Could be wrong, but I believe Paizo is trying to minimize the pounce options, so I wouldn't think so.Any chance we get a combat feat allowing charge + full round attacks?
Possibly so, but ONE option exists for sure and it has predictably become a "mandatory" choice for a certain melee class (barbarians). "Limiting pounce options" at this point means one class gets it and no one else does and that's a big reason we see a prevalence of barbarians over other melee classes imo (it's one reason, of course Barbs are strong for several other options only they have access to via rage powers)
I am hoping that they won't be too much of a feat investment and there will be feats that do more than increase damage and attack rolls.While some snuck in, for the most part I was trying to only include combat feats that didn't add to attack and damage rolls, but instead created other interesting options.
Very interested, can't wait for previews!
My only hope it's that it's not the typical "bonus to X combat maneuver/feint". Those playstyles have already enough feats to support them - namely, said maneuver feats.
I'd totally love some feats to go deeper on fighting styles that are currently weaker than extreme alternatives instead -- 1H free hand? Expanded sword and pistol? Throwing weapon switch-hitters?
Would also be cool to see styles based on otherwise unexciting feats or mechanics, like readied attacks or Vital Strikes or Spring Attacks.
From what I gather, Buckler + Weapon and 1H Weapons will get SOME support, as Rondelero and Cayden have been mentioned...
I don't know, man. Do you REALLY want to have to pay for errata? That seems like a slippery slope to me.Myself, I'd rather support material (for whatever non-core book) appear where and when it seems appropriate, rather than have it shoehorned into a particular line of books because that's "traditionally" where it would appear.That would also be a good opportunity to errata some of the feats from player companions.I like it better than not getting errata ever. :/
(No offense meant.)
That´s why i said that. Of course there are no tears of joy, but especially with PFS, this seems like the best option to me.
There are some really nice and interesting feats in player companions which got banned in PFS because they are unclear in wording or mechanics and need more work (what could also done in some kind of clarity control or small playtest, especially the language clearup. In my eyes language in this game has become some kind of privilege.)Others were complained about because some loud people didn´t like them and got nerfs that made them unplayable.
That´s also sometimes a general design problem.
One "if" in a feat is good and ok.
Two "ifs" become situational and depend on the effect.
Three are just too much.
"If" means condition, situation, criteria in this case.
That would be an argument for printing a PFS Clarification book seperatly which would have the advantage that it would be clear for those of us who have no interest in PFS could ignore it rather than getting such clarifications inserted in a book of general purpose and thus wasting the page space for people like me.
The weapon design system is what I'm curious about, though I rather figured that any pre-gunpowder weapon imaginable has either been statted out by now or can be covered by something already existing.
That would be an argument for printing a PFS Clarification book seperatly which would have the advantage that it would be clear for those of us who have no interest in PFS could ignore it rather than getting such clarifications inserted in a book of general purpose and thus wasting the page space for people like me.
Don´t know about that. Most people i know running home campaigns use PFS rules as orientation at least, for different reasons. The rest is almost always a lot more restrictive, just plainly banning things.
And PFS or not, there are enough people interested in getting some FAQ´s or errata on certain things from player companions.
Since the base Fighter class IS the Weapon master class via Weapon Training, does that mean this book comes up with a Unchained-like version upgrade of the base Fighter?
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope I can get weapon training as a paladin. :p :)
Yeah, make the fighter even more worthless while we're at it. :P
==Aelryinth
I just want more Fighter-exclusive feats that are cool and exciting, and perhaps grant more uses to INT/WIS/CHA. For example, a Fighter 8 feat that granted INT as a bonus to AC would make the class have more interest in fixing its 2+INT/level skill rank issue.
Granting stat bonuses to something is almost always a bad idea. Fixed amounts of bonuses tied to class characteristics are always inherently more controllable, and thus more balanced.
Stat ties also mean you REQUIRE high stats to make them useful (like fighter armor training), instead of being a straight out class benefit (like monk bonus +AC is), which means you're now inflicting MAD on a class. It's bad class/feat design.
==Aelryinth
Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do not present a Pathfinder Unchained rewrite of the fighter class in this book. It isn't the right place to do such a thing, and it would take way too much production time to design and playtest an entire class revision.
That said, the fighter absolutely has a special place in this book (as does the weapon master archetype for the fighter). The advanced weapon mastery rules, for example, give fighters brand new conceptual toys to play with.
This isn't a fighter-only book, since lots of characters can focus on weapon use. But it is very much a new-ways-to-fight magic and keeps tightly linked to combatant options (for example, being the first Player Companion I've developed without a single spell in it, despite offering up ways to fly and teleport).
|
Developer
|
Stat ties also mean you REQUIRE high stats to make them useful (like fighter armor training), instead of being a straight out class benefit (like monk bonus +AC is), which means you're now inflicting MAD on a class. It's bad class/feat design.
Armor training has a lot more going on with it than just allowing you a greater Dex bonus to AC. It's absolutely not a worse game design than giving a fighter a flat +1 bonus to AC, it instead a game design geared toward a different and broader goal.
Allowing a character to benefit from a higher ability bonus is not the same as requiring the character to depend on a high ability score in order to be effective. Allowing a fighter, who already has good AC options from medium and then heavy armor, to reduce the penalties (moving at full speed, which increases mobility and the chance to make a full attack action) in armor gives him significant benefits even if he has no additional Dex modifier, and means that things like enhancement bonuses to Dex can be taken advantage of when an additional boost is needed. But in no way is the fighter penalized for a lower Dex, unlike the monk who loses class features if armor of any kind is worn.
We do not present a Pathfinder Unchained rewrite of the fighter class in this book. It isn't the right place to do such a thing, and it would take way too much production time to design and playtest an entire class revision.
That said, the fighter absolutely has a special place in this book (as does the weapon master archetype for the fighter). The advanced weapon mastery rules, for example, give fighters brand new conceptual toys to play with.
This isn't a fighter-only book, since lots of characters can focus on weapon use. But it is very much a new-ways-to-fight magic and keeps tightly linked to combatant options (for example, being the first Player Companion I've developed without a single spell in it, despite offering up ways to fly and teleport).
Fascinating! I look forwards to seeing the new tools with which my people shall crush you pitiful fleshbags!
I just want more Fighter-exclusive feats that are cool and exciting, and perhaps grant more uses to INT/WIS/CHA. For example, a Fighter 8 feat that granted INT as a bonus to AC would make the class have more interest in fixing its 2+INT/level skill rank issue.
well they aren't "technically" feats but maybe it can hold you over?
Awesome - options for Gnolls!!!
....oh....right. Well, still could work, I guess
Stat ties also mean you REQUIRE high stats to make them useful (like fighter armor training), instead of being a straight out class benefit (like monk bonus +AC is), which means you're now inflicting MAD on a class. It's bad class/feat design.Armor training has a lot more going on with it than just allowing you a greater Dex bonus to AC. It's absolutely not a worse game design than giving a fighter a flat +1 bonus to AC, it instead a game design geared toward a different and broader goal.
Allowing a character to benefit from a higher ability bonus is not the same as requiring the character to depend on a high ability score in order to be effective. Allowing a fighter, who already has good AC options from medium and then heavy armor, to reduce the penalties (moving at full speed, which increases mobility and the chance to make a full attack action) in armor gives him significant benefits even if he has no additional Dex modifier, and means that things like enhancement bonuses to Dex can be taken advantage of when an additional boost is needed. But in no way is the fighter penalized for a lower Dex, unlike the monk who loses class features if armor of any kind is worn.
Owen,
The benefits of armor training for fighters have been oversold for years, and absolutely minimized to the point where it has little value.
1) Movement in full armor is a racial ability available to all dwarves at level 1. This is being compared to a level 7 class ability.
2) Mithral armor takes care of the level 3 movement bias for all classes, and a mithral bp is standard gear at that level for pretty much any class. A Mithral Bp gives +5 Dex and no ACP. A fighter would require a 22 dex at level 4 to get any benefit out of his armor training for that BP. Otherwise, it's worthless.
3) Celestial Armor raises the Mithril bar from +2 to +4.
4) at 8th level the chances of a fighter having a 16 dex to max usage of his bog standard Full Plate mail +2 are 50/50, depending pretty much entirely on whether he started with a +1 or +2 Dex bonus, except for pure finesse fighters who are not likely wearing full plate. In any event, money problems and the necessity to get inherent bonuses means he will not max out the bonus until level 17+ and he gets 2-5 wishes to boost his Dex to 20+....but he REQUIRES a 24 if he is wearing mithral full plate and wants to max out his Dex bonus.
5) In comparison, the Monk can get away with Mage Armor wands for literally years. He has alternatives. He gets a flat AC advancement even if his WIsdom is 9 (he is not penalized for his Low Wisdom on AC!), automatically gets all his Dex bonus since he doesn't wear armor, and has no top limit to his AC from stats (high AC builds are incredibly common among monks). He still has tons of MAD, but he also has synergies.
6) A fighter with a low Dex score is indeed penalized, because now he receives no AC benefit from a class ability, on top of the possible penalty to Dex from a stat. If his Dex is not high enough, the class ability basically might as well not be there.
That's MAD, that's Tyranny of Stats. It's yet another of the drawbacks to playing a fighter.
In short, it's bad class design. The Fighter should simply have been given a +1 Dodge bonus to aC, the movement benefits, the ACP benefits, and if he wants to max his DEx bonus out, he could just use what every other class does to get it...lighter armor, mithral, dex focused stats.
By REQUIRING high Dex scores to actually get an AC benefit, you are inflicting MAD on the fighter, without giving him more resources to actually achieve that Dexterity.
To max out his class benefit while wearing a suit of Celestial Mail, a Fighter would need a dex score of 28-34, depending on his level. FOr something he could reasonably buy by level 8. Celestial Plate, he 'only' needs a 22-28.
Just, ugh. Fighter armor training is something anyone can 'buy' with mithral, without the implied Dex requirement to use.
Pretty much every serious rewrite of the FIghter changes the Armor Training bonus to +1, just like a monk, getting rid of the Dex requirement entirely, and the movement bonus, while nice, is incidental...being able to maintain normal speed is, after all, less valuable then being able to actually move faster then normal (which is what barbs and rangers get). A Move of 40 (30' in heavy armor, 40' in Mithral Med armor) is much more valuable then a move of 30' in all armor.
Finally, by design, the net benefit of Heavy Armor over Medium Armor is a whopping +1-2 AC if you can max out the respective dex scores. It's simply not precious enough NOT to just give the bonus to the Fighter.
You know the Ranger can cast Barkskin, right?
You know the Barbarian gets a scaling Nat Armor increase to +5, right?
You know the Paladin gets cha bonus to AC when smiting, right? ORadins possibly all the time, yes?
It's just not comparable.
==Aelryinth
I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
Very wise words. Besides, if your primary goal is to do the most damage, perhaps role-playing isn't your strong suit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very wise words. Besides, if your primary goal is to do the most damage, perhaps role-playing isn't your strong suit?
Designing a mechanically effective character has no relationship to how well you can role play a character. You can play an interesting and nuanced character who is the perfect killing machine when he chooses to be and an interesting and nuanced character who is utterly useless at doing anything.
Of course one of these characters has no good reason to be kept around by his friends while they do incredibly dangerous things so could be said to be a flawed role-playing concept.I believe you argument is known as the stormwind fallacy and has been wrong since at least 1980
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very wise words. Besides, if your primary goal is to do the most damage, perhaps role-playing isn't your strong suit?I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
O hai Stormwind Fallacy.
Well, it's not called the Pathfinder DDG.
Very wise words. Besides, if your primary goal is to do the most damage, perhaps role-playing isn't your strong suit?
Designing a mechanically effective character has no relationship to how well you can role play a character. You can play an interesting and nuanced character who is the perfect killing machine when he chooses to be and an interesting and nuanced character who is utterly useless at doing anything.
Of course one of these characters has no good reason to be kept around by his friends while they do incredibly dangerous things so could be said to be a flawed role-playing concept.
I believe you argument is known as the stormwind fallacy and has been wrong since at least 1980
I did not say they could not coexist! Jump to conclusions much?
I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but anyways, Fighters are already MAD with Str, Con, Dex and Wis required for a functional class, and then everyone saying that somehow the fighter can afford a 13 Int for Expertise and more skill points, too. Oh, and high charisma to be a warlord.
It's kind of like, what?
==Aelryinth
I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but anyways, Fighters are already MAD with Str, Con, Dex and Wis required for a functional class, and then everyone saying that somehow the fighter can afford a 13 Int for Expertise and more skill points, too. Oh, and high charisma to be a warlord.
It's kind of like, what?
==Aelryinth
Fighters could easily survive without a high dex...and wis?
Come to think of it weapon fighting style feats could actually give dual wielders who use a different weapon in each hand more options in the middle of a fight. Could be feat intensive though as we don't know how many feats are needed for a weapon fighting style to be at full power. Unarmed style feats came in group of threes, usually not all of them were needed...unless you really wanted some of the latter options they provided(never really saw any sense in picking up Dragon Roar).
I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but anyways, Fighters are already MAD with Str, Con, Dex and Wis required for a functional class, and then everyone saying that somehow the fighter can afford a 13 Int for Expertise and more skill points, too. Oh, and high charisma to be a warlord.
It's kind of like, what?
==Aelryinth
It's not. I generally recommend S15 D14 C14 I14 W12 CH7 Fighters to beginners. They are pretty functional.
It's not. I generally recommend S15 D14 C14 I14 W12 CH7 Fighters to beginners. They are pretty functional.I don't see why there's this war on MADness. MADness can be fun, and I think it is particularly fitting for Fighters, who cannot afford the luxury of Wizards, Rogues or Barbarians to act as incarnated "ideals" of a single stat.
I'm pretty sure this is sarcastic, but anyways, Fighters are already MAD with Str, Con, Dex and Wis required for a functional class, and then everyone saying that somehow the fighter can afford a 13 Int for Expertise and more skill points, too. Oh, and high charisma to be a warlord.
It's kind of like, what?
==Aelryinth
Are you one of the people that keeps shouting at newer classes like the swashbuckler and others that they are overpowered?
Or all the magic users?
Or do you think if someone decides to play a fighter, that person agrees to playing the weaker and later on dependant part?
I like fighters, but if you play a class whose main feature are many feats and then you have to spend a lot of that resource to make up for weaknesses like willsave, low skills and others, it begins to seem questionable.
And with the rise of half-martial classes that can buff themselves with magic, have more skill points and other, stronger class features, the fighter becomes even weaker.
Inquisitor was one of the first and that didn´t get better with the bloodrager lately.
Anyway, most people i know playing a martial prefer barbarians to fighters...
Nope. I like new classes too.
I think people prefer Barbs over Fighters because rage powers are more fun than feats. You have stuff like Sharpened Accuracy that allows you to cover and reduce the effect of concealment, whereas the Fighter needs 19 DEX for Improved Precise Shot and needs to take Blind-Fight separately.
Likewise, Accurate Stance is a scaling bonus to all accuracy while Weapon Focus is a single +1.
I know there's the Active vs. Passive thing in rage vs. feats, but the excitement gap is there anyway.
PS:
That's why weapon style feats sound so exciting to me. If you can make something up that really would strain feats on other classes but Fighters could pick them up no problem, it could be pretty interesting.
|
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why weapon style feats sound so exciting to me. If you can make something up that really would strain feats on other classes but Fighters could pick them up no problem, it could be pretty interesting.
It's absolutely true fighters have more feats, and thus can take advantage of feat-based builds more easily. On the other hand, fighters need a lot of their feats to be effective, so it's important not to assume a fighter can take all the new feats, since it's still a limited resource and most fighter builds already have a lot of that resource tied up.
I worked very hard to strike the needed balance here, to see to it fighters got the kind of material that is exciting without expecting them to somehow just pick up a slew of new toys without giving up their basic functionality feats. Some of that was done by having some feats work a little differently for fighters (the way Stunning Fist works a little differently from monks), some of it was done by playing with weapon training, some of it was done by creating new options that may handle specific issues better for fighters than current work-arounds.
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Owen,
The benefits of armor training for fighters have been oversold for years, and absolutely minimized to the point where it has little value.
1) Movement in full armor is a racial ability available to all dwarves at level 1. This is being compared to a level 7 class ability.
I'm not going to get into a point-by-point debate with you because, honestly, it'd take tool much time and just lead to further debate which would take more time.
I do want to touch on three points.
One, dwarves actually have the racial ability "move as fast in medium and heavy armor as every other Medium race, despite not moving as fast as those races when out of armor." A 7th level human fighter has a 30 ft. move rate. A dwarf has a 20 foot move rate. Anything the dwarf can do to boost his speed, so can the human fighter. This DOES mean dwarves get less out of armor training. It DOESN'T mean having a full 30-foot move rate isn't a big deal, especially at levels when you can't afford mithral full plate.
Any money spent getting around the need for armor training can be spent on other things by the fighter. A ring of evasion doesn't make evasion useless just because everyone can take it. Even non magic mithral full plate runs 10,500 gp, That's nearly half the wealth by level of a 7th level character, and about the same cost as +3 full plate. And no matter where you pick to choose wealth from, the fighter can spend that extra 9k on something useful, be it a spare +2 weapon, ring of protection +2, cloak of resistance +3, or whatever.
No matter your Dex, the reduction in armor check penalty to skills is always 100% useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm not here to make fighters useless. I'm just here to encourage more people to play paladins. :p ;)
So is there any Cavalier love in this book? Any new Orders, or mounted combat rules?
|
Contributor
|
One of my big problems is that the fighter-only feats were handed out to several other classes. I don't have the full list right now, but off the top of my head, swashbucklers, magi, warpriests, and brawlers - as well as various archetypes - can pick up the fighter's "exclusive" talent.
On top of that, so many of the fighter feats are boring number-boosters... not nearly as exciting or tactical as the other martial classes.
I'm really looking forward to this book, and to seeing what it brings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the core design issue is the overall weakness of Weapon Training though. +X/+X to a weapon group is neat but a lot of the class budget is spent on the part of weapon training that grants you washed down bonuses to other groups, which is a bit of a let down.
That's why the strongest archetypes are the ones that keep a +X/+X progression while trading other Weapon Trainings for utility or what not. Drill Sergeant was handled really well.
I hope we see more of that.
Owen,
The benefits of armor training for fighters have been oversold for years, and absolutely minimized to the point where it has little value.
1) Movement in full armor is a racial ability available to all dwarves at level 1. This is being compared to a level 7 class ability.
I'm not going to get into a point-by-point debate with you because, honestly, it'd take tool much time and just lead to further debate which would take more time.
I do want to touch on three points.
One, dwarves actually have the racial ability "move as fast in medium and heavy armor as every other Medium race, despite not moving as fast as those races when out of armor." A 7th level human fighter has a 30 ft. move rate. A dwarf has a 20 foot move rate. Anything the dwarf can do to boost his speed, so can the human fighter. This DOES mean dwarves get less out of armor training. It DOESN'T mean having a full 30-foot move rate isn't a big deal, especially at levels when you can't afford mithral full plate.
Any money spent getting around the need for armor training can be spent on other things by the fighter. A ring of evasion doesn't make evasion useless just because everyone can take it. Even non magic mithral full plate runs 10,500 gp, That's nearly half the wealth by level of a 7th level character, and about the same cost as +3 full plate. And no matter where you pick to choose wealth from, the fighter can spend that extra 9k on something useful, be it a spare +2 weapon, ring of protection +2, cloak of resistance +3, or whatever.
No matter your Dex, the reduction in armor check penalty to skills is always 100% useful.
1) Actually, you are mistaken. A dwarf can take a level of barbarian, and get fast movement that applies, because his racial trait overrides barbarian limitations on armor type, which the fighter ability does not do. Likewise, a Dwarf can tumble and stuff in full armor.
having +10 Move in any armor vs normal move in heavy armor, a is MUCH better. Because you can just make the heavier armor lighter at later levels, which is have your cake and eat it, too.2) Nobody wears mithral full plate until level 15+ because of the horrendous cost and low benefit. The fighter already can't reach the Dex to need mithral full plate...why would he buy it? For Rangers and Barbs - it's not worth the net +1 to AC of wearing heavy armor and giving up a 40' move.
However, Celestial Plate is 20k and has TWICE the benefit, and is indeed +3 magic armor in addition. And by the rules, will actually stack with mithral.
The examples I gave before assumed rote full plate. Unless he starts with a 14 Dex and has a Dex booster, at level 8, A fighter can't use the AC bonus from his class ability. ANd the ranger and barb can both move faster then he can. IF he started with a 12 Dex, he requires a Dex booster at level 4, or he loses the AC benefit at that level as well.
And the AC benefit is the major benefit of the ability, because its the only one that keeps scaling.
it is unfair and amounts to a stat tax.
3) While the ACP is nice on paper, in reality it affects so few skill checks as to be nearly irrelevant. In reality, if the ACP is a problem, like for swim and climb (as heavy armor is wont), you wisely just take it OFF. It's not a bonus to skill checks, after all...it's just a removal of a minor penalty that becomes irrelevant at higher levels.
==Aelryinth
|
That would be ridiculously overpowered.I know everything is probably going off to the printer of fixing to but it would be great if there were a feat to replace AC with CMD when wearing no armor
It can be Balanced in Tiers or situations
example -- Combat Defense -As a swift action when wielding a weapon you have weapon focus in, CMD replaces AC up to 20-- Improved Combat Defense - As Combat Defense but CMD replaces AC up to 30
-- Master Combat Defense - As Improved Combat Defense but CMD replaces AC up to 40
Will we only see Weapon Style Feats for weapons that are already commonly used by PCs or will we also see them for weapons that are currently seldom used due to currently inferior stats? (light and heavy pick, certain throwing weapons, quarterstaff, etc)
|
Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will we only see Weapon Style Feats for weapons that are already commonly used by PCs or will we also see them for weapons that are currently seldom used due to currently inferior stats? (light and heavy pick, certain throwing weapons, quarterstaff, etc)
Weapon Style Feats are like normal style feats, but tin stead of having Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, they have Weapon Focus with a specific chosen weapon (and sometimes other things). When you take them, you can use them anytime you are using the style, have the chosen weapon with Weapon Focus, and meet the circumstances of the feat.
Though there's additional flexibility to what weapons you can use it with if you have the appropriate weapon training category, as well.
None of which should be confused for advanced weapon training, weapon mastery feats, or weapon tricks, all of which are their own separate systems in the book.
Oooh, I like the part where you can use different weapons with it with weapon training.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Style Feats are like normal style feats, but tin stead of having Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, they have Weapon Focus with a specific chosen weapon (and sometimes other things). When you take them, you can use them anytime you are using the style, have the chosen weapon with Weapon Focus, and meet the circumstances of the feat.
Though there's additional flexibility to what weapons you can use it with if you have the appropriate weapon training category, as well.
None of which should be confused for advanced weapon training, weapon mastery feats, or weapon tricks, all of which are their own separate systems in the book.
"There is no part of that post that I didn't like."