Fighter Redesign

[Kelvin273]

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.

Let's take a look at the fighter's flavor text.

3.5 PHB (p.37, bolding mine) wrote:

The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king -- all are fighters.

Since some fighters come from the nobility (knights, overlords, king's champions), it's appropriate for the class to have skills such people would learn (knowledge [heraldry], knowledge [nobility], knowledge [history], diplomacy). Since even non-noble fighters are the elite of their units, there's no reason the class shouldn't get at least as many skill points as the barbarian. This elite status also permits skills like knowledge (dungeoneering) and (engineering) because the grubby members of the class would still know more about the arts of warfare and how to raid a dungeon, especially in a D&D setting where lots of fighters do such things.

[ecobos]

Squirrelloid wrote:

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).

The point is that the fighter shouldn't be an specialist, but rather an steady and reliable generalist that can handle most combat situations. I think they also shouldn't be tripping cloud giants, but still be tripping dwarves without any effort.

[Asgetrion]

Viktor_Von_Doom 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.

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).

Well, it would allow for more customization and also add racial "flavour" to the class -- yet you would not be forced to pick them if you don't want to. You could just focus on taking "ordinary" combat feats. Here's the thing: IMHO it's far better to offer a wide range of options than restrict your choices with narrowly-defined class features/abilities. What if I want to create a clumsy and slow-witted hammer-wielder... can I do that if you include a lot of "acrobatic" stunts in the class features? And so on.

[TarkisFlux]

Somewhere back in the wall of post, this came up (I copied it at the time, but couldn't find it later, sorry):

Somebody, think it was Squirrelloid wrote:

when the Barbarian gets to potentially use all his rage powers on the *same feat* the fighter is using

This is not true. Rage powers swift actions in A3 unless specifically called out otherwise (see the Rage Powers paragraph on p14), so you won't see that very often, if ever.

On to some more directed thoughts though...

You've certainly made a fighter who controls the fight, but he also gets a lot more AoOs than before, and can cause others to proc them. I like the control abilities, but less so the AoOs. For what it's worth, I like what you've done here, and here's my opinion on the combat abilities:

Surprise lunge is interesting, and in most mid-large size encounters would give the fighter an extra AoO on many many rounds. Even if he's in combat with somthing else, he could just expand his threat range, let somone trigger it, and use that to move around whatever he was fighting at the time. Since it's only a 5' adjust he doesn't trigger any AoOs for himself, and he can work himself out of flank without too much effort. It might be worth dropping the extra attack to start, calling it "Combat Positioning" or some such and just allowing him the extra move to close with someone in that scenario would make him more mobile without boosting his damage output immediately. Give hime the full lunge later on, possibly after the rapid reactions ability.

Expert Defender looks like a solid idea, but I don't like that it's always on. Is the fighter surprised? Doesn't matter, can't charge him (unless I'm remembering wrong and you don't threaten when surprised, bit late to want to look it up). Maybe make it a benefit of another combat action, like when fighting defensively, full defensive, or using the combat expertise feat to boost your AC.

Parry has issues, but they've been mentioned before; a bit more clarification and detail would help. As an alternate ability, you could allow Parry to provide a +5 bonus to AC (or half class level if you want it to scale) against one attack that just hit you; if the attack would not have hit your new AC it misses you. You don't get the full range of action negation with this, but you don't boost damage either. It also sounds more like a 'parry' to me; you had a pre-emptive strike thing going that might be better at higher levels (and might also be more in line with the debuffer Monk you've mentioned elsewhere, I too am crossing my fingers on that one).

I like rapid reactions. A lot. It comes at a great time as well.

Tactical Genius... could be problematic. An extra immediate action to use on the unmodified Surprise Lunge gives the fighter two 5' moves that don't provoke AoOs, and two extra attacks in a round in any mid-large scale fight. Or two unmodified uses of Parry to screw over two people's rounds. I like the idea behind it, but I suggest limiting it so that you can't use the same immediate action twice in the same round.

Perfect Moment is perfect. Use defense, ready an action, wait for someone to charge you, it gets broken by the ability, and then you unload a full attack on them. Good times. I can see it already: "Wait for it... wait for it... steady... NOW!"

Ranged Parry works if you keep Parry as is (preferably more detailed of course), but I don't care for it. I think this might be a better place for the Surprise Lunge ability, especially if the attack ability is removed from the ability as I suggested originally.

Stunning Combo is great.

Not sure I agree with the boost to Armor Mastery, but I don't see it as a big deal.

Skills... under the new system I'd prefer to see skills decrease rather than increase. This style of fighter might deserve to get Perception, but I'm not convinced. I've said more about it in other threads and don't want to rehash it here.

And I've got nothing more to add. I agree with the direction you're trying to go, and really like what you've done with the place ;-)

[Kelvin273]

Asgetrion wrote:

What if I want to create a clumsy and slow-witted hammer-wielder... can I do that if you include a lot of "acrobatic" stunts in the class features? And so on.

I don't see anything in squirreloid's variant that's overly acrobatic. Anyway, if you really want to play your character as clumsy and slow-witted, give him low Int and Dex scores. The idea would be that, although he's otherwise clumsy and dull, his training in weapons and combat allows him to exceed his limitations when going toe-to-toe with the enemy.

[Midnight-v]

Shameless bump

[Squirrelloid]

Midnight-v wrote:

Shameless bump

I'd be more interested in actually revising this if there was any feedback whatsoever from Jason on whether this was even a useful exercise or not. So instead I'm working on breaking D+D 4E in my spare time, because this just kept feeling more futile. I fully expect the Alpha 3 fighter to make it into beta unchanged, which will mostly mean the fighter is still made of as much fail in pathfinder as it was in 3.5.

You can't fix it by throwing bigger numbers at it (which is what Jason did), and you can't fix it without knowing what the problem is and was. And as I've seen little-no indication he pays any attention to the New Rules Suggestions, its unclear why they have such a forum. Oh well, what's posted is close enough to right for anyone who wants to use it. Would be nice if a fighter who actually worked made it into the core rules, but hey, if there's a Living Pathfinder I'll just play a wizard.

[Midnight-v]

Hey for the record... this design makes into 3.MV
I'm just redoing a version of D&D and having it bound and your version of the fighter is the version I'm going to use. Along with OnewingedAngels rebalanced paladin and franks sorcerer fix from these boards. If you want somthing done right ... etc etc..
I'm gonna have one professionally bound a month and give them away to my friends... It should be like the Srd with all the changes I deem needed for 3.5 which is what the paizo guys basically did and frankly though I'll never have the market they have, I'm pretty sure I can do just as good a job. . . or better...
If this should come to pass I'll track you down and send you a copy.
Thanks SQ. Happy gaming.
M_v

[Squirrelloid]

Midnight-v wrote:

Hey for the record... this design makes into 3.MV

I'm just redoing a version of D&D and having it bound and your version of the fighter is the version I'm going to use. Along with OnewingedAngels rebalanced paladin and franks sorcerer fix from these boards. If you want somthing done right ... etc etc..
I'm gonna have one professionally bound a month and give them away to my friends... It should be like the Srd with all the changes I deem needed for 3.5 which is what the paizo guys basically did and frankly though I'll never have the market they have, I'm pretty sure I can do just as good a job. . . or better...
If this should come to pass I'll track you down and send you a copy.
Thanks SQ. Happy gaming.
M_v

Wow, that almost gives me enough incentive to actually do a revision... Hold off a few days, I may monkey around with some text.

[Robert Brambley]

Midnight-v wrote:

Hey for the record... this design makes into 3.MV

I'm just redoing a version of D&D and having it bound and your version of the fighter is the version I'm going to use. Along with OnewingedAngels rebalanced paladin and franks sorcerer fix from these boards. If you want somthing done right ... etc etc..
I'm gonna have one professionally bound a month and give them away to my friends... It should be like the Srd with all the changes I deem needed for 3.5 which is what the paizo guys basically did and frankly though I'll never have the market they have, I'm pretty sure I can do just as good a job. . . or better...
If this should come to pass I'll track you down and send you a copy.
Thanks SQ. Happy gaming.
M_v

Can you post a link for the rebalanced Palandin from OneWingedAngel, and the Sorcerer from Frank? I'm interested in reading them, as I too am making a "me-variant" of the wizard, the fighter, and have already made one for the paladin (which I shared).

That being said - i feel that you and SQ were being a little too critical of what the team is doing. I know Jason reads the messages and he has responded to many threads. Many of our suggestions, including some that I've made or supporeted have found their way into the rule-changes. (the changed tumble rule, and the change in the paladin as it relates to Remove Disease are both ideas I was fully advocating). However, I'm sure although he'd love to read every thread, theres' simply way too much on here to have that level of an expectation; considering he is working feverishly on the Beta to be released soon. I'm making variant classes to fit more of my taste - but I'm not going to assume that I can do "better" than what Paizo has done - just different and more to my taste.

I obviously agree, SQ about the fighter needing changes - as I have contributed signifantly to the THINK TANK thread on Fighters. All we can do is post our thoughts and share them and hope for feedback from people, and hope that it'll be seen by the Paizo staff and it fits their style, image and opinions of what they want to do.

Unfortunately, they can't please everybody about everything; and there's no shame in that. It's just impossible. But at least they're making most things better (which I'm sure we can all agree on); and thus should be able to make almost everyone happIER.

Robert

[Squirrelloid]

Robert Brambley wrote:

That being said - i feel that you and SQ were being a little too critical of what the team is doing. I know Jason reads the messages and he has responded to many threads. Many of our suggestions, including some that I've made or supporeted have found their way into the rule-changes. (the changed tumble rule, and the change in the paladin as it relates to Remove Disease are both ideas I was fully advocating). However, I'm sure although he'd love to read every thread, theres' simply way too much on here to have that level of an expectation; considering he is working feverishly on the Beta to be released soon. I'm making variant classes to fit more of my taste - but I'm not going to assume that I can do "better" than what Paizo has done - just different and more to my taste.

Its hard to deny that all that has been done to the fighter is increase the numbers, because that's literally what has been done. In that regard, I do think I can do it better than they have done.

I also basically said I didn't want to waste effort on something that wasn't going to be used. If Jason said "this looks cool, but I have issues with x,y,z - could I see a second draft that fixes these issues or some math or playtest reports to justify your decision to include those features", I'd be happy to do exactly that. Designing a class that is functional is a lot of work, and I have better things to do with my time than design a class no one is going to use. Small fixes to things don't need encouragement, but full class rewrites require substantial effort for a quality end product, and I know there are other people on these boards capable and interested in doing so, but the incentives need to be there.

[Robert Brambley]

Squirrelloid wrote:

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).

I actually like this idea - true the charger can opt to take a different line or a different target - but the fighter does prevent the chargers first choice. It might not take away all charging options, but does take away one.

Robert

[Robert Brambley]

Squirrelloid wrote:

Its hard to deny that all that has been done to the fighter is increase the numbers, because that's literally what has been done. In that regard, I do think I can do it better than they have done.

Fair enough - I agree with this sentiment (as it pertains to the fighter class), but alot HAS been done about many other aspects of the 3.5 rules - and done well IMO.

Squirrelloid wrote:

I also basically said I didn't want to waste effort on something that wasn't going to be used. If Jason said "this looks cool, but I have issues with x,y,z - could I see a second draft that fixes these issues or some math or playtest reports to justify your decision to include those features", I'd be happy to do exactly that. Designing a class that is functional is a lot of work, and I have better things to do with my time than design a class no one is going to use. Small fixes to things don't need encouragement, but full class rewrites require substantial effort for a quality end product, and I know there are other people on these boards capable and interested in doing so, but the incentives need to be there.

Again I will agree with your frustration and I do understand how you feel. I was merely indicating that we simply shouldn't have an demanded expectation that Jason (or anyone else) specifically make comments to each and every thread, suggest, post, and idea floating out there; it's just too daunting of a task to have that sort of expectation. I do have faith that most threads are being observed and many taken into serious consideration. Obviously your input is important to you; but no more than anyone else's input is to them.

EDIT: I have posted my thoughts on the THINK TANK FIGHTERSthread just now - its only stage one - but it's a hint as to the direction my re-worked fighter is taking. It has taken ideas from others on this thread and that thread to come about. And it's a work in progress.

Robert

[Zorak]

I've been reading the posts out there and thinking about other possibilities to improve the fighter class and keeping its flexibility.

As Freesword explained (and I agree with him): "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."

Therefore here my proposition for a alternative fighter

Level 1 Feat
Level 2 Feat/courage +1
Level 3 Dodge in Armor +1
Level 4 Feat
Level 5 WF+WS
Level 6 Feat/courage +2
Level 7 Dodge in Armor +2
Level 8 Feat
Level 9 combat mastery I
Level 10 Feat/courage +3
Level 11 Dodge in Armor +3
Level 12 Feat
Level 13 GWF+GWS
Level 14 Feat/courage +4
Level 15 Dodge in Armor +4
Level 16 Feat
Level 17 combat mastery II
Level 18 Feat/courage +5
Level 19 Armor mastery
Level 20 Feat/Weapon Mastery

Feat: Nothing different

Courage +#: nothing different, but I think that when a bonus is improving with levels, at each level it increases, it should be indicated (It's in fact a purely esthetical mention)

Dodge in Armor : here the major difference is to consider the bonus given to the fighter a dodge bonus instead of an armor bonus. The reasons are the following
1 - Everybody knows that dodge bonuses stacks, so it is more logical
2 - As Dodge bonuses do not coult in flat footed situation it better simulate the fact that an improved mastery of an armor do not help in such situation (you are suprised, so you cannot present the best part of your armor to the blow of your ennemy)
3 - Dodge bonuses improve the touch AC which is always quite low for a fighter; improving a little bit his chance to avoid a touch spell (without unbalancing this)

WF(weapon focus)+WS(weapon spec.) and GWF+GWS: the fighter chooses a weapon category and apply the bonuses to all of its weapons.
From my point of view, as this feats are fighter only feats (at least for WS and GWS) they should have them automatically. This replace the current "Weapon training"

Combat mastery (that is for me the most important modification for this class): at the 9th level the fighter is able to move 5ft between two attacks in case of full round attack and he can use 2 combat feat in the same round, cumulating their effects. At the 17th level he is now able to move 2 times 5ft btween attacks (but not 10 ft at once) and he is able to cumulate 3 combat feats in the same round.

This last capacity is the one IMHO which balances the rage of the barbarian or the talent of the rogue, opening new possibilities of combinations for the fighter
Ex: DEADLY STROKE + SPRING ATTACK (mainly the first round)

Armor mastery: Nothing different

Weapon Mastery: Here the only change I propose is that the critcal should not be automaticaly confirmed but the fighter should receive a +4 to confim (like one of the feats of 3.5)

What do you think about this ?

[Laurefindel]

Zorak wrote:

Dodge in Armor : here the major difference is to consider the bonus given to the fighter a dodge bonus instead of an armor bonus. The reasons are the following
1 - Everybody knows that dodge bonuses stacks, so it is more logical
2 - As Dodge bonuses do not coult in flat footed situation it better simulate the fact that an improved mastery of an armor do not help in such situation (you are suprised, so you cannot present the best part of your armor to the blow of your ennemy)
3 - Dodge bonuses improve the touch AC which is always quite low for a fighter; improving a little bit his chance to avoid a touch spell (without unbalancing this)

That makes really good sense.

[hmarcbower]

Hey Squirrelloid, nice job on the fighter rewrite. I can applaud you for the thought and work you've put into it. However, I can say that, for me, it's just a little too much. It seems like you're making some kind of uber-gestalt class.

I think you've done a good job, I just don't think it will fly in a 3.5 compatible game unless the power level increase that Paizo has already added in gets doubled or so to catch up to your fighter.

Very cool ideas... just overkill in a single class. My opinion only. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work you did, either - I think it's a very cool class you ended up with.

As for Jason/Paizo not responding... I have noticed that as well. To be honest, so many of the threads could have come to quick closure or been more directed if more staff input had been provided to the discussions. SO many of the threads would just come to a total stop with either a "yes, great idea, consider it slightly modified and in the rules" or "no, that doesn't fit with the Pathfinder RPG concepts". Then we'd know whether we're just spinning our wheels in the sand or actually contributing useful information.

As it stands now the beta has already gone to the printers (I think I saw that stated in a thread here a couple of days ago) so there might be a bit of a pause while we wait to see what's coming with it - unless Jason et al are going to start answering the many questions lingering in the forum with official "beta" answers.

I know it's not "design by committee" but when you solicit feedback, and that feedback goes mostly into a black hole and you're not sure if it's being read or not by the people who can actually take action with it... well, you have a lot of people here who are providing some very good design possibilities - for free, I might add - but none of us know to what extent it's actually being paid attention to. I'm not saying the posts are being ignored - as I don't really think that's true - but there is no indication otherwise other than our faith in this company that they wouldn't do such a thing.

[Squirrelloid]

hmarcbower wrote:

Hey Squirrelloid, nice job on the fighter rewrite. I can applaud you for the thought and work you've put into it. However, I can say that, for me, it's just a little too much. It seems like you're making some kind of uber-gestalt class.

I think you've done a good job, I just don't think it will fly in a 3.5 compatible game unless the power level increase that Paizo has already added in gets doubled or so to catch up to your fighter.

Very cool ideas... just overkill in a single class. My opinion only. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work you did, either - I think it's a very cool class you ended up with.

La la la, sorry, haven't been very active last couple months.

Anyway, I find it bizarre that you say that when full casters still completely dominate my fighter write-up. He's got nothing on the wizard, for example.

The problem is that for some reason people have a very different standard for what its ok for a spell to do and what its ok for a melee character to do. I guarantee if anything this fighter write-up is *underpowered* relative to the Wizard, Cleric, and probably Druid (although I haven't looked at the Paizo rewrite too closely for Druids). Wizard actually got *more* powerful in Paizo (Item familiar is stupidly good, generalist benefits are crazy-powerful) and didn't really lose all that much.

Is it a massive improvement over the old 3.5 fighter? Of course. It needed to be. It has to play in games with Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, and it has to do something sufficiently well that the other players won't wish you'd played another C/D/W instead. Or alternately, so you don't wish you'd played a C/D/W instead. Sucking isn't enjoyable - everyone likes to feel their character is capable at every level. This actually makes the fighter capable of doing things that matter past 5th level (which is about as far as you got before the Wizard started hinting that the best thing you could be doing is taking ranks in Profession (Bartender) - and remember, shaken, not stirred).

[The Wandering Bard]

Nice rewrite. Personally I've been blessed enough that players of both the core fighter and the variants I've tried have never felt "underpowered" as such, but I know the problem exists and applaud your attempts to fix it. Immediate actions are exactly what the doctor ordered to help the supposedly "tactically oriented" classes.