I've read a number of threads showing that other classes are as impressive, if not more so, in combat as the fighter. So my question is this:
Is fighter the new warrior? A redundant and un-needed class thrown in for the people who just want to play something simple rather than something cool?
Or to rephrase, is there any reason you'd want (or better yet, need) the fighter of your group being an actual PC, rather than a hireling?
Or to rephrase, is there something the fighter can do that other classes cannot?
For me, the main advantage of the fighter was they were the only class with the ability to perform in combat all day, if healing were available. Ranger didn't have the feats to keep up, and I always thought paladin was broken. Barbarian had his rage, but that left him too tired to keep up. In Pathfinder, I've seen levels 1-4 of the base four in play. So far, I admit that rogue holds its own in combat. BUT I haven't seen anything that suggests that all fighters should just remake themselves as rogues.
maybe the fighter is somewhat usable now, but it still is as bland as a red shirt. its the Bob Smith of the character classes. It has the flavor of packing peanuts. we should change it name to Generic Weapon Swinger.
I would like to put more "Hardcore" into the Fighter. I want them to be Will primary as well as Fort. If they are going to be the most unskilled class, so be it. give me combat then. double all bonuses from combat feat or give me Fighter ONLY feats. give me the ability to uses feats to gain a pool ability, such as a previously stated Adrenaline Pool, or Martial points, whatever. every fighter doesnt need it, but make it a option for bonus feat expenditure!
I never thought the fighter was that bad, I had some players do some great stuff with them.
Then your players knew not how to do things with a wizard.
I believe that the fighter has become viable now because of his bonus feats. Before, they were an excess; now, they are a boon because of the combat feats in Pathfinder.
It really depends on how many powergamers you have in a group. some groups haphazardly build their druids and archers. others have it down to a science, and those people show that you can have great out of combat abilities AND great in combat ability, moreso than the Fighter.
When i speak of fighter I am talking about single class fighters, many builds use two levels of Fighter. those are not Fighters
Or to rephrase, is there something the fighter can do that other classes cannot?
With the new feat progression, the fighter represents an extremely customizable class. Depending on the amount of splat material at your table, the question can be turned around.
Barbarian had his rage, but that left him too tired to keep up.
In my experience, most barbarians took extra rage at early levels to increase effectiveness in most encounters. With a high Con Barbarian (16+ Con, before rage), the rage tends to last as long as most combats. Combats longer than 6 rounds, or at least, still dynamic after 6 rounds, generally point to either TPK, something a hair's breath from a TPK or a stalemate.
Once again, all this is solely based on my past experience.
for dramatic purposes, a Barbarian should be afraid of going out of their rage when the combat has gone longer than he would like. I have NEVER had a Barbarian become exhausted in the middle of combat...EVER. This is a flaw in the system of 3.5, and I would be interested in seeing if the new rage points make this worse or better
No matter what happens I'll likely be house ruling an extra skill for fighters and make them the only class that can manage two combat feats at once (at 5th level and perhaps 3 at 10th). We'll see though.
No matter what happens I'll likely be house ruling an extra skill for fighters and make them the only class that can manage two combat feats at once (at 5th level and perhaps 3 at 10th). We'll see though.
That's a good idea. Just enough...oomph. It makes them the most resourceful and quick-on-their-feet sword-slinger around, which they are. It's not super-powerful, but almost has flair to it, which is what the class has always needed and was hard to get w/o PrC's.
"I'm not just 'a' fighter!" "Not only am I known for my skills with z,y,z types of weapons (that's at least a dozen mind you), an impenetrable wall in any armor, but I've also learned to combine 1,2,3 combat techniques like no other!" "By the way, have you seen my Heavy Flail! I mean if you knew ANYTHING about heavy flails you would have noticed by now how obviously superior mine is. It's as heavy and pointy and magical a thing as it can be. You would never believe the sort of creature's belly I found this in, and mind me, you don't WANT to know. Aren't you excited you came to the tavern today!"
...my goodness. I think this is the next fighter I play. Screw all that gruff antiheroes, but some times valorous sort. Next time I pick up the heaviest weapon I can find, the guy's gonna act just like that. Maybe give him that one level of bard to really make him an insufferable, rambling bother.
I'm heading to bed. Night, fellas.
No matter what happens I'll likely be house ruling an extra skill for fighters and make them the only class that can manage two combat feats at once (at 5th level and perhaps 3 at 10th). We'll see though.
I also like this solution. It makes the fighter the feat-monkey, which has been his bread and butter since 3.0. More importantly, it means that when you get your 8th level combat feat that one you took back at 2nd level isn't necessarily a useless piece of clutter on your character sheet. (I've yet to hear this complaint from my players, but so far the highest any of my groups have gotten is 4th.)
If my fighters are amicable (I think they will be), I'll playtest this and see how broken it is. Instinct is telling me this can get VERY broken, very quickly.
[BAD_POEM]
With the new feat progression, bonus feats are less valuable than they were before.
Yes; in essence, Paizo powered up the fighter, but also powered up everyone else as well, leaving the fighter in the dust again.
With the new feat progression, bonus feats are less valuable than they were before.Yes; in essence, Paizo powered up the fighter, but also powered up everyone else as well, leaving the fighter in the dust again.
No. You still don't get it. Paizo didn't power up the fighter, not in any significant fashion. Fighters still don't have ANY ability that lets them even play the game in high level D&D. They have bigger numbers now. but that doesn't make them good.
No. You still don't get it. Paizo didn't power up the fighter, not in any significant fashion. Fighters still don't have ANY ability that lets them even play the game in high level D&D. They have bigger numbers now. but that doesn't make them good.
No, I "get" it perfectly well, thanks. Granted, it was a tiny, feeble effort, and possibly in the wrong direction (although I do like the new features, personally), but it was an effort nonetheless. The thing is, I pretty much agree with you on all points except the semantics -- and, obviously, I disagree that I'm quite as clueless as you make me out to be :). I'm just emphasizing that it doesn't help anything to nerf the fighter still further by giving away his only benefit wholesale to every other class.
My apologies. I can't keep track fo which camp you're in. From one of the rogue threads, I thought you were one of the fighter optimists. I really want to make sure we remember that Paizo's fighter changes do not constitute a fighter *fix*. I shall endeavor to do that without pouncing on individuals in the future.
My apologies. I can't keep track fo which camp you're in. From one of the rogue threads, I thought you were one of the fighter optimists. I really want to make sure we remember that Paizo's fighter changes do not constitute a fighter *fix*. I shall endeavor to do that without pouncing on individuals in the future.
Don't sweat it. I'm the berk in the rogue thread who thinks the sneak attack needs to be toned down. But, yeah, I agree fighters need a fix; see the "think tank: fighter" thread for ideas, if you haven't aleady been over there.
You know what made the fighter really great in 2nd Ed. was Weapon Specialization. Back then at first level you got +1 to hit +2 to damage on one weapon. Weapon Mastery got you +3/+3 if I remeber correctly.
Keep in mind that you also had a limited weapon selection. You only knew how to fight with maybe ten weapons at level one. But the other classes didn't even have that. A rogue might have only known how to fight with a dagger and a shortsword at level one. Weapons would more like skills back then.
But what I really wanted to bring up was that what made the Fighter better than the Ranger or Paladin was that Weapon Specialization also increased the number of attacks per round you got.
If I was specialized in the longsword I'd get one attack this round and two attacks the next, and it would go back and forth 1/2/1/2.
One option you could do is to have weapon focus act as both the standand feat and weapon specialization for the fighter, but also increasing the number of attacks with that weapon by one (every other level is fine with me, but some people might not like that). You could limit the number of times you can take this version of weapon focus 1 per every 5 levels, or maybe even only once.
Honestly, I have a player who is a big number cruncher, even thought I wouldn't go so far as to call him a power gamer. He's really been torn between playing a rogue, a barbarian, or a fighter, and settled into barbarian only because its the favored class for goliaths.