I love the changes.
armor training is great I love it used something like it myself a fighter should be better in armor then anyone else.
weapon training love this as well very nice gaining a new group and taking up the old as well very nice.
the capstone ability's I also like making armor mastery a DR 5/ is much better
IMO, it gets rid of the "christmas tree" effect of requiring magic armor and weapons.
Why Paizo didn't go with the ToB route with the Fighter is something that boggles the mind.
Why Paizo didn't go with the ToB route with the Fighter is something that boggles the mind.
ToB isn't OGL content. Paizo would have re-invent the wheel by introducing new mechanics with a similar feel to ToB-style maneuvers, but derived from OGL sources. That's a lot of creative tap dancing and re-work.
Personally, I love the reworked Fighter class in Pathfinder. I have campaigned had in my group for Fighters (and Half-Orcs among the races) needing a major overhaul.
Paizo has delivered very well on that reworking of both. I eagerly look forward to seeing what else is in store for Fighters in future releases.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
Why Paizo didn't go with the ToB route with the Fighter is something that boggles the mind.ToB isn't OGL content. Paizo would have re-invent the wheel by introducing new mechanics with a similar feel to ToB-style maneuvers, but derived from OGL sources. That's a lot of creative tap dancing and re-work.
Actually, I think giving combat feats more punch (especially at higher levels) would accomplish this goal without necessitating a new mechanic.
Another thing is fighters are the first class for many players they need to be effective and easy to pick up. the pathfinder one is that.oh and make a feat unarmed warrior and add it to the fighter list lets them add the bounes when unarmed. but yall know armor training counts for a buckler right.
Actually, I think giving combat feats more punch (especially at higher levels) would accomplish this goal without necessitating a new mechanic.
I've thought for a while now that it might be kind of cool to borrow the Psionic Focus mechanic from XPH and translate it to a fighter-specific "Martial Focus" class ability. One could then go and add a second layer of functionality to existing combat oriented feats.
I realize that PHB2 had something similar, but the XPH version is OGL.
I think the ToB effect is exactly what many old school Fighter players don't want. A fair number of people still enjoy a very simple character who excels at the basic functions of AC, HP, and damage using the least mechanics possible. Actually, I suspect that the inclusion of more ToB like material is part of why some folks don't like 4e. We have a ToB user in one of our weekly games, and he makes everybody's heads spin with his many oddly named manuevers and their strange effects. Meanwhile the Ranger with a bow just rolls three d20s and some damage. I don't think the Ranger's player would want to have manuevers on randomly shuffled index cards anyhow.
I think Paizo's Fighter "fix" will keep people in the Fighter class longer. The class still lacks versatility, but folks might be willing to put up with that for ever increasing combat bonuses. The trick is that there's now a goodie at every single level, a feat or a +1 to something. People often opt out of Fighter at 'dead' levels after say Ftr2 or Ftr4. That extra +1 might be enough to pull them forward to Ftr5. Then there's another free feat at Ftr6, another +1 at Ftr7. You get the picture...
I think the boost to hit and damage is also needed to compete with the PFRPG Rogue and her ability to sneak attack almost anything. In 3.5 Rogues tend to have better damage output than Fighters against living foes, but Fighters are more consistent across multiple encounters including undead, golems, etc. I honestly think that allowing Rogues to do half sneak attack damage against things traditionally immune to it would have been enough to make them still feel useful during undead fights without making Fighters feel like they never have a chance to shine as damage dealers. A +3 to hit and damage can be turned into a +9 to damage with power attack though. Also the bonus to hit could also improve the Fighter's status as the guy who can always get some kind of hit in while the TWF Rogue cuisinart flails about randomly.
In my experience in high level campaigns, it does not matter how much damage a melee PC puts out: they're waiting for the wizard and CODzilla to win with one of their save or die effects. They come in handy when the inevitable anti-magic zones start showing up, but save or die effects are the only thing that's going to give high level fighters parity. And that solution just charges up some of the problems with high level play.
Why Paizo didn't go with the ToB route with the Fighter is something that boggles the mind.
Not really: D&D needs at least one simple class. Something where you don't have 20 different powers that only work with one kind of weapon or when you moved exactly 5 squares or when it's full moon.
Fighters fight. They don't consider combat one way to reach esoteric enlightenment with the Double Diamond Triangle Uppercut or the Angry Monkey Tail Punch. They take a weapon and apply it to the enemy. No more, no less.
Oh, and there's the compatibility thing. Armour and Weapon Training isn't that hard to change in. The fighter suddenly getting spells - oh, sorry, manoeuvres - so is not.
In my experience in high level campaigns, it does not matter how much damage a melee PC puts out: they're waiting for the wizard and CODzilla to win with one of their save or die effects. They come in handy when the inevitable anti-magic zones start showing up, but save or die effects are the only thing that's going to give high level fighters parity. And that solution just charges up some of the problems with high level play.
My experience is quite different: Virtually no anti-magic, and enemies fried to a crisp or beaten to a pulp as (or more) often than just dying from magic-induced heart failure.