|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Design Statement
The fighter should be a tactical battlefield commander who can control the flow of combat. Unlike the barbarian, he excels through skill and tactics, not just by repeatedly hitting it with a big weapon. And while he's capable of dealing some punishing blows, his bigger contribution to the party is controlling when and where a monster strikes.
Notes:
Abilities which aren't described below are exactly as described in 3.P.0.3.
Some inspiration was gained from the Races of War fighter by K and Frank Trollman. However, the world is apparently unready for that, and what inspiration was gained has been toned down quite a bit. But credit where credit is due, and those familiar with Races of War will surely recognize the source of some abilities.
This is a draft and isn't yet playtested extensively.
The Fighter
I've seen this type of Xornling rush before, its a distraction, and the real threat will come from the skies
1 Bonus Feat
2 Bonus Feat, Bravery
3 Surprise Lunge, Armor Training
4 Bonus Feat
5 Expert Defender, Weapon Training
6 Bonus Feat
7 Parry, Armor Training
8 Bonus Feat
9 Rapid Reactions, Weapon Training
10 Bonus Feat
11 Tactical Genius, Armor Training
12 Bonus Feat
13 Perfect Moment, Weapon Training
14 Bonus Feat
15 Ranged Parry, Armor Training
16 Bonus Feat
17 Stunning Combo, Weapon Training
18 Bonus Feat
19 Armor Mastery
20 Bonus Feat, Weapon Mastery
Skills: 6+int mod/level. Add Knowledge(Dungeoneering), Knowledge(Geography), Knowledge(Nobility and Royalty), Perception, Acrobatics, and Diplomacy
Surprise Lunge (ex): As an immediate action the Fighter may treat his threatened area as 5' farther than usual, and any interrupted action which would then trigger an attack of opportunity does so. The fighter moves 5' such that the creature now triggering this AoO would be within his normal threat range, and then resolves the attack of opportunity. His threatened area then returns to normal.
Expert Defender (ex): All squares the fighter threatens are treated as difficult terrain by enemy creatures.
Parry (ex): As an immediate action a fighter may make an attack against any creature he threatens in response to an action they are about to take. If he deals damage with this attack that action is thwarted and lost.
Rapid Reactions (ex): Whenever the fighter gets an attack of opportunity he may also take a 5' step either before or after making the AoO.
Tactical Genius (ex): The fighter receives an extra immediate action each turn.
Perfect Moment (ex): The fighter can take a full round action as a readied action.
Ranged Parry (ex): The fighter may Parry against any creature within 30' so long as he has a ranged weapon in or immediately at hand (drawing a thrown weapon from a belt is ok, stringing your bow is not). In all other respects this ability works exactly like Parry. The creature must be within range when it starts the action - entering range after the action is started doesn't allow the use of this ability.
Stunning Combo (ex): Whenever the fighter successfully deals damage with an attack of opportunity he may also immediately perform a combat maneuver of his choice against the same opponent. The Fighter gains a +4 bonus on this maneuver due to surprise.
Armor Mastery (ex): as 3.P.0.3 except the fighter gains DR 10/-
Weapon Mastery (ex): When wielding a weapon that belongs to a group with which he has weapon training the fighter may take a full-round action as a standard action. In return he loses the benefit of Tactical Genius until the start of his next turn.
That's one way to view a fighter. but isn't that more of a "marshal" type character? Another type of fighter is a loner weaponmaster. The fighter is versatile class. You can make yours with feats and I can make mine. I'd be unhappy to see him pigeonholed into MMO roles.
satorian wrote: That's one way to view a fighter. but isn't that more of a "marshal" type character? Another type of fighter is a loner weaponmaster. The fighter is versatile class. You can make yours with feats and I can make mine. I'd be unhappy to see him pigeonholed into MMO roles. How is the marshal not a fighter in flavor? Further, in terms of the D+D marshal archetype these mechanics fail - he doesn't give his allies any bonuses.
You know, most of those abilities fit into weapon mastery concept, and all of them still benefit the fighter by himself. That's just a matter of flavoring - the plain fact is that the fighers mechanics at the moment utterly fail to matter at mid-high levels for a number of reasons (feat benefits are too small and don't scale with level, lack of high level feats, seeming unwillingness of designers to make nice feats for mid-high level martial characters).
At a basic level, 'flavor' is something that gets laid on top of mechanics. The mechanics don't matter for the flavor - you can always come up with a reason why class X can use ability Y. Instead, mechanically speaking, what matters is how it performs at the table. At which point if you have multiple martial classes and they're all trying to do the same thing, you might as well have one martial class. Barbarian is already the 'i beat you to death with my weapon' class, and you can reflavor rage as 'martial trance', 'battle focus', 'adrenaline surge' or any other concept you care to justify. At which point Fighter should really be doing something else, and that something involves being really awesome in a tactical way on the battlefield. He uses skill - and all of these abilities reflect skill.
At the end of the day, I just *added* abilities to the existing fighter class, improved one existing class feature, and changed another one to be far far better. Its pure gain, you can still play exactly the same characters as before and ignore the new abilities - your choice.
Beautiful...
One not though... Mr.B has been pretty straight up about fighters not getting perception.
The rest of it seems great. This is the fighter I always wanted...
it also should appease those that say the fighter should be useful and not magical
... I'm told though that the fighter has to stay generic too though and what would an archer fighter gain from this?
Midnight-v wrote: Beautiful...
One not though... Mr.B has been pretty straight up about fighters not getting perception.
The rest of it seems great. This is the fighter I always wanted...
it also should appease those that say the fighter should be useful and not magical
... I'm told though that the fighter has to stay generic too though and what would an archer fighter gain from this?
There was a feat in some splatbook that lets you threaten with a ranged weapon, right? Take that.
Or take IUS and threaten around you while wielding the ranged weapon. Bonus - once you start making the area you threaten difficult terrain, you can't be charged. This is *great* for an archer.
This design makes me really want to play a fighter:
it get better and better the further you go,
so it would be a tough decision to only take a few levels.
The Parry feature is awesome, Defensive Casting is basically automatic for any caster threatenend in combat, so this really makes a -Fighter- a critical threat to casters
(perhaps swift actions like Power Words, activating items, etc. should not be Parry-able...?)
...This is what the Pathfinder Fighter should be.
And enough imagining my own Fighter character, what about Villains & Monsters with Fighter levels.... OK, does that sounds threatening enough now?
+3 Undead Disrupting
edit: I like that it also passes the test of simple to play for beginner players, which the Fighter as the 'basic' class should be able to pass. All these abilities simply extend the martial skill of the Fighter in intuitive ways without extra Pools or special effects.
I've been reading some posts out there and thinking about this for some months. I've also done some playtesting and I have come to this:
1. The fighter should be valuable because of his or her class abilities and not because of his or her equipment.
2. The fighter should also be useful out of combat.
3. The fighter should never just panick and run away from combat.
In order to do that.
I suggest:
1. Instead of weapon focus/specialization feats
Skill at arms: A competence bonus to hit and damage at 2,5,8,11,14,17,20 so he or she is still a threat with a simple club or dagger at any level.
Half DR: The fighter is able to bypass enemy defenses by finding weak spots. At level 10 the enemy's DR is reduced by one quarter regardless of being extraordinary or supernatural. At level 15 the enemy's DR is reduced by half.
AoO: At level 7, enemies provoke AoOs as if they were unarmed unless they have weapon focus for the given weapon or natural weapon or uncanny dodge. At level 14 all enemies provoke AoO as if they were unarmed unless they have uncanny dodge or 4 fighter levels.
Quick attack: At level 9 a fighter may make an extra attack at -8 penalty as a free action once per round and only in a round he or she doesn`t use a full attack. The penalty is -4 with a light weapon or a crossbow and -12 with a two handed weapon.
Block:A fighter has a 10%+1%/level chance to block every enemy attack with a weapon or a shield. If the attack is blocked it targets the weapon or shield used to block it instead negating any critical hits and dealing damage to the weapon and shield as a sunder attack, any excess damage is dealt to the fighter and the weapon or shield may be destroyed. Ranged attacks can only be blocked with a shield. A tower shield or a rapier grants a +10% bonus, these bonuses do not stack. Any condition that negates dex bonus to armor class also negate this ability.
2. Add diplomacy, knowledge(History, local, nobility and royalty), profession(sailor, navigator) and use rope. Also add the logistics ability to increase the party's or the army's overland speed at level 10.
3. Bravery: A fighter never panicks or cowers, any time he or she would panick or cower, he or she is shaken instead. Being brave is not just not being afraid, but facing your fear.
Quandary wrote: This design makes me really want to play a fighter:
it get better and better the further you go,
so it would be a tough decision to only take a few levels.
The Parry feature is awesome, Defensive Casting is basically automatic for any caster threatenend in combat, so this really makes a -Fighter- a critical threat to casters
(perhaps swift actions like Power Words, activating items, etc. should not be Parry-able...?)
...This is what the Pathfinder Fighter should be.
And enough imagining my own Fighter character, what about Villains & Monsters with Fighter levels.... OK, does that sounds threatening enough now?
+3 Undead Disrupting
edit: I like that it also passes the test of simple to play for beginner players, which the Fighter as the 'basic' class should be able to pass. All these abilities simply extend the martial skill of the Fighter in intuitive ways without extra Pools or special effects.
You can't interrupt free/swift/immediate actions, even with immediate actions. At least I'm pretty sure you can't. (Sigh, I can't even remember which book immediate action rules were described in to check - can I get a book or verification on my recollection here?) So anyway, i think there are some limitations on what you can actually parry - but its a reasonably small set. If not, I'll change it to let you parry any standard, move, or full-round actions, because parrying something that takes so little time it doesn't cost an action is silly.
You know, people might hate me for this suggestion, but why not offer alternative features to most of the new class powers Paizo has given fighters (Which I like) to represent alternate fighting styles.
What about a Dodge mastery to choose from along with Armor Mastery?
How about an Archery Supremacy ability (no, Fighter is not a ranger, but a lot of them make good archers in a pinch) that lets them fire arrows to make difficult terrain, etc?
ecobos wrote: 1. The fighter should be valuable because of his or her class abilities and not because of his or her equipment.
2. The fighter should also be useful out of combat.
3. The fighter should never just panick and run away from combat.
I agree and tried to accomplish that. I'll note that I also built directly off the Paizo fighter, which means all those bonuses to armor and weapon stuff was already there and I'm not going to try to tell them to remove it. I just added some useful abilities which made the fighter useful on their own by giving him a cool schtick that was more than just swinging a weapon.
ecobos wrote:
In order to do that.
I suggest:
1. Instead of weapon focus/specialization feats
Skill at arms: A competence bonus to hit and damage at 2,5,8,11,14,17,20 so he or she is still a threat with a simple club or dagger at any level.
Half DR: The fighter is able to bypass enemy defenses by finding weak spots. At level 10 the enemy's DR is reduced by one quarter regardless of being extraordinary or supernatural. At level 15 the enemy's DR is reduced by half.
See, I never thought a fighter's problem was really his *numbers* except against big melee monsters (and that's the wizard's schtick to deal with those and make them manageable, because the wizard already does that really well). I don't think giving bigger numbers is necessary or warranted - and the ones included in the above are only because Paizo already did that.
What the fighter needs is some level appropriate actions. I gave him those.
ecobos wrote:
AoO: At level 7, enemies provoke AoOs as if they were unarmed unless they have weapon focus for the given weapon or natural weapon or uncanny dodge. At level 14 all enemies provoke AoO as if they were unarmed unless they have uncanny dodge or 4 fighter levels.
This is really complicated to adjudicate, and likely to be forgotten by the DM or the player.
ecobos wrote:
Quick attack: At level 9 a fighter may make an extra attack at -8 penalty as a free action once per round and only in a round he or she doesn`t use a full attack. The penalty is -4 with a light weapon or a crossbow and -12 with a two handed weapon.
Block:A fighter has a 10%+1%/level chance to block every enemy attack with a weapon or a shield. If the attack is blocked it targets the weapon or shield used to block it instead negating any critical hits and dealing damage to the weapon and shield as a sunder attack, any excess damage is dealt to the fighter and the weapon or shield may be destroyed. Ranged attacks can only be blocked with a shield. A tower shield or a rapier grants a +10% bonus, these bonuses do not stack. Any condition that negates dex bonus to armor class also negate this ability.
Quick attack is basically more numbers, and requires writing yet another attack bonus on your character sheet that is different from all the others.
Block is a terrible mechanic for the same reason oWoD combat was clunky. Requiring an opposed roll on combat checks or a soak roll (and this is basically a soak roll) means more die rolling per attack and slows down combat. Further, D+D already has miss chances, and adding a *separate* mechanic that does this leads to the annoying situation where you're both invisible and blocking and monsters have to roll percentile dice twice on each attack roll against you.
Its also basically just more numbers.
ecobos wrote:
2. Add diplomacy, knowledge(History, local, nobility and royalty), profession(sailor, navigator) and use rope. Also add the logistics...
Isn't profession a class skill already? I really have no objections to giving fighters more class skills...
Anyway, in general you seem to be very enamored of mechanics that are just bigger numbers. The only truly new capability is something that the DM would need to be reminded of constantly rather than an activated ability - DMs are not computers and dealing with abilities like that are obnoxious (I DM regularly). As it is, turning the terrain the fighter threatens into difficult terrain is almost too annoying for the DM, but at least on a battle board you could put down diff terrain markers which makes it easier to keep track of.
At worst, I think we just have very different ideas of what the fighter needs. I've played high level games. I have my opinions on why fighters fail - numbers aren't really the reason imho.
I just wanted to say one more thing I thought was significant about your build (which I'm sure you're already aware of :-)
It doesn't really hand out any new abilities which aim to counter-act the WEAKNESSES of Fighters, for one, that if they're facing a caster at range, their options are much more limited (if they're an Archer-focus, pretty much they have their Full Attack and Feats if within bow range). As well, any effect that negates attacks irregardless of dice roll numbers (% miss chance, for one) strips 90% of their effectiveness.
All these new abilities are really just making them effective at what THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. Threatening more space - being a more effective Tank/Protector. Parry - Ensuring that if they are in melee range, they are at least some-what able to keep the combat on their terms. Tactical Genius/Perfect Moment - these pretty much have the same aim as allowing the Fighter to 'segment' their turn, so they can effectively protect allies, block off escapes, etc. (but is probably easier to word clearly/ keep track of/ adjudicate).
Even though Alpha 3 is out, I really think this build is at least a great model of what Paizo needs to do with the Fighter. Whether or not each and every ability is added verbatim, what it's doing as a whole is what I think is necessary to bring the Fighter up to par with the new spellcasters, and I think, seems like it would make the game more fun and dramatic, for ALL players in a game.
I'll cross my fingers.
Quandary wrote: I just wanted to say one more thing I thought was significant about your build (which I'm sure you're already aware of :-)
It doesn't really hand out any new abilities which aim to counter-act the WEAKNESSES of Fighters, for one, that if they're facing a caster at range, their options are much more limited (if they're an Archer-focus, pretty much they have their Full Attack and Feats if within bow range). As well, any effect that negates attacks irregardless of dice roll numbers (% miss chance, for one) strips 90% of their effectiveness.
All these new abilities are really just making them effective at what THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. Threatening more space - being a more effective Tank/Protector. Parry - Ensuring that if they are in melee range, they are at least some-what able to keep the combat on their terms. Tactical Genius/Perfect Moment - these pretty much have the same aim as allowing the Fighter to 'segment' their turn, so they can effectively protect allies, block off escapes, etc. (but is probably easier to word clearly/ keep track of/ adjudicate).
Even though Alpha 3 is out, I really think this build is at least a great model of what Paizo needs to do with the Fighter. Whether or not each and every ability is added verbatim, what it's doing as a whole is what I think is necessary to bring the Fighter up to par with the new spellcasters, and I think, seems like it would make the game more fun and dramatic, for ALL players in a game.
I'll cross my fingers.
There are some things about a fighter that just can't be fixed in a way that 95% of people would be accepting of. And frankly, dealing with spellcasters isn't his schtick - that's for the Monk (cross fingers), and possibly rogue, to excel at. Though if he can get close to them he does ok.
Thanks for the high praise. Feel free to use it in your own games with or without paizo's approval =)
After a quick look, there are some nice ideas posted on this thread. However, some of them would definitely work better as feats, so everyone can customize the fighter as the like -- and, fighters get so many feats in PF that they *will* become more powerful than their class features imply. I'd probably even redesign some of the ideas (such as the ability to take 5' step after an AoO) as Racial Feats... that would make fighters of different races slightly better than others at different "aspects" of combat.
Asgetrion wrote: After a quick look, there are some nice ideas posted on this thread. However, some of them would definitely work better as feats, so everyone can customize the fighter as the like -- and, fighters get so many feats in PF that they *will* become more powerful than their class features imply. I'd probably even redesign some of the ideas (such as the ability to take 5' step after an AoO) as Racial Feats... that would make fighters of different races slightly better than others at different "aspects" of combat. The problem with that approach is then *everyone* can do it. Especially with the Paizo [combat feat] mechanic, where you can only use 1/round, this makes fighters really sad when the Barbarian gets to potentially use all his rage powers on the *same feat* the fighter is using, as he isn't able to bring half or more of his feats into play.
Shouldn't killing mages be the barbarians thing? Old school UA stlye... forsaker style?
*says a quick prayer*
Midnight-v wrote: Shouldn't killing mages be the barbarians thing? Old school UA stlye... forsaker style?
*says a quick prayer*
I agree. I have a barbarian redesign I'm working on (Originally in the Races and Classes alpha 2 forum). The problem is its harder to get close to balance because of rage point costs.
I approve of this fighter class!
Squirrelloid wrote: Asgetrion wrote: After a quick look, there are some nice ideas posted on this thread. However, some of them would definitely work better as feats, so everyone can customize the fighter as the like -- and, fighters get so many feats in PF that they *will* become more powerful than their class features imply. I'd probably even redesign some of the ideas (such as the ability to take 5' step after an AoO) as Racial Feats... that would make fighters of different races slightly better than others at different "aspects" of combat. The problem with that approach is then *everyone* can do it. Especially with the Paizo [combat feat] mechanic, where you can only use 1/round, this makes fighters really sad when the Barbarian gets to potentially use all his rage powers on the *same feat* the fighter is using, as he isn't able to bring half or more of his feats into play. Then give them a minimum fighter level as prerequisite. No levels in fighter, no feat for you. The weapon focus tree does this. You can then build the fighter to any concept or function you want and still give him unique class abilities with no cost to flexibility. Best of both worlds.
Freesword wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Asgetrion wrote: After a quick look, there are some nice ideas posted on this thread. However, some of them would definitely work better as feats, so everyone can customize the fighter as the like -- and, fighters get so many feats in PF that they *will* become more powerful than their class features imply. I'd probably even redesign some of the ideas (such as the ability to take 5' step after an AoO) as Racial Feats... that would make fighters of different races slightly better than others at different "aspects" of combat. The problem with that approach is then *everyone* can do it. Especially with the Paizo [combat feat] mechanic, where you can only use 1/round, this makes fighters really sad when the Barbarian gets to potentially use all his rage powers on the *same feat* the fighter is using, as he isn't able to bring half or more of his feats into play. Then give them a minimum fighter level as prerequisite. No levels in fighter, no feat for you. The weapon focus tree does this. You can then build the fighter to any concept or function you want and still give him unique class abilities with no cost to flexibility. Best of both worlds.
I suppose I also have some desire to make the fighter playable without needing to dumpster dive through splatbooks so people without extensive optimization experience/ability can build a fighter without too much pain. This isn't Magic: the Gathering - the amount of system mastery necessary to build an effective fighter is obscene.
Squirrelloid wrote:
I suppose I also have some desire to make the fighter playable without needing to dumpster dive through splatbooks so people without extensive optimization experience/ability can build a fighter without too much pain. This isn't Magic: the Gathering - the amount of system mastery necessary to build an effective fighter is obscene.
Understandable, I agree with you up until the point that simplifying build overly reduces flexibility and options. Every class has to cover a variety of character concepts. Some more so than others. The fighter is one of the classes that needs the flexibility to cover the widest variety of concepts. Otherwise you end up needing several new base classes that are all basically specialized fighters. This works for something very low magic like Iron Heroes, but 3.5 and Pathfinder need to be more flexible and universal. It's a tricky balancing act, especially when backward compatibility becomes a concern.
I'll admit my suggestion suffers from "option bloat" which can result in suboptimal builds for the unprepared. My vision is to make all of the options worth while to so that ineffective builds are much harder to make. This may not be as easily implemented as the base concept of "fighter exclusive feats".
There is no easy solution to fixing fighters in this situation that I can see. I think tweaking feats since the fighter gets to many is just the most forgiving compromise.
Freesword wrote: Squirrelloid wrote:
I suppose I also have some desire to make the fighter playable without needing to dumpster dive through splatbooks so people without extensive optimization experience/ability can build a fighter without too much pain. This isn't Magic: the Gathering - the amount of system mastery necessary to build an effective fighter is obscene.
Understandable, I agree with you up until the point that simplifying build overly reduces flexibility and options. Every class has to cover a variety of character concepts. Some more so than others. The fighter is one of the classes that needs the flexibility to cover the widest variety of concepts. Otherwise you end up needing several new base classes that are all basically specialized fighters. This works for something very low magic like Iron Heroes, but 3.5 and Pathfinder need to be more flexible and universal. It's a tricky balancing act, especially when backward compatibility becomes a concern.
I'll admit my suggestion suffers from "option bloat" which can result in suboptimal builds for the unprepared. My vision is to make all of the options worth while to so that ineffective builds are much harder to make. This may not be as easily implemented as the base concept of "fighter exclusive feats".
There is no easy solution to fixing fighters in this situation that I can see. I think tweaking feats since the fighter gets to many is just the most forgiving compromise. You did notice I just added abilities and took nothing away? I gave the fighter all of that without taking any of its bonus feats away. You have just as much flexibility as you did before - where's the problem? And all of those abilities are inherently flexible and useful to a variety of builds. Let me repeat this, because it doesn't seem to be clear: Adding non-feat abilites does not reduce the fighter's flexibility, and giving the class a unifying ability set does not reduce its play potential.
As it is, there already are a bunch of 'fighter' base classes that are specialized versions. To whit, the Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, and the rogue can be built to occupy some fighter territory. The fighter doesn't need to occupy any of the niches those already occupy, which means we're already dealing with a constrained set of archetypes. (Most importantly, Barbarians should cover all the 'i beat stuff up because i'm so strong and i just bash them' and rogues can cover all the 'i'm so finessy' fighter archetypes reasonably well.)
Squirrelloid wrote:
You did notice I just added abilities and took nothing away? I gave the fighter all of that without taking any of its bonus feats away. You have just as much flexibility as you did before - where's the problem? And all of those abilities are inherently flexible and useful to a variety of builds. Let me repeat this, because it doesn't seem to be clear: Adding non-feat abilites does not reduce the fighter's flexibility, and giving the class a unifying ability set does not reduce its play potential.
I apologize if my comment came across as critical of the specific redesign you suggested in your original post. This was not my intent. I was responding specifically to the text I quoted and was making a general statement regarding my point of view. Your suggested fighter is quite flexible in design. I'm not sure I agree entirely with the individual abilities, but that is more a matter of personal preference and not mechanical failings or overly narrow concept.
I admit that I have a strong preference toward using fighter specific feats to enhance the fighter. I'm not completely against fixed class features and they may be the only way to fix some things. I just feel there is still untapped potential in the existing feat system to address the areas where the fighter is lacking and wish to see this approach explored before going into rebuilding the class.
Asgetrion wrote: After a quick look, there are some nice ideas posted on this thread. However, some of them would definitely work better as feats, so everyone can customize the fighter as the like -- and, fighters get so many feats in PF that they *will* become more powerful than their class features imply. I'd probably even redesign some of the ideas (such as the ability to take 5' step after an AoO) as Racial Feats... that would make fighters of different races slightly better than others at different "aspects" of combat. No, I've all ways felt the whole "Turn it into a feat" idea to be way to limiting (Yeah it doesn't make sense but think about it).
You can make yours with feats and I can make mine.
The above cannot be accomplished with feats, not even close.
If you make it feats, then the Fighter either needs to blow his current feat pile on getting these ability trees, or needs to get extra "variable" feats on top of feats.
Fixed class abilities alongside some feat trees works best in this particular class. It's like the Rogue.. he has talents, and on top of that Sneak Attack every two levels. If you gave Sneak Attack +1d6 as a talent, then doubled the talents, it'd be excessive and just weird class design.
I'm not completely sure on all the abilities in the original post, and I think they can accomplish the skill requirements with 4 + Int instead. However I think the design path is the most sound (adding fixed abilities), and more a "different function" ability than "some small +1 here and there" ability.
I definitely like the idea of immunity to Fear. While some might think this is stepping on the toes of the Paladin (who still has immunity to charm, right?), the Fighter is the consummate front line combatant, going toe to toe to downright terrifying things. His morale has to be through the roof to be able to saunter up to normal everyday combat, let alone magical fear.
And if Barbarians start to whine, give them Fear immunity while Raging. Seems fairly appropriate as well.
1. The fighter should be valuable because of his or her class abilities and not because of his or her equipment.
2. The fighter should also be useful out of combat.
3. The fighter should never just panick and run away from combat.
After thinking this over I suggest:
1. Change the weapon trainging to give a bonus to all weapons and not just a group of weapons. This provides versatility to the fighter and allows to use a wider array of weapons as you find them.
2. Add diplomacy, and some more knowledges and skills 4+Int.
3. Change bravery to: If a fighter is panicked or cowering, the fighter is just shaken instead or A fighter is immune to fear.
Gaining a + to attack or damage can be gained by about 2 dozen different ways (especially if you get into splatbooks). There is nothing "unique" about getting a +1 to attack, even if it's on all weapons.
The Fighter needs unique FUNCTIONS that make him useful and wanted for the group. New things like immediate actions, new functionality of AoO or immunities are things that will set him apart.
Here are some ideas, which might also fix some of the problems with fighter v. caster:
-Expert Tactics: A fighter of Nth level can take a 5ft. step as an immediate action.
-behind the screen: This allows the fighter to fulfill his role as protector better, since he can 5ft step out of turn, potentially breaking an opponent's line of charge. This also helps the fighter to manuever into a charging position, since this won't count as normal movement, and allow the fighter the exclusive ability to actually harry casters, by preventing the '5ft step and cast/shoot' routine.
-[insert cool name here]: A fighter of Nth level adds 1/2 his fighter level to the DC of spellcraft checks made to cast defensively, and to acrobatics checks made to move through his threatened area.
-this allows the fighter to actually make spellcasters a little sad when the fighter is in melee with them, and also gives the fighter a better chance to protect a caster from rogues/monks/rangers slipping past them to get at the aquishy bits. If you've seen the anime Negima, then you have an idea of what I want spellcasters to be capable of when a fighter is in melee with them.
Abracad- ow!
Hocus Po- ow!
-[insert cool name here]: A fighter of Nth level is frightened whenever he would be panicked, and shaken whenever he would be frightened. This has no effect on being shaken.
-[insert cool name here]: A fighter of Nth level is fatigued whenever he would otherwise be exhausted. This is ignored if the fighter was already fatigued.
Skjaldbakka wrote: Here are some ideas, which might also fix some of the problems with fighter v. caster:
-Expert Tactics: A fighter of Nth level can take a 5ft. step as an immediate action.
-behind the screen: This allows the fighter to fulfill his role as protector better, since he can 5ft step out of turn, potentially breaking an opponent's line of charge. This also helps the fighter to manuever into a charging position, since this won't count as normal movement, and allow the fighter the exclusive ability to actually harry casters, by preventing the '5ft step and cast/shoot' routine.
This actually fails to break 'charge lines', because your immediate action happens before their action, meaning they can take an alternate line if one exists. (As medium creatures have 3 squares to which a straight line could be drawn that is also adjacent to them, moving the fighter from one of them to another doesn't do much to stop charges). They only announce a charge and target - they don't have to commit to a path until after the action has started - merely verify that at least one such path exists.
(The ability I provide which lets them count threatened squares as difficult terrain against enemies actually does stop charges).
An immediate action could also occur mid-charge, although I'm talking from 'makes sense' POV, not a 'I have analyzed the RAW and found it to be so' POV.
Also, something i just noticed. 6+ Int is absolutely ridiculous for a fighter. 4+Int is more than sufficient for fighters.
Skjaldbakka wrote: An immediate action could also occur mid-charge, although I'm talking from 'makes sense' POV, not a 'I have analyzed the RAW and found it to be so' POV.
Also, something i just noticed. 6+ Int is absolutely ridiculous for a fighter. 4+Int is more than sufficient for fighters.
As a charge is one action (a full round one, but only one action), and immediate actions happen before the action they interrupt, not during, the RAW is clear. I agree it might make sense, but the mechanics are clear that it doesn't. There's a reason I like the 'make threatened squares difficult terrain' ability - it actually accomplishes charge blocking.
Hmmm... I probably need to amend my Lunge text a little bit - the intent is clear but the RAW mechanical interpretation isn't always clear. Its not an obvious fail like 5' stepping to block charges, but it doesn't handle all cases in which you'd logically want to use it in an obvious manner.
As to skills - why not 6+int? A fighter is never going to have a high intelligence - there are simply to many other attributes clamouring for his attention. Intelligence is 5th in his priority list (last being Cha, as usual). And a fighter is not some common warrior, he's officer material and an educated man - he should have the skills to match. He should certainly be more skilled than the Barbarian.
1. The fighter should be valuable because of his or her class abilities and not because of his or her equipment.
2. The fighter should also be useful out of combat.
3. The fighter should never just panick and run away from combat.
After thinking this over I suggest:
1. Change the "weapon trainging" to give a bonus to all weapons and not just a group of weapons. This provides versatility to the fighter and allows to use a wider array of weapons as you find them and let's you switch from melee to ranged easily.
This is "unique" because there is no other nonmagical always on combat bonus provided by any other class. And there's no need for extra dice rolls.
2. Add diplomacy, and some more knowledges and skills 4+Int.
Remember under the new skill system cross class skills are boosted so 6+Int would be too much.
3. Change "bravery" to: If a fighter is panicked or cowering, the fighter is just shaken instead or A fighter is immune to fear.
All these changes are very easy to implement in the current Paizo fighter.
ecobos wrote: 1. The fighter should be valuable because of his or her class abilities and not because of his or her equipment.
2. The fighter should also be useful out of combat.
3. The fighter should never just panick and run away from combat.
After thinking this over I suggest:
1. Change the "weapon trainging" to give a bonus to all weapons and not just a group of weapons. This provides versatility to the fighter and allows to use a wider array of weapons as you find them and let's you switch from melee to ranged easily.
This is "unique" because there is no other nonmagical always on combat bonus provided by any other class. And there's no need for extra dice rolls.
2. Add diplomacy, and some more knowledges and skills 4+Int.
Remember under the new skill system cross class skills are boosted so 6+Int would be too much.
3. Change "bravery" to: If a fighter is panicked or cowering, the fighter is just shaken instead or A fighter is immune to fear.
All these changes are very easy to implement in the current Paizo fighter.
Is it just me, or did this text invoke a feeling of Deja Vu?
Squirrelloid wrote: Parry (ex): As an immediate action a fighter may make an attack against any creature he threatens in response to an action they are about to take. If he deals damage with this attack that action is thwarted and lost. Unless I'm completely off base in reading this, this ability is just incredibly powerful. As an immediate action, so long as a fighter hits his opponent, he can completely shut down said opponent's full attack action?
So, if a fighter is standing next to a collossal red dragon, he can make one attack (at his highest attack bonus) and, if he hits and does damage, the dragon's full attack on him is completely negated? Is that how this works, because that's how I'm reading it, and it's insanely potent. Especially if the fighter uses Quick Draw to just pull out a flask of acid and tosses it as a touch attack...
"He should certainly be more skilled than the Barbarian."
This is where I disagree. The fighter has NO reason to be more skilled than the barbarian. That's why he should have 4+int. He should not be as skilled as the ranger, which is the skilled full BAB class. The only other class with full BAB that has cause for 6+int skills is paladin, and that is simply because of the number of skills that they ought to have (sense motive, diplomacy, knowledge religion, knowledge nobility, concentration, ride).
What are the fighter's iconic skills? Pretty much climb, jump, and swim, and jump isn't really appropriate anymore, since it is got rolled into tumble and balance, which I don't see as 'fighter' skills. I suppose if we are going with the 'career soldier' model for fighter, knowledge (engineering) and diplomacy might make it onto the list.
Disciple of Sakura wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Parry (ex): As an immediate action a fighter may make an attack against any creature he threatens in response to an action they are about to take. If he deals damage with this attack that action is thwarted and lost. Unless I'm completely off base in reading this, this ability is just incredibly powerful. As an immediate action, so long as a fighter hits his opponent, he can completely shut down said opponent's full attack action?
So, if a fighter is standing next to a collossal red dragon, he can make one attack (at his highest attack bonus) and, if he hits and does damage, the dragon's full attack on him is completely negated? Is that how this works, because that's how I'm reading it, and it's insanely potent. Especially if the fighter uses Quick Draw to just pull out a flask of acid and tosses it as a touch attack... Full attack is not actually an action. Its a composite action composed of attack actions. You start with an attack action (which can be thwarted), and can then continue taking attack actions until the full attack is finished. You'll note that when you take an attack action at the start of your turn you haven't committed to a single attack or a full attack until you take the *second* attack. Same deal. Each attack is treated as a separate action.
Also, you can't pull a flask until you get it to 30' because you don't *threaten* with the flask.
Skjaldbakka wrote: "He should certainly be more skilled than the Barbarian."
This is where I disagree. The fighter has NO reason to be more skilled than the barbarian. That's why he should have 4+int. He should not be as skilled as the ranger, which is the skilled full BAB class. The only other class with full BAB that has cause for 6+int skills is paladin, and that is simply because of the number of skills that they ought to have (sense motive, diplomacy, knowledge religion, knowledge nobility, concentration, ride).
What are the fighter's iconic skills? Pretty much climb, jump, and swim, and jump isn't really appropriate anymore, since it is got rolled into tumble and balance, which I don't see as 'fighter' skills. I suppose if we are going with the 'career soldier' model for fighter, knowledge (engineering) and diplomacy might make it onto the list.
See, I actually see knowledges being a fighter's iconic skills to some degree. He knows what monsters are and how to fight them. At a minimum, logistics is his thing, so Kno(geography) should certainly be on there. He needs to recognize heraldry on the field (Kno(Nobility)). He needs to be versed in military history (Kno(history)), and of course siege craft (Kno(engineering)). He needs to know the area (Kno(Local)) if he's to live off the land (traditional mode of supplying armies in the field historically). He needs to command troops (Diplomacy, Intimidate). He should really be an accomplished user of his weapons, including the ability to effectively feint (Bluff). And he should be able to *effectively keep watch* (perception). I could really add a load of skills to the fighter if I wanted to, the above recommended modifications are small-time.
I certainly don't see why acrobatics shouldn't be a fighter skill - its perfectly iconic in most cultures - even europe has fighter archetypes for which acrobatics is appropriate (fencers, duelists, etc...). If you don't want it for your fighter, don't invest in it. Its that simple.
This is unneeded the new fighter is great all classes will never be on par with each other because they all do differnt things
Joey Virtue wrote: This is unneeded the new fighter is great all classes will never be on par with each other because they all do differnt things This is about the most useless feedback possible.
No seriously - why is the current fighter great? Why is it superior to this version? Does this version have flaws in design or implementation that make is less balanced/playable than the 3.P fighter?
How does being different mean they can't all be balanced to some *standard*?
"See, I actually see knowledges being a fighter's iconic skills to some degree. He knows what monsters are and how to fight them. At a minimum, logistics is his thing, so Kno(geography) should certainly be on there. He needs to recognize heraldry on the field (Kno(Nobility)). He needs to be versed in military history (Kno(history)), and of course siege craft (Kno(engineering)). He needs to know the area (Kno(Local)) if he's to live off the land (traditional mode of supplying armies in the field historically). He needs to command troops (Diplomacy, Intimidate). He should really be an accomplished user of his weapons, including the ability to effectively feint (Bluff). And he should be able to *effectively keep watch* (perception). I could really add a load of skills to the fighter if I wanted to, the above recommended modifications are small-time.
I certainly don't see why acrobatics shouldn't be a fighter skill - its perfectly iconic in most cultures - even europe has fighter archetypes for which acrobatics is appropriate (fencers, duelists, etc...). If you don't want it for your fighter, don't invest in it. Its that simple."
We disagree then. I don't see the fighter as 'the knowledge guy', and quite frankly, I think that is a ridiculous assertion. Logistics isn't the fighter's job, its the job of the guys behind the lines, ideally spellcasters with teleportation magic. Recognizing heraldry is nice, and justifies knowledge nobility as a class skill, not extra skill points, especially since most battlefield heraldy would be low DCs, and that isn't something the fighter needs high ranks in, just a rank or two for flavor. Similarly, a fighter with diplomacy is acceptable, but not necessary, and an argument could be made for that as a class skill, but falls flat when begging for more skill points. Feint isn't worth it for a fighter, so being able to do it reliably is not important at all.
If you want a duelist/fencer, etc, Rogue is the class you want, not Fighter. Acrobatics =/= iconic fighter skill, escpecially since the duelist archetype is the rogue class, not the fighter class.
Also, living off the land is Survival, not Knowledge Local.
EDIT- Ah, and now I have discovered the real reason you want fighters to have 6+int skill points. You hate the ranger class. We are never going to agree on that point, as the ranger is my favorite fantasy archtype. Heck, even modern archetype, given Cowboys are essentially rangers.
Squirreloid:
"Any flavor we give them [ranger]is just the latest in an endless line of poor excuses for the existence of a class that isn't needed and has never been notably playable."
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Nice work so far.
In one of the other threads someone mentioned a hypothetical skill called Knowledge (warfare) that pulls some of your tactics, logistics, siege warfare and engineering knowledges together. Obviously it's not in the Alpha, but if you even up house ruling your fighter, it's seems like a good fit with what you're describing.
Fighter skills are now not as limited because the cross class skills are 1 rank per level.
So any fighter can have a high bluff or stealth
Also note the armor trining reduces armor check penalty so a 14 dex fighter could go +7 stealth at 8th level wearing a MW full plate or a 10 cha fighter could have +8 in bluff without any feats or magical enhancements.
Anyhow, here's to seeing some changes to the Fighter in Beta.
I had a few notes about Squirreloid's writeup:
4+INT skill points. 4 is realistic. If mages can get a d6, fighters can get 4 skill points. Should also apply to clerics. The Fighter skill list could certainly be expanded a bit, but the cross-class penalty is a flat 3 points now, so that's less important than points to work with in the first place.
Parry. I think to balance this ability, it should either be specified to 'use up' an AoO OR specifically counted as one of the Fighters' attacks for the round (you could choose your full BAB attack or lesser ones.) Otherwise, it's giving an extra attack.
As well, instead of a flat "if he deals damage... that action is thwarted and lost", force a CMB check to pull off the action (perhaps with a +bonus), a straight CMB check for melee attacks, and a 15+CMB Spellcraft check for spellcasting...
(it should be harder to 'parry' a tarrasque than an elf)
And make it so that he doesn't cause damage until Stunning Combo is gained.
Deja Vu again.
Unite armor and weapon training into a single Combat bonus at 4th,8th, 12th, 16th, 20th.
This bonus applies to CMB, all weapons hit and damage, armor class, max dex bonus and skill check penalty.
ecobos wrote: Deja Vu again.
Unite armor and weapon training into a single Combat bonus at 4th,8th, 12th, 16th, 20th.
This bonus applies to CMB, all weapons hit and damage, armor class, max dex bonus and skill check penalty.
Its only deja vu when you post relatively identical text to a previous post =)
Hmmm.. the bonus to CMB might be warranted, but I'd almost rather handle that separately, possibly as a feat, since not every fighter is going to specialize in combat maneuvers. (And by specialize I mean be able to trip a cloud giant and the like - something they currently need serious help with).
Squirrelloid wrote: Disciple of Sakura wrote: Squirrelloid wrote: Parry (ex): As an immediate action a fighter may make an attack against any creature he threatens in response to an action they are about to take. If he deals damage with this attack that action is thwarted and lost. Unless I'm completely off base in reading this, this ability is just incredibly powerful. As an immediate action, so long as a fighter hits his opponent, he can completely shut down said opponent's full attack action?
So, if a fighter is standing next to a collossal red dragon, he can make one attack (at his highest attack bonus) and, if he hits and does damage, the dragon's full attack on him is completely negated? Is that how this works, because that's how I'm reading it, and it's insanely potent. Especially if the fighter uses Quick Draw to just pull out a flask of acid and tosses it as a touch attack... Full attack is not actually an action. Its a composite action composed of attack actions. You start with an attack action (which can be thwarted), and can then continue taking attack actions until the full attack is finished. You'll note that when you take an attack action at the start of your turn you haven't committed to a single attack or a full attack until you take the *second* attack. Same deal. Each attack is treated as a separate action.
Also, you can't pull a flask until you get it to 30' because you don't *threaten* with the flask. Really? I always read the term "Full Attack Action" and "Full Round Action" as being, well, an action. A Full Attack Action is one action composed of several attacks at (typically) progressively smaller bonuses. *IF* it is actually defined as a special case composed of potentially 8 or more individual actions, I can understand it, but that's not what the wording implies to me.
And you're right on the flask. It was just the first thing that turns attacks into Touch Attacks I could think of, and wasn't entirely coherent about it.
The Full Attack Action is indeed a Full Round Action. The reason it's treated differently is because there's a special clause for it.
SRD wrote: Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action. It's not so much that a Full Attack action is made up of multiple actions, rather you can choose, based on the outcome of the first attack, whether you do an Attack action or a Full Attack Action.
With the current wording of Parry, the Fighter could thwart the first attack, and then the attacker could do a Move action.
A better wording may be to expand upon the idea to limit the ability to thwart a single Move action, Standard action, or attack.
Kaisoku wrote: The Full Attack Action is indeed a Full Round Action. The reason it's treated differently is because there's a special clause for it.
SRD wrote: Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action. It's not so much that a Full Attack action is made up of multiple actions, rather you can choose, based on the outcome of the first attack, whether you do an Attack action or a Full Attack Action.
With the current wording of Parry, the Fighter could thwart the first attack, and then the attacker could do a Move action.
A better wording may be to expand upon the idea to limit the ability to thwart a single Move action, Standard action, or attack.
Well, i think you should be able to thwart, say, a charge if someone tries to charge from within your threatened area. But yes, the intention is that you can thwart individual attacks in a full attack action, and it should be worded in a way that makes that clearer.
|
