutions was something I had thought about while I was reading it.

With products like this, there really are few reasons for all the fighter-fixes on the boards. This addresses almost everything.

Flexibility: Yes (if you want it)
More Skill Points: Yes (if you choose it)
Better Saving Throws: No (Everyone should have a weakness :) )

This will be the version of the fighter I use in my games. There really are no reasons not to.


I'm not a fighter guy, buuuuut...

4/5

WHAT I EXPECTED:
Genius, of course.
Ability to replace class features like Armor Training, Bravery, or Weapon Training for other options like Fast Movement.

Honestly, I'm not a fighter guy. When I get to play, I always play something else that can fight, but never a dedicated fighter, so keep that in mind as you read my review and my expectations. I consider fighters to already be extremely diverse and thus expected Talented Fighter to be a difficult title to pull off. After looking at – and loving – the Talented Rogue and Barbarian titles, I found myself wondering just how much room there really is for change in the fighter.

WHAT I GOT:
No edges. After T/Rog and T/Brb, I was expecting to see “fighter edges” in the list. Maybe they aren't needed – it's just that the departure from the pattern is noticeable. Of course, T/Ftr came first and I looked at T/Rog first, so I'm going at this whole thing backwards, anyway...
No more bonus feats at even-numbered levels. That's now the “combat training” talent.
Talents at every level. Which means “fighter bonus feats” at every level, if you want to build one that way.

WHAT I THINK:

First off, I KNOW my kobold phalanx just got a lot more … interesting. But more on that later!

Owen starts off by explaining the idea behind ripping the class apart and laying out the abilities buffet-style for picking and choosing. Have I mentioned I really like this approach? This makes it easy to mix and match abilities from various fighter archetypes that have been published to achieve a unique character in both flavor and mechanics.

At first glance, it feels like fighters got the short-shaft treatment, getting just one talent per level and no edges, as compared to the T/Brb's bigger hit-die, more skill points, nearly identical skills-set, edge, talent, and primal reserve. However, a fighter's armor proficiencies with medium & heavy armor and shields are things a barbarian has to pay – and pay dearly – for. Fighters also start out with more cash for better weapons and armor. That's because the fighter's main purpose in life is to kill monsters and break their stuff. A barbarian is (quite) a bit more diverse in role than that.

Fighters have the ability to retrain talents, something I don't recall the other Talented classes having. I assume this is in addition to the new fighter talent gained at every level, although this is not explicitly stated one way or the other.

The talents offered are most definitely geared toward making the T/Ftr the best at killing monsters and breaking stuff, while avoiding being killed. Want to focus on VIP protection? You've got loads of options. Do you prefer to focus on your attacks rather than worrying about armor? Not a problem for the Talented Fighter. Prefer to define your shield specialization as being buckler-oriented? Or tower shield oriented? You can do it and do it with style. Turn your crossbowman into a crossbow sniper.

WHAT I THINK:
I had thought fighters were already a diverse class that really didn't need any tweaking or fiddling. I am now convinced I was totally wrong. I could now be enticed into playing a straight-up fighter. And, after looking at the book and comparing it to T/Rog and T/Brb, I honestly can't figure out where I would try to slide in edges for this class. (And if you want to see what Owen Stephens had to say about Talented Fighters and edges, check out his response to my very direct question on the Rogue Genius Games Facebook page.)

Even if this were the third entry in the series (since it is the third one I read), I would declare it to be a solid, credible entry into the series.

My players have new reason to fear kobolds now … the number of phalanx-fighting feats makes me want to go back and revisit/redesign those little buggers into a true fighting force!

WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK:

If your games include fighters, you should seriously consider adding this product to your library and replace the core fighter with the talented fighter. Especially if you pick up “More Fighter Talents,” as well. If your game includes fighters and you do NOT want to include the T/Ftr, you should STILL pick up this book, especially if you follow the guideline from “More Fighter Talents” about allowing the talents in these two books to be taken by a core fighter as a fighter-only feat. But you have to buy “MFT” to get the rules on that.


No more vanilla

5/5

Talented Fighter

I have enjoyed the entire talented line. It allows you the flexibility (even more than archetypes) to play the character concept you want while still being the core Pathfinder/D&D class-based system.

Talented Fighter does not have edges like the others in the talented line. But you get a talent every level that can be a talent or a combat feat. This allows a lot of flexibility and range, but it also allows a fighter to really hone in on things to be really good at it.

Talented Fighter can add spice to a kind of vanilla class. Example: War College - one time gain of 5 skill points to use in class skills.

Another one I like: Vital Combat - The fighter selects one weapon with which he is proficient. If the first attack he makes in round is made with this weapon, he may add the bonus damage dice from Vital Strike to that attack. He may also use this ability with Devastating Strike, Greater
Vital Strike, Improved Devastating Strike, and Improved Vital Strike if he has those feats. The
fighter cannot benefit from these feats more than once per turn. This overrides Vital Strike’s
normal limitation that it may only be used with an attack action.

Buy this and More Fighter Talents. You’ll be happy you did.


Excellent, per the usual

4/5

This product makes three basic observations. First, a feat is roughly equivalent to a talent or a standard fighter class feature. Second, almost every other class gets a new ability at each level, so there is no reason the fighter shouldn't as well. Third, most fighter archetypes are restrictive, and their abilities generally don't have much mechanical or logical connection to each other beyond an extreme specialization. The result is a straightforward rewrite of the fighter class that simply gives them a talent at every level(a combat feat being an available choice for every level, if you wish). The poor man's class feature, Bravery, now takes up one slot, as it should. Many of the talents were gleaned from existing fighter archetypes; others are new. Weapon mastery is now one of several grand talents available at 20th level. This book is fantastic, and you should buy it.

The only reason this book doesn't get 5 stars is its relatively buttoned down nature. It doesn't do anything radical or game-changing, which is not a defect in a product of this nature. However, there just weren't a lot of things that made me say, "Gosh, I wish I had thought of that." Still, it's hard to identify many more worthwhile purchases, especially for the price.


An Endzeitgeist.com review

5/5

This pdf is 14 pages long, 2/3 of a page front cover,1 page editorial/SRD, leaving 12 1/3 pages of content, so let's take a look!
I'll come right out and say it: I don't like the fighter-class. There. I get the appeal of many feats/the master-of-arms angle, but the base-class, since 2nd edition really, bored me terribly. Armor Training, weapon training, weapon specialization - I get their appeal and their mechanical raison d`être but personally, I always considered the class oh so boring. PrCs, archetypes and e.g. the revision of barbarian, ranger, paladin and monk classes, as well as the addition of inquisitors and cavaliers have made vanilla fighters all but non-existent in my game.

Now an issue, as the pdf acknowledges, is that fighters, to expand their options unlike other classes are often locked down to archetypes, which deprive the class to some extent of the flexibility at which they are supposed to excel at - enter the talented fighter as a proposed solution to this conundrum. The talented fighter gets full BAB, good fort-saves, d10, 2+Int-skills per level, proficiencies of simple and martial weapons as well as all armors and shields. The talented fighter gets a talent at every level, may select advanced talents at 10th level and grand talents at 20th level. Now if you do want to take bonus feats, rest assured that the pdf offers a talent that grants a bonus combat feat and armor training/weapon training, bravery etc. I.e., if you want the abilities associated with the base fighter, you can still go that way - only that now, you actually have much more options.

All in all, the pdf thus provides a vast array of talents and going through them would bloat this review to unpleasant lengths, so let me give you a run-down of what to expect: First of all, we have a lot of talents that essentially are scavenged from archetypes, breaking them down and allowing you to essentially cherry-pick e.g. abilities from the mobile fighter archetype, the tower shield specialist, the crossbowman or the roughrider - just to name a few. Feel free to look them up and think about whether picking a few of the archetype abilities wouldn't make for a valid decision. Essentially, the talent-based approach allows the talented fighter more versatility in that it makes these exclusive abilities generally available. Now not all of the talents in here are based on archetypes and grand talents/advanced talents e.g. include capstone abilities of archetypes or talents that have multiple prerequisites.
The pdf also offers advice on how to utilize talents from e.g. the witch hunter or armiger-classes and alternate class features of SGG-classes as talents and increase the usability of this alternate fighter even further.
Conclusion:
Editing and formatting of this latest revision are top-notch, I didn’t notice any glitches. Layout adheres to SGG’s 3-column full color standard and the pdf comes fully bookmarked with nested bookmarks that group the talents by letters. Whether you prefer the alphabetical array of talents or whether you would have enjoyed a grouping by styles/archetypes they’re derived from is ultimately a matter of taste, though I maintain that bookmarks would have served very well as an alternate means of grouping the talents – e.g. with a bookmark for crossbow-related talents and nested bookmarks beyond that one for the respective talents associated with that combat style.
How do you rate a pdf that is comparatively unimaginative in the bits and pieces it provides? Turns out, in this case, quite well – for the Talented Fighter is smart in that it does not aim to reinvent the wheel – it doesn’t have to. Instead, it takes existing concepts and streamlines them into a presentation that is thoroughly different from what you had associated with them into a form that is ultimately bigger than the sum of its parts.
The talented fighter takes my least favorite base-class and takes quite a bunch of archetypes/abilities to make the overall class simply more in line what I’d consider compelling class design, opening quite an array of formerly exclusive archetype abilities to the class and thus giving the fighter some exclusive toys to play with – a much overdue decision, at least in my opinion. Now is this the apex of originality? No. But is this a great way of breathing life and fun into the fighter class? To this question, my answer is a resounding “Yes!” Hence also the reason why I’ll gladly give this pdf a final verdict of 5 stars, omitting my seal of approval only since the alternate means of organizing the talents would have made for the superb icing on the cake. I strongly encourage you to check this out and make the fighter more singular and up to date.

Endzeitgeist out.


1 to 5 of 9 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Webstore Gninja Minion

Now available!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This sounds wonderful!

EDIT: This IS wonderful! I just purchased it and can't wait to build a fighter using this system. I think a talent system like this would benefit every class in PF (hint hint).

Contributor

I'm not going to restate what I already wrote in my review, but here is a thought to munch on.

On the product's second page, there is a large explanation as to why the talented fighter has no bonus feats. It boils down to, "Advanced Player's Guide says that a rogue talent is worth a feat, so we didn't think it was necessary to give you feats when you're getting fighter talents."

Consider this: are you giving every combat feat in the game to the talented fighter as a talent? The answer is obviously "No," so this means that there are several hundred options that your "talented" fighter cannot select from that every other fighter in the game can. If I am being generous, this product might have 50 talents. Maybe. There are 50 Combat Feats in the Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide alone. Easily. Almost all of the feats in Ultimate Combat can be selected as Fighter Bonus Feats; the category of Combat Feats is literally defined as "feats a Fighter can select as a bonus feat." But your fighter has no bonuses feats.

If we're only looking at the Core Rulebook Line, you've probably cut several hundred options from your fighter class. If we're being realistic, you've cut an infinite number of options from your class because not only are there Combat Feats in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Line, but the 300 3PPs produce Combat Feats as well, including Super Genius Games. And the trade off is that you can sort of kind of mix and match archetype powers, Its not a good trade and to me it seems counter-intuitive to the class's design.

As I mentioned in my review, what I personally would have done was give a Bonus Feat and a Talent at 1st level, then do Feats at even levels and Talents at odd levels, all the while adding an Extra Fighter Talent combat feat so a player could trade their Fighter bonus feat for a talent if they wanted to.


The talent doublestrike says that when using two weapons or holding a double weapon in both hands as a standard action the fighter may make one attack.

Any character can make one attack as a standard action so I'm wondering if this should say something else.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Alexander Augunas wrote:

I'm not going to restate what I already wrote in my review, but here is a thought to munch on.

On the product's second page, there is a large explanation as to why the talented fighter has no bonus feats. It boils down to, "Advanced Player's Guide says that a rogue talent is worth a feat, so we didn't think it was necessary to give you feats when you're getting fighter talents."

Well yes, because one of those talents, combat training, gives you a bonus feat. And it can be taken more than once. (Second sentence under "Where Are the Bonus Feats?")

So you can have exactly as many bonus feats as the core fighter, or you can have more, or you can have none. That is entirely dependent on what you need for the fighter you have envisions.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Consider this: are you giving every combat feat in the game to the talented fighter as a talent?

Well, yes. It's on page 5, middle of the left-hand column. Combat training. That's why I called it out in the sidebar.

The problem, by the way, with alternating between bonus feats and talents and giving a Bonus Talent feat is that means you can have more talents, because you could spend all your talents as talents AND all your regular feats on Extra Talent. While the talents are balanced if you are limited to one per level, being able to have three fighter talents and no feats as a 1st level human fighter caused some odd results.

But as presented, there is no concept you can build with a core fighter you cannot build with the talented fighter, and you aren't in any way cheated of the traditional bonus combat feat options.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Lohan wrote:

The talent doublestrike says that when using two weapons or holding a double weapon in both hands as a standard action the fighter may make one attack.

Any character can make one attack as a standard action so I'm wondering if this should say something else.

When cleaning up the wording of the first part of that in editing, we accidentally cut the crucial part of the talent. And when I gave my approvals pass, I only looked to see the new wording was in, and didn't notice a chunk of verbiage was missing.

It should read: "Doublestrike (Ex): [Archetype – Two-Weapon Warrior] When wielding two melee weapons or a double weapon in two hands, as a standard action the fighter may make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.
A fighter must be 6th level to select this talent."

I'll get that (and the vanguard label on the table) fixed as errata.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

This sounds wonderful!

EDIT: This IS wonderful! I just purchased it and can't wait to build a fighter using this system. I think a talent system like this would benefit every class in PF (hint hint).

Glad you liked it! Now, let's see how its is received in general before I do much more work on The Talented Monk.


@Owen
Sold. I'm going to buy this book, just because your doing one for the monk. You guys at SGG always put out great stuff.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Is super genius games trying to fix the fighter? What will we argue on the message boards over? Oh well at least there's still the monk to pick on...wait a minute...

This looks extremely interesting. If the talents are as varied and intersting as they are in most super genius classes this will be a cool addition to what I normally find a fairly dull class. Definately going to have to pick this up.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

This sounds wonderful!

EDIT: This IS wonderful! I just purchased it and can't wait to build a fighter using this system. I think a talent system like this would benefit every class in PF (hint hint).

Glad you liked it! Now, let's see how its is received in general before I do much more work on The Talented Monk.

If your test audience consisted of me alone, that'd be a bad benchmark to use. I think the fighter functions fairly well in Pathfinder, but I've long hated how all monks are locked into a specific set of abilities, with so little room for customization, despite the obvious idea of them practicing many different styles.

But maybe that's why it's better that your test audience has more people than just me in it. ;)


Alexander, can you give us an example of how you think it would be laid out better? Right now, it's using the standard Paizo method of presenting talents.

Contributor

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Well yes, because one of those talents, combat training, gives you a bonus feat. And it can be taken more than once. (Second sentence under "Where Are the Bonus Feats?")

So you can have exactly as many bonus feats as the core fighter, or you can have more, or you can have none. That is entirely dependent on what you need for the fighter you have envisions.

Ah, I see that now. I didn't notice that talent in either places. I'll go update my review with this knowledge in mind. (Edit: My review has been updated; Crunch Star Score has been increased from a 3 to a 4, which improves the product's score from me to a 3.5 / 5.)

However, I do think that this still shows a flaw in layout design; there is a LOT of abilities in the document and it is not very well organized. I was honestly looking for a talent called "Bonus Feat" or perhaps "Combat Trick" like what the Rogue gets. Didn't even notice Combat Training. Just because I was wrong that something was missing doesn't mean that I'm necessary wrong about the way the information was presented, after all.

Owen K.C. Stephens wrote:
Consider this: are you giving every combat feat in the game to the talented fighter as a talent?
The problem, by the way, with alternating between bonus feats and talents and giving a Bonus Talent feat is that means you can have more talents, because you could spend all your talents as talents AND all your regular feats on Extra Talent. While the talents are balanced if you are limited to one per level, being able to have three fighter talents and no feats as a 1st level human fighter caused some odd results.

That is an interesting and understandable point.

Contributor

Cheapy wrote:
Alexander, can you give us an example of how you think it would be laid out better? Right now, it's using the standard Paizo method of presenting talents.

Why yes! I can!

I recognized right away that the method provided in this book uses the exact same way that rogue talents are laid out. The problem, however, is that Rogue Talents are usually added in a Core Rulebook product in groups of 10 or so, and then further separated into normal talents and advanced talents. This product does the later, but not the former. Also, as someone with some InDesign skill, adding the lines "Archetype — X" over and over again probably munches up an untold number of lines from the product; it would not surprise me if you could squeeze one, maybe two extra talents into the product if it were laid out better. (I could be wrong, though. Never said I mastered InDesign! :-P)

Armored Fighter
The following talents improve a fighter’s skill at using his armor.
Armor Training (Ex):
Armored Defense (Ex):
Armored Pirate (Ex):
Fortification (Ex):

Maneuver Fighter
The following talents improve a fighter’s skill with combat maneuvers.
Close Control (Ex)
Disarming Strike (Ex):

Mobile Fighter
The following talents improve a fighter’s mobility on the battlefield.
Agility (Ex):
Leaping Attack (Ex):

Mounted Fighter
The following talents improve a fighter’s skill at fighting while mounted.
Armored Charger (Ex):
Equestrian (Ex):
Leap from the Saddle (Ex):
Steadfast Mount (Ex):

One-Handed Fighter
The following talents increase a fighter’s skill with one-handed weapons.
Deceptive Strike (Ex):
Elusive (Ex):
Singleton (Ex):
Timely Tip (Ex):

Ranged Fighter
The following talents increase a fighter’s skill with ranged weapons.
Deadshot (Ex):
Hawkeye (Ex):
Improved Deadshot (Ex):
Quick Sniper (Ex):
Return Fire (Ex):
Safe Shot (Ex):
Trick Shot (Ex):

Reach Fighter
The following talents increase a fighter’s skill with reach weapons.
Pole Fighting (Ex):
Ready Pike (Ex):
Spinning Lance (Ex):
Steadfast Pike (Ex):

Shield Fighter
The following talents increase a fighter’s versatility with shields.
Active Defense (Ex):
Buckler Catch (Ex):
Burst Barrier (Ex):
Deflective Shield (Ex):
Deft Shield (Ex):
Phalanx Fighting (Ex):
Shield Ally (Ex):
Shield Buffet (Ex):
Stand Firm (Ex):
Strong Swing (Ex):
Swift Positioning (Ex):

Two-Handed Fighter
The following talents increase a fighter’s skill at wielding two-handed weapons.
Backswing (Ex):
Overhand Chop (Ex):
Shattering Strike (Ex):

Two-Weapon Fighter
The following talents increase a fighter’s skill when fighting with two weapons at once.
Defensive Flurry (Ex):
Doublestrike (Ex):
Twin Blades (Ex):

Versatile Fighter
The following talents are suitable for any fighter who meets their prerequisites.
Bravery (Ex):
Brawny (Ex):
Combat Training:
Deck Fighting (Ex):
Evasive Fighter (Ex):
Flexible Flanker (Ex):
Menacing Stance (Ex):
Siegecraft (Ex):
Team Player (Ex):
Vital Combat (Ex):
War College (Ex):
War Face (Ex):
Weapon Training (Ex):
Woodsman (Ex):

I'd also drop the list of Fighter Weapon Groups; its a waste of space and anyone buying your products has the Core Rulebook and probably has Ultimate Combat. But by ordering the talents like Star Wars Saga talent trees, you'd add just a little bit of order into the chaos that is a massive list of talents, make it easier to do Bullet Points for the product (for example: Bullet Points — More Versatile Fighter Talents), and make it easier to see what's been supported pretty well and what hasn't.

I'd also go through and see if I could unmarry some of the talents from specific weapons. For example, changing Pole Fighting to Reach Fighting and allowing it to work with any reach weapon makes a lot of sense. Same for many of the ranged weapons that specify that they only work with crossbows and firearms (hint: almost all of them exclude bows).


Just the viewpoint of your average PDF buyer. I have a number of SGG PDFs. Some I have really liked, a couple I have seriously been disappointed in, and most are useful when I need that sort of thing.

So when I saw talented fighters I thought "I'll check it out, but I doubt I'll be interested."

I read the review and the information on how it is organized made me completly lose interest.

But I read the above post and now I'm interested again.

My point is, how a product is organized is a big deal (at least for me).

Alphabetizion (sp) is a great way to find the *one* thing you are looking for. So it works as a reference work (like a dictionary).

It's terrible for concept refererence. I hate how in the core rulebook, if I'm interested in, say manuever feats, all the greater feats are in one spot (and who has all of them) and the improved feats are in another. I'd much rather have Trip, Greater and Trip, Improved next to each other. More like a thesaurus, all words related to a concept in one spot.

As a DM, if I create a shield fighter, the way Alexander organizes it places all of the talents I want (and need to reference) in one spot.

TL:DR Organize product according to the way people play the game. Organize like a thesaurus and not like a dictionary.

* Apologies for the spelling errors.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Alexander Augunas wrote:
I'd also drop the list of Fighter Weapon Groups; its a waste of space and anyone buying your products has the Core Rulebook and probably has Ultimate Combat.

First, I certainly don't want to assume everyne has UC. Second, I don't want someone building a fighter using this book to have to look up fighter-specific information in another fighter class entry. Third, there is a brand-new entry on that chart. :D

Alexander Augunas wrote:

I'd also go through and see if I could unmarry some of the talents from specific weapons.

I agree. That's why I did that. :)

Alexander Augunas wrote:
For example, changing Pole Fighting to Reach Fighting and allowing it to work with any reach weapon makes a lot of sense.

Okay, what reach weapon that you could choke up on that isn't a spear or polearm worries you?

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Same for many of the ranged weapons that specify that they only work with crossbows and firearms (hint: almost all of them exclude bows).

So it’s interesting you should mention the ranged weapon talents. I did extensive studies on them and what weapons they should work with. There are actually only a very few that exclude bows, and that a design choice rather than an oversight.

Deadshot does work only with crossbows, for two specific reasons. The first is game mechanical. The crossbow has no way of adding a character’s Strength to its damage score, so having a damage adder brings the weapon up to par with other ranged weapons. The second is conceptual. Deadshot only works when you use it for a readied attack. One of the real-world advantages of the crossbow is that you can keep it ready to fire in a split second without having to hold its string back yourself (like a box), or spinning (like a sling), or have your arm cocked back (like a thrown weapon). That makes the crossbow different enough both conceptually and mechanically to justify having some talents that are unique to it. The William Tell archetype is pretty popular, and I don’t have a problem making the crossbow a better choice for fighters than most simple weapons are.

The same is true of improved deadshot and greater deadshot, obviously. Return fire has some similar issues, but I added firearms.

Hawkeye applies only to bows, because it’s about range. Crossbows already have deadshot (and I don’t want crossbows to be universally better than bows), and other ranged weapons have shorter range increments, so the bonuses would be more of a boost for them.

Penetrating shot was expanded to any ranged piercing attack. Since is specifies the attack pierces a foe, I really didn’t want to apply it to slings and rocks.

Quick sniper, safe shot, trick shot, greater trick shot, meteor shot, and volley can all apply to whatever ranged weapon the fighter is focused on.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Hey, having first seen this thread at OMG:30 in the morning, I missed that Alexander Augunas is Golden-Esque.

Which means I responded to some comments as I would anyone participating in a discussion, rather than a reviewer.

I just read the review, which apparently has already taken some changes. It's always my intent to respect the time and effort a review is taking to write up a review of something I have written. That didn't come across in this case, because I missed that the existing review was written by one of the commenters.

So many, many thanks to Alexander Augunas/Golden-Esque for the review!

Dark Archive

Sounds very cool, into the sidecart it goes.

Contributor

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Hey, having first seen this thread at OMG:30 in the morning, I missed that Alexander Augunas is Golden-Esque.

Which means I responded to some comments as I would anyone participating in a discussion, rather than a reviewer.

I just read the review, which apparently has already taken some changes. It's always my intent to respect the time and effort a review is taking to write up a review of something I have written. That didn't come across in this case, because I missed that the existing review was written by one of the commenters.

So many, many thanks to Alexander Augunas/Golden-Esque for the review!

Yeah, its a weird side effect of switching personas in the past few years. My account has always been Golden-Esque, but when I authored Pact Magic Unbound, Vol. 1 I wanted to switch my Paizo persona to my actual name so people could contact me about the book if they wanted to.

However, some things still post under my original forum name (namely reviews) and that can be frustrating; I haven't figured out how to solve that problem yet, since I'd love for my reviews to use my real name too.

My posts are bolded.

Owen wrote:

'd also go through and see if I could unmarry some of the talents from specific weapons.

I agree. That's why I did that. :)

I was specifically referring to the ranged attacking talents. Most of them still specify crossbows or firearms. There are few (if any) talents that help an archer or a thrown weapon fighter, for example. Changing those talents to all ranged attacks instead of a specific list of ranged weapons would help in that regard.

Owen wrote:

For example, changing Pole Fighting to Reach Fighting and allowing it to work with any reach weapon makes a lot of sense.

Okay, what reach weapon that you could choke up on that isn't a spear or polearm worries you?

The following weapons have reach (and therefor cannot be used to attack adjacent foes) but are not polearms: dwarven chain-flail, dwarven longaxe, dwarven longblade, flailpole, flying blade, kobold tail attachment (long-lash), lance, and ripsaw glaive.

Now, granted, the dwarven chain flail can remove its own reach as a move action (the talent does it quicker, though) and I can't think of a scenario where one would want to lower the reach on a lance. In addition, there is a strong chance that if an update was ever made, the the dwarven and gnome weapons would be added to the polearm group anyway, but currently they are not, and therefore as written a player can't use them with the polearm talents when they probably should. So basically, by only requiring that the weapon be a reach weapon, you're opening up possibilities while assuring that future weapons that will be added to the game gain the benefits they should from your class without needing to wait for GM approval or an errata.

Owen wrote:

Same for many of the ranged weapons that specify that they only work with crossbows and firearms (hint: almost all of them exclude bows).

So it’s interesting you should mention the ranged weapon talents. I did extensive studies on them and what weapons they should work with. There are actually only a very few that exclude bows, and that a design choice rather than an oversight.

Deadshot does work only with crossbows, for two specific reasons. The first is game mechanical. The crossbow has no way of adding a character’s Strength to its damage score, so having a damage adder brings the weapon up to par with other ranged weapons. The second is conceptual. Deadshot only works when you use it for a readied attack. One of the real-world advantages of the crossbow is that you can keep it ready to fire in a split second without having to hold its string back yourself (like a box), or spinning (like a sling), or have your arm cocked back (like a thrown weapon). That makes the crossbow different enough both conceptually and mechanically to justify having some talents that are unique to it. The William Tell archetype is pretty popular, and I don’t have a problem making the crossbow a better choice for fighters than most simple weapons are.

The same is true of improved deadshot and greater deadshot, obviously. Return fire has some similar issues, but I added firearms.

I never like choices that are made for "real world reason." I have found that the argument starts to break down when Colossal Red Great Wyrms enter the mix. Despite that, if its a design choice that's one thing.

Quote:
Hawkeye applies only to bows, because it’s about range. Crossbows already have deadshot (and I don’t want crossbows to be universally better than bows), and other ranged weapons have shorter range increments, so the bonuses would be more of a boost for them.

And that's sort of what's lame about them in my opinion. The crossbow gets a boost to something it wasn't good at (no damage modifiers) while the bow gets made better at something it was already the best option for.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
I was specifically referring to the ranged attacking talents. Most of them still specify crossbows or firearms. There are few (if any) talents that help an archer or a thrown weapon fighter, for example.

you say that, but then you quote the deisgner when he points out that there are only five ranged talents that DON'T apply to archers, and more apply to all ranged than don't.

Penetrating shot, quick sniper, safe shot, trick shot, greater trick shot, meteor shot, and volley are NOT limited to crossbows, while only deadshot (& improved and greater) and return fire are limited to crossbowsd/firearms.

So your "few if any" reference ignores that MORE THAN HALF apply to any ranged weapon.

Contributor

Dungeon Grrrl wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I was specifically referring to the ranged attacking talents. Most of them still specify crossbows or firearms. There are few (if any) talents that help an archer or a thrown weapon fighter, for example.

you say that, but then you quote the deisgner when he points out that there are only five ranged talents that DON'T apply to archers, and more apply to all ranged than don't.

Penetrating shot, quick sniper, safe shot, trick shot, greater trick shot, meteor shot, and volley are NOT limited to crossbows, while only deadshot (& improved and greater) and return fire are limited to crossbowsd/firearms.

So your "few if any" reference ignores that MORE THAN HALF apply to any ranged weapon.

True, but half of the ones you listed can't be selected until 10th level because they're Advanced Talents. That leaves Quick Sniping, Safe Shot, and Trick Shot as options if you're an archer, a sling user, or a thrown weapons user. Even then, I'm reluctant to even list Quick Sniping among the other two, considering that it really makes you better at using the Stealth skill in one particular way rather than making you better at ranged combat.

@Owen: I've been thinking about your comment about how Extra Fighter Talents felt weird because you could end up with five talents and no feats as a 3rd level human fighter. Isn't the opposite true? Can't you end up with 6 feats and no talents as the same fighter? In effect, you could have even MORE fears than the default fighter if you really wanted to.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Alexander Augunas wrote:
@Owen: I've been thinking about your comment about how Extra Fighter Talents felt weird because you could end up with five talents and no feats as a 3rd level human fighter. Isn't the opposite true? Can't you end up with 6 feats and no talents as the same fighter? In effect, you could have even MORE fears than the default fighter if you really wanted to.

It wasn't that they "felt weird," it's that it produced weird results. There are feats I consider to be very likely to be crucial to a fighter build for it to perform its core function. No talent is crucial, though lots are useful. Players going with all-feat builds (which can indeed exceed the total number of feats a core fighter could have) tend to end up with characters that function well as fighters and fall in a normal power range. Players who made all-talent builds when I went the other way often ended up with character who couldn't function well as fighters.

If a character *can't* go all-talent, then players were encouraged to pick up at least a few combat feats, and functioned normally. Even just 1 or two feats seems to make a huge difference, even at mid levels.

So after seeing a lot of playtesting ding it each way, this was the result I selected. In play, it consistently produced happy players, while the other option did not.

Contributor

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
@Owen: I've been thinking about your comment about how Extra Fighter Talents felt weird because you could end up with five talents and no feats as a 3rd level human fighter. Isn't the opposite true? Can't you end up with 6 feats and no talents as the same fighter? In effect, you could have even MORE fears than the default fighter if you really wanted to.

It wasn't that they "felt weird," it's that it produced weird results. There are feats I consider to be very likely to be crucial to a fighter build for it to perform its core function. No talent is crucial, though lots are useful. Players going with all-feat builds (which can indeed exceed the total number of feats a core fighter could have) tend to end up with characters that function well as fighters and fall in a normal power range. Players who made all-talent builds when I went the other way often ended up with character who couldn't function well as fighters.

If a character *can't* go all-talent, then players were encouraged to pick up at least a few combat feats, and functioned normally. Even just 1 or two feats seems to make a huge difference, even at mid levels.

So after seeing a lot of playtesting ding it each way, this was the result I selected. In play, it consistently produced happy players, while the other option did not.

This is a very good point, considering how powerful many feats are. Especially things like the combat maneuver improvement feats.

Second question; any plans to produce more fighter talents?


I really like this book and the class. But, I'm really afraid of this being the go-to ammunition for the martial/caster disparity arguments on these forums. Oh well. Still, a really good class.


I have to say, as someone who normally really dislikes the fighter (the underpowered parts plus the fact that it doesn't really do the whole "master of all arms" thing that well at all), I am VERY impressed at how this changes the core class. Normally, whenever someone asks at my playgroup on "How to make a good fighter", I usually point them in the direction of another class saying that they'll probably not able to get it done what they wanted/there were better options at a class that just "fought things".

Review to come soon, however I'd like to say this is an amazing job at this. I would have preferred it be organized in a similar way as Alexander Augunas mentioned but that's just a petty complaint to such a job well done.

On the regards about feats vs talents, alot of the talents seem dependent on feats, but not vice versa. Besides Staple feats (Hi Power attack/TWF if you're doing that kind of build), I don't see why you'd feel underpowered in a build with just talents.

Again, wanna say amazing job, when I get the chance this is DEFINITELY up on the review queue.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Second question; any plans to produce more fighter talents?

Definitely...maybe. Despite so many talents being taken from archetypes, producing and playtesting them actually took a LOT of time and effort. Many are altered in subtle little ways to work better as generic fighter talents, others were deleted in favor of combining very-similar talents. In short, they take a lot of energy to do right.

Now I had some ideas that haven't been fully playtested yet, but this book was already overdue and 13 pages long. The bigger a pdf is, the more of a risk it represents for me. If I put tons of effort into an 18-page pdf and it's a flop, that's a lot of my time wasted and not much to show for it.

And this is a weird thing to do. I've been thinking about it for a long time, but wasn't sure anyone would care. I mean, it's a redesign of the most basic core class. And my goal was not to make it more powerful or change its core function, only to allow more different kinds of builds to easily perform that function. And we really haven't ever done a book like this before, so I had nothing to use to predict popularity or sales.

(And I won't have any useful sales data for a while yet).

So I have a few follow-ups in mind. More fighter talents is one. The Talented Monk is another. If there was a strong cry for it, I could do fighter talents sooner than expected in the form of a #1 With a Bullet Point, perhaps with twice as much content as the usual one page, for $1.

If I do a whole line of Talented classes... well some sort of expanded coverage is likely at that point but we are still pretty far from that.

Contributor

Rubber Block wrote:

I have to say, as someone who normally really dislikes the fighter (the underpowered parts plus the fact that it doesn't really do the whole "master of all arms" thing that well at all), I am VERY impressed at how this changes the core class. Normally, whenever someone asks at my playgroup on "How to make a good fighter", I usually point them in the direction of another class saying that they'll probably not able to get it done what they wanted/there were better options at a class that just "fought things".

Review to come soon, however I'd like to say this is an amazing job at this. I would have preferred it be organized in a similar way as Alexander Augunas mentioned but that's just a petty complaint to such a job well done.

On the regards about feats vs talents, alot of the talents seem dependent on feats, but not vice versa. Besides Staple feats (Hi Power attack/TWF if you're doing that kind of build), I don't see why you'd feel underpowered in a build with just talents.

Again, wanna say amazing job, when I get the chance this is DEFINITELY up on the review queue.

Having played a core fighter, I truly believe that the underpowered part is a myth if you build your character to do more than just DPR. If you're looking for massive damage output AND the ability to do other things, then yes, there are better classes for you. However, the fighter gets so many feats that if you use them to gain access to the various combat maneuvers, you have a strong character who can lock down the battlefield all day. Not three or four times a day, like a sorcerer or wizard, but all day. If the fighter can keep good control of the battlefield, then that means the wizard might not need to prepare a spell like sleet storm and can leave the slot open for flexibility, for example. Or the sorcerer can pick a different spell that he might find more useful. Or maybe they're prepare sleet storm or one of the other myriad other impairing spells and the fighter's job will be to help the AoE's work by repositioning enemies into it.

The vanilla fighter is a deceptively strong class out of the box and honestly the talented fighter is going to be just as good at that role. Where this product shines is building a fighter that can be better at multiple combat styles, which the core fighter doesn't really need, but having the options to do it if you have a specific build in mind is a good thing.

Contributor

Rubber Block wrote:

I have to say, as someone who normally really dislikes the fighter (the underpowered parts plus the fact that it doesn't really do the whole "master of all arms" thing that well at all), I am VERY impressed at how this changes the core class. Normally, whenever someone asks at my playgroup on "How to make a good fighter", I usually point them in the direction of another class saying that they'll probably not able to get it done what they wanted/there were better options at a class that just "fought things".

Review to come soon, however I'd like to say this is an amazing job at this. I would have preferred it be organized in a similar way as Alexander Augunas mentioned but that's just a petty complaint to such a job well done.

On the regards about feats vs talents, alot of the talents seem dependent on feats, but not vice versa. Besides Staple feats (Hi Power attack/TWF if you're doing that kind of build), I don't see why you'd feel underpowered in a build with just talents.

Again, wanna say amazing job, when I get the chance this is DEFINITELY up on the review queue.

Having played a core fighter, I truly believe that the underpowered part is a myth if you build your character to do more than just DPR. If you're looking for massive damage output AND the ability to do other things, then yes, there are better classes for you. However, the fighter gets so many feats that if you use them to gain access to the various combat maneuvers, you have a strong character who can lock down the battlefield all day. Not three or four times a day, like a sorcerer or wizard, but all day. If the fighter can keep good control of the battlefield, then that means the wizard might not need to prepare a spell like sleet storm and can leave the slot open for flexibility, for example. Or the sorcerer can pick a different spell that he might find more useful. Or maybe they're prepare sleet storm or one of the other myriad other impairing spells and the fighter's job will be to help the AoE's work by repositioning enemies into it.

The vanilla fighter is a strong class out of the box and honestly the talented fighter is going to be just as good at that role. Where this product shines is building a fighter that can be better at multiple combat styles, which the core fighter doesn't really need, but having the options to do it if you have a specific build in mind is a good thing.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Yeah, this was not an effort to "power up" the fighter. I have played and GMed many fighters who needed no power up, at all levels of play.

I described this to someone as "trying to let the fighter does what the fighter is good at in more different ways."


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
If there was a strong cry for it, I could do fighter talents sooner than expected in the form of a #1 With a Bullet Point, perhaps with twice as much content as the usual one page, for $1.

It's the #1 Pathfinder pdf on RPGNow. Is that cry enough? If not, add my voice to the demands for more fighter talents!

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

It's certainly motivational. Your voice has been counted. :)


Add me top the motivation. Nice work and more would not make me unhappy.


Just bought this book last night, I friggin loved it! Good job on this one, it really opens up a lot of possibilities for players. I hope you have enough positive feedback on this for you to do The Talented Monk. I'm looking forward to buying the rest of the series and the additional Bullet Points that go with them.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For my home games, I've been using talents for Fighters and certain other classes for quite some time. I've been alternating Talents with Bonus Feats, so that Fighter gets 10 talents across levels. I'm gonna buy this one, just so that I can steal some of SGG talents for my game. :)


@ nightflier
You should buy this one, if you've been using talents from other classes for your fighter you'll really like this book.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

R_Chance wrote:
Add me top the motivation. Nice work and more would not make me unhappy.
Arkady Zelenka wrote:
Just bought this book last night, I friggin loved it! Good job on this one, it really opens up a lot of possibilities for players. I hope you have enough positive feedback on this for you to do The Talented Monk. I'm looking forward to buying the rest of the series and the additional Bullet Points that go with them.

Okay, the votes are piling up...


You can add my vote to this too. Really liking it as well.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sethvir wrote:
You can add my vote to this too. Really liking it as well.

Okay, I am convinced. I'll move more talents forward in my list.

I'm glad you are all enjoying it. :)


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


Sethvir wrote:

You can add my vote to this too. Really liking it as well.

Okay, I am convinced. I'll move more talents forward in my list.

I'm glad you are all enjoying it. :)

Excellent. And thanks for the quick errata, that is always appreciated.


I'd vote for the rogue to get a shot at this new line too, even though they already have some talents.

Contributor

Cheapy wrote:
I'd vote for the rogue to get a shot at this new line too, even though they already have some talents.

I'd argue that the rogue needs this system more than any other class. At least the Monk has the qinggong archetype, which sort of works similarly. The rogue has a giant barrel of archetypes that all trade away trapfinding, which is one of the main reasons party want a rogue in the first place!


So it looks like we got our next two products: monks and rogues.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

LOL

I am amused to see fans planning this line's development without me. On the other hand, that's GREAT feedback, and I often find writing things people have said they want works in my favor...

IF I did The Talented Rogue, it would have a LOT of talents, since I'd want to include all the existing talents AND add some new ones AND add things from archetype. And there's be no good way to avoid the dreaded wall of text, since most existing rogue talents aren't typed into any kind of sub-category. That would be a lot of work for me, and a relatively modest amount of new material as a result.

Is that really something multiple people want?


Owen, stop asking questions and get to work on The Talented Rogue! :p

P.S. Why don't you visit my father?

Contributor

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

LOL

I am amused to see fans planning this line's development without me. On the other hand, that's GREAT feedback, and I often find writing things people have said they want works in my favor...

IF I did The Talented Rogue, it would have a LOT of talents, since I'd want to include all the existing talents AND add some new ones AND add things from archetype. And there's be no good way to avoid the dreaded wall of text, since most existing rogue talents aren't typed into any kind of sub-category. That would be a lot of work for me, and a relatively modest amount of new material as a result.

Is that really something multiple people want?

Ouch, roll to confirm your critical hit against my heart. : /

In other news, I updated my review to reflect that errata that came out last week.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, with regards to the rogue, according to Endzeitgeist's review of Drop Dead Studio's Rogue Glory, there is already a product out there that appears to do exactly what people seem to be asking for in this thread.


Posted my review. As far as it goes, the rogue could be interesting, but I feel like you'd want to roll the Ninja in there too, but Rogue Glory is doing a similar thing. Being able to get the Ninja's ki pool as opposed to the joke known as the Ki Pool Rogue talent would be good too, but balancing that could be a bit of a sticky wicket since at first level the Rogue gets wayyyy more at first level then most classes.

I'm a little more in favor of the Rogue then the Monk, but I also might be biased a little in that I feel the Rogue needs a little bit more of a boost then the Monk, since the Monk has gotten better with new stuff coming out, but the Rogue has just gotten worse since everybody can do everything he can do (and possibly better).


I personally don't care which is done first because Owen puts out awesome products. I also might be biased in favor of doing the monk because the monk has got all this hate-mail on its back and The Man with the Iron Fists is in the top 5 of the movies I will watch repeatedly. Like I said, Owen does a bang up job on his projects and I can't wait to read the next in the "Talented" series.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Rubber Block wrote:
Posted my review.

Many thanks for the review!

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Rubber Block wrote:

As far as it goes, the rogue could be interesting, but I feel like you'd want to roll the Ninja in there too, but Rogue Glory is doing a similar thing. Being able to get the Ninja's ki pool as opposed to the joke known as the Ki Pool Rogue talent would be good too, but balancing that could be a bit of a sticky wicket since at first level the Rogue gets wayyyy more at first level then most classes.

I'm a little more in favor of the Rogue then the Monk, but I also might be biased a little in that I feel the Rogue needs a little bit more of a boost then the Monk, since the Monk has gotten better with new stuff coming out, but the Rogue has just gotten worse since everybody can do everything he can do (and possibly better).

For both the monk and rogue the core idea of a Talented version would not be to "fix" the class, but to make the class more flexibly adaptable to a wide range of concepts. That would make the balancing act VERY tricky.

Honestly I had envisioned doing a Talented Monk and even Talented Cavalier and possibly Talented Barbarian or Talented Gunslinger (though those don't need such a rewrite as badly) before tackling talented rogue. So IF I move the Talented Rogue up the priority list, it'll be as a result of patron feedback.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


For both the monk and rogue the core idea of a Talented version would not be to "fix" the class, but to make the class more flexibly adaptable to a wide range of concepts. That would make the balancing act VERY tricky.

Honestly I had envisioned doing a Talented Monk and even Talented Cavalier and possibly Talented Barbarian or Talented Gunslinger (though those don't need such a rewrite as badly) before tackling talented rogue. So IF I move the Talented Rogue up the priority list, it'll be as a result of patron feedback.

One thing to keep in mind is the ninja is the rogue. You are not 'fixing the rogue in the sense of increasing its power to balance it with other classes. Ki pool is already a rogue option, its just currently only an option for rogues who are also ninjas. Making it a part of the talented rogue, or something like it part of the talented rogue would just be allowing for this ability to be available for a wider variety of rogue based concepts.

Personally I am of the view that if you changed ki to panache you could easily use it as fuel for similar if not identical ki-powers.

It would definately be tricky and definately take playtesting, but its doable.

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / The Genius Guide to the Talented Fighter (PFRPG) PDF All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.