|
In my opinion Fighters should be the dominant class when it comes down to brute force damage and even with the changes to them in Pathfinder RPG I don't think it goes far enough and it does not scale well compared to the other classes.
To this end I make the following suggestions.
Change weapon training to every 3 levels instead of every 4 levels to only include levels 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 and to specify in weapon training that the dmg is added before the crit multiplier.
Move weapon Mastery to Level 15 and replace it at level 20 with another ability that is like improved crit but stacks with improved crit.
Now I have no means of testing these ideas anymore but if those that can play test them and like them or have suggestions with the numbers that work better please do so. Any suggestions or critiques wanted.
|
|
In my opinion Fighters should be the dominant class when it comes down to brute force damage and even with the changes to them in Pathfinder RPG I don't think it goes far enough and it does not scale well compared to the other classes.
To this end I make the following suggestions.
Change weapon training to every 3 levels instead of every 4 levels to only include levels 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 and to specify in weapon training that the dmg is added before the crit multiplier.
Move weapon Mastery to Level 15 and replace it at level 20 with another ability that is like improved crit but stacks with improved crit.
Now I have no means of testing these ideas anymore but if those that can play test them and like them or have suggestions with the numbers that work better please do so. Any suggestions or critiques wanted.
Disagree. The brute force damage masters should definitely be a raging barbarian. Fighters should be the tactical kings, screwing their enemies over by maneuvering them and controlling the battlefield (which sadly at the moment they are not very good at)
|
|
Disagree. The brute force damage masters should definitely be a raging barbarian. Fighters should be the tactical kings, screwing their enemies over by maneuvering them and controlling the battlefield (which sadly at the moment they are not very good at)
Wee opinions fly!!
I never saw it that way.. I always have seen the barbarians as the " I can run into anything and take any hit type guys' Not the I should out dmg the fighter type guys..
Disagree. The brute force damage masters should definitely be a raging barbarian. Fighters should be the tactical kings, screwing their enemies over by maneuvering them and controlling the battlefield (which sadly at the moment they are not very good at)
Wee opinions fly!!
I never saw it that way.. I always have seen the barbarians as the " I can run into anything and take any hit type guys' Not the I should out dmg the fighter type guys..
That's how I see it - Fighters fight smarter (Combat Expertise, INT 13), Barbs fight harder (Conan Smash!).
|
|
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.
|
|
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.
That I will agree with...
That said..I still don't think Fighters scale well with Dmg...
Director of Games
|
I am not convinced that fighters need higher base damage dealing options, but through feats, they should be able to do some really neat things. This is something we are going to be looking at strongly when we get to the feats chapter.
BTW, I strongly agree with the breakdown of who should "shine" at specific moments of the game. This really helps define the different roles of the various melee oriented characters.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Agree... but keeping it 1/4 levels is a must, otherwise there would be "dead" levels, something that Paizo is trying to avoid. Maybe some more feats that give bonuses to damage?
eekk... I got 2 dead zones and a bunch of staking of powers... will have to re think how to improve weapon mastery. I think making the Bonus +2 every level is going to far..
How about start at +2 and add +1 every 4 after that? Adds up to the same numbers in the end.
|
|
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.
I agree with this notion. However, unfortunately the paladin fails to shine at any of them (yet).
Not the right forum as of yet, but I intend to take up that crusade when the time is right.
Robert
|
|
I am not convinced that fighters need higher base damage dealing options, but through feats, they should be able to do some really neat things. This is something we are going to be looking at strongly when we get to the feats chapter.
BTW, I strongly agree with the breakdown of who should "shine" at specific moments of the game. This really helps define the different roles of the various melee oriented characters.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The thing with feats though is anyone can take them and that would not be unique to the fighter, Unless you are going to add more Fighter only feats for their bonus feat options.
That said, The still need to be doing more dmg, especially at high levels where the dmg they are doing means nothing because it is to low. If this is done by fighter only feats that would be fine if done well. I think the best way of doing this is feats that help with Crits. Maybe A superior Improved Crit.
|
|
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.I agree with this notion. However, unfortunately the paladin fails to shine at any of them (yet).
Not the right forum as of yet, but I intend to take up that crusade when the time is right.
Robert
Same here...
|
Director of Games
|
The thing with feats though is anyone can take them and that would not be unique to the fighter, Unless you are going to add more Fighter only feats for their bonus feat options.
That said, The still need to be doing more dmg, especially at high levels where the dmg they are doing means nothing because it is to low. If this is done by fighter only feats that would be fine if done well. I think the best way of doing this is feats that help with Crits. Maybe A superior Improved Crit.
Although anyone can take feats, the fighter gets them at a pace that far outshines any other class. In addition, adding prereqs like BAB +11 or +16 makes them something that really only the melee classes can access easily. I might even go so far as to add some prereqs like Fighter Level 10th, or something similar. But as I said, we will discuss this more in the feats section.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
See I am not the Only one Who uses the idea of Roles... :-p
To that end I would like to ask the community to help me Name those roles and define them to see how each class fits in each role.
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.
Didn't sound like those were the roles you were talking about. If so, I apologize. If not, then it's pretty obvious that the ranger should be best at rangery things, Paladin best at paladiny things, fighter best at fightery things, barbarian best at barbarian things. No one will argue with that.
|
|
Didn't sound like those were the roles you were talking about. If so, I apologize. If not, then it's pretty obvious that the ranger should be best at rangery things, Paladin best at paladiny things, fighter best at fightery things, barbarian best at barbarian things. No one will argue with that.
That is exactly what I was trying to say... But my point in that thread was that they were not the best in those roles and we needed a baseline to describe them so we can compare and contrast to see how best to fix them.
Anyway..that was another thread..
|
I'm in agreement with Jason that feats are really the way to go and as the fighter is the feat person then it fits well. Improving feats like weapon specialisation, etc is probably the best way to fix this. So have feats that improve the damage with a specific weapon but also allow tricks to be done with them (extra effects on a critical, bonuses to certain moves, etc). If they have BAB requirements then it would allow other classes to pick them up but they would probably only be able to afford to specialise in one weapon and to a lesser degree than the fighter. A high level fighter with his favourite weapon in hand should be a formidable opponent.
The Basic D&D game brought in advanced weapon mastery (in the black Master set and the D&D cyclopedia) which gave different degrees of mastery for various weapons. I've been using an adaptation of that for my 3.5 campaign and nobody has ever seen fighters as being weak or not able to pull their weight in high level combats.
|
|
I'm in agreement with Jason that feats are really the way to go and as the fighter is the feat person then it fits well. Improving feats like weapon specialisation, etc is probably the best way to fix this. So have feats that improve the damage with a specific weapon but also allow tricks to be done with them (extra effects on a critical, bonuses to certain moves, etc). If they have BAB requirements then it would allow other classes to pick them up but they would probably only be able to afford to specialise in one weapon and to a lesser degree than the fighter. A high level fighter with his favourite weapon in hand should be a formidable opponent.
The Basic D&D game brought in advanced weapon mastery (in the black Master set and the D&D cyclopedia) which gave different degrees of mastery for various weapons. I've been using an adaptation of that for my 3.5 campaign and nobody has ever seen fighters as being weak or not able to pull their weight in high level combats.
Since what I am looking for can be done with feats I am not going to add anymore to this thread...
But I will be bringing it up when we go into Feats.. and I am going to be pushing for Unique feats for fighters.
Only problem with feats is that if your not careful you can make players feel like they need certain feats because they are superior to others. That is why I was originally pushing for working on Dmg with the base abilities of the Fighter.
Your heart was in the right place when you did the fighter rewrite, but in practice he's only marginally better than the 3.5 fighter. He is, in fact, less imposing than the 3.5 variant because Power Attack isn't as good as it once was.
With all due respect, I believe that the Fighter needs class features that synergize with feats and make them more powerful if he takes them, then if others take then (even the barbarian, ranger, and paladin). I have so many questions and ideas, I don't know where to begin, so forgive me for rambling here...
1. I understand you want to hold off on the broad spectrum of potential feat changes and suggestions until later, but with the Fighter class they are a main feature and it's kind of pointless to change the class without taking into account what feats need to be changed. It's like saying, "Let's hear paladin feedback/suggestions, but hold off on subjects like casting, LoH, or smite." Shall we at least discuss the "weapon focus/weapon spec" line?
2. In addition to feats, he should get Fighter Talents, Combat Styles (2 handed fighting, two-weapon fighter perks, weapon-and-shield style, and archery/thrown weapons) that make him significantly more powerful as he continues on.
Crusader of Logic pointed out the Tier system for evaluating the relative power of PC classes. I'll look for it and post it again if you think it's a good idea, it was a good, honest look at where they're at.
The idea is to get your classes balanced at "Tier 3" where they do one thing extremely well, and are useful outside of that one situation where their abilities shine. I don't expect fighters to fly on their own, but I do expect them to be able to adapt to a wide variety of battlefield threats and I expect fighters (and martial characters as a whole) to be up to the task of "getting in the enemies' face" at high levels without getting killed in 1 or 2 rounds... or being unable to engage the enemy in melee at all.
If your fighter isn't equivalent in power to a Warblade from Bo9S, then he will probably not be up to the task of fighting anything reasonably tough at mid to high levels. Ironically, the brute type enemies will usually kill him the fastest, outside of SoD effects that target the will save. This is due to the fact that enemy HD scales faster than fighter offensive dmg, and the fact that fighter ac isn't going to make other martial enemies miss on anything other than a 1 or 2 most of the time. Since the fighter's best tricks are in melee range, he is going to have to put himself in harm's way. Against several enemies (encounters are rarely one on one) the 3.p fighter is dead in one round, less than that if he didn't get initiative.
3. A lot of the "fighter only" feats, the way they're written, are precisely the kind of thing a fighter would not want to spend a feat on. The Weapon Focus line, for example. Weapon Specialization... simply not worth a feat. + 2 damage with one weapon is meaningless unless your under level 3 or 4.
The simple fact is that a cleric casting Divine Power and Enlarge or Divine might is now a better fighter than the fighter is. Plus he has full spellcasting. Or, a druid who uses some wildshape tricks. Compared to Enlarge or a similar spell, all the weapon spec feats are cantrips. Greater Weapon Spec is 12th level? Really? 6th level spells are available to casters at that level. Would you waste a 6th level spell slot on a cantrip (+2 to damage)? Especially if you couldn't swap it out for something better later on?
Consider that a spell like Bull's Strength is available at 3rd level, and adds +4 strength. That's +2 to hit AND dmg, and costs no feats, and is better than weapon focus plus weapon spec. Do you really think that weapon spec should be only worth a flat +2 to dmg?
Right now the "fighter only" tricks are not class-defining or even "that good." Why is weapon spec fighter-only anyway? Is it because of the old 2e rules?
I would like to present ideas on how to make the fighter better, in addition to the other martial classes. I've written up what I believe is a good, powerful variant class for the fighter. I am currently working on the barbarian and monk.
|
|
3. A lot of the "fighter only" feats, the way they're written, are precisely the kind of thing a fighter would not want to spend a feat on. The Weapon Focus line, for example. Weapon Specialization... simply not worth a feat. + 2 damage with one weapon is meaningless unless your under level 3 or 4.
The simple fact is that a cleric casting Divine Power and Enlarge or Divine might is now a better fighter than the fighter is. Plus he has full spellcasting. Or, a druid who uses some wildshape tricks. Compared to Enlarge or a similar spell, all the weapon spec feats are cantrips. Greater Weapon Spec is 12th level? Really? 6th level spells are available to casters at that level. Would you waste a 6th level spell slot on a cantrip (+2 to damage)? Especially if you couldn't swap it out for something better later on?
Good point. I've often felt the same way - that weapon Spec is a often not worth taking.
What do you recommend for that feat, then?
Robert
First of all, I would give the Fighter the following class feature when he acquires Weapon Training at 5th level.
Weapon Aptitude (Ex): At 5th level, Weapon-oriented feats that apply to only one weapon, such as Weapon Focus, apply to all weapons in that chosen Weapon Training group. If the weapon is in more than one group, pick one to apply this effect to. For example, Weapon Focus: Greataxe now applies to the entire “Axes” group if the fighter has Weapon Training in the “Axes” weapon group.
Now the Fighter automatically gets far more mileage out of the WF/WS line of feats than anyone else. He gets this bonus in "Axes" for example whether he's dual wielding Dwarven waraxes, using a Greataxe in two hands, or throwing a hurlbat/hand axe at someone.
Everyone else who takes the Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec line still applies these feats to ONE weapon of their choice. I would then make the weapon focus and weapon spec feats available to all characters who want them, with specific BAB requirements instead of "fighter level x." Now for the most important part, I would change the feats to give more benefit to characters as their BAB grows. Here is my proposed write-up:
Weapon Focus [GENERAL, FIGHTER]:
Prerequisites: Weapon proficiency with chosen weapon, BAB +1
Select any weapon that you are proficient in, Improved Unarmed Strike counts a weapon for the purposes of this feat. You gain a +1 to hit upon taking this feat, and another cumulative +1 to hit for every 5 BAB that you have, when using this weapon. This bonus is also added to rolls to confirm critical hits and to your combat maneuver bonus.
This feat can be taken more than once, but it can only be taken once for a particular weapon. Each time it is taken, it applies to a new weapon.
Weapon Specialization [GENERAL, FIGHTER]:
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus in chosen weapon, BAB +4
Select any weapon that you chose for Weapon Focus. Improved Unarmed Strike counts as a weapon for the purposes of this feat. You gain +2 to damage for every 4 BAB you have, when using this weapon. In addition, when using a weapon that your Weapon Specialization applies to, you may use your move action as an attack action (like a second standard attack action) if you so choose (you can still take a 5-foot step to make this attack).
This feat can be taken more than once, but it can only be taken once for a particular weapon. Each time it is taken, it applies to a new weapon.
Greater Weapon Focus [GENERAL, FIGHTER]:
Prerequisites: BAB +6, Weapon Focus in chosen weapon, Weapon Specialization in chosen weapon
Select any weapon that you selected for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Improved Unarmed Strike counts a weapon for the purposes of this feat. The bonuses you gain from Weapon Focus double, so every +1 granted by Weapon Focus is now a +2, applied to all rolls to hit and all rolls to confirm critical hits. You may also apply this bonus to your combat maneuver bonus.
This feat can be taken more than once, but it can only be taken once for a particular weapon. Each time it is taken, it applies to a new weapon.
Greater Weapon Specialization [GENERAL, FIGHTER]:
Prerequisites: BAB +8, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, all in chosen weapon
Select any weapon that you selected for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Improved Unarmed Strike counts a weapon for the purposes of this feat. The bonuses you gain from Weapon Specialization double, so every +2 granted by Weapon Specialization is now a +4, applied to all damage rolls made with that weapon.
This feat can be taken more than once, but it can only be taken once for a particular weapon. Each time it is taken, it applies to a new weapon.
Now, the feats are valuable for EVERYONE who plans on fighting, because CMB will scale faster for characters who "Focus," and they are more likely to confirm crits as they get better at fighting. I never really liked the idea of "confirming critical hits" but it's a staple of the 3.x system so we'll roll with it.
The idea that characters can specialize with weapons who are not necessarily "pure Fighting characters" is a staple Fantasy trope; there are many Rogueish characters who are masters of a light weapon or one-handed sword. Barbarians and rangers should be able to specialize in their chosen weapons too (Drizzt and Wulfgar?) while "Pure fighters" still get more mileage out of these feats (versatility) and are better weapon fighters overall (Weapon Training, and other levels of weapon mastery/grand mastery could be made class features for Fighters).
Now to further set the Fighter above his sword-using brethren, I added the following to the Weapon Training class feature:
Increase damage dice of all weapons in a Weapon Training group by 1 step for each level of Weapon Training in that group. So the weapon group with +1 Weapon Training bonus gets one damage step increase, and by level 17 the weapon group with the +4 bonus from Weapon Training gets 4 damage step increases.
This allows Fighters' weapon damage to scale as they level up, much like a Monk. If he has Weapon Training +4 in the Heavy Blades group, a level 17 fighter's greatsword now does 4d8 base damage.
(2d6 -> 2d8 -> 2d10 -> 4d6 -> 4d8) That's more than a normal sized 3.p monk's unarmed damage at level 20.
Also his damage with any other weapon in that group is accordingly increased. Scaling damage with weapon training in addition to flat bonuses gives the impression that the fighter is getting the most out of his technique when he attacks with his weapon as he increases his Weapon Training. It also is a class feature that "sets him apart" from other sword-users the same way Monks are set apart from other characters using Improved Unarmed Strike.
Good observation on the massive damage saves as a fightery thing.
The damage step incrase with Weapon Training levels would trigger at 5th and every 4 levels thereafter, providing a nice damage boost for your Fighter to trigger massive damage saves and attrition on melee brute enemies. That's one of the reasons I put it in; a full attack or good crit from a fighter against a resonable opponent will likely force a massive damage save, if it doesn't kill the enemy outright.
Casters trigger save-or-dies in preference to massive damage saves. The best casters are not evokers. They kill at will without resorting to "enlarged expanded fireball" spam. As far as keeping up with spellcasters, they often attack saves and not hp, making them inherently more dangerous than non-casters.
The damage dice increase is already a mechanic in place for the monk, and the table for damge dice increases and size increases is in the 3.5 dmg, I belive. Go to the appropriate size column and read down. To get a size increase, shift one column to the right. The PRPG has a chart for monks, but they advance faster than the typical dice increase as they level up.
|
I'd prefer to go with something simple, and give Fighters a class ability that allowed them to do +1 damage / odd level (+1 at 1st, +10 at 19th) with melee or ranged or unarmed attacks. Count it as 'precision damage,' and have it represent a Fighters exceptional focus on hacking stuff to bits with surgical precision. Do not modify it by two-handed, one-handed stuff, because Two-handed weapons are already swayed by the Str modifier / Power Attack calculations. This should just be a flat bonus to damage, whether the Fighter is using a Greataxe, paired Short Swords, a Longbow or his fist.
|
|
As a question to the optimizers, about what level should (assuming it gets changed to actually matter) Fighter be triggering Massive Damage saves, say, 20% of the time to keep up with casters?
It's probably worth noting that the massive damage rules in Pathfinder Beta are actually weaker than in 3.5 - it's no longer a flat 50 points of damage, but rather half the target's hit points (minimum 50 pts). So I'm thinking Jason's not going to be a fan of increasing the utility of such effects.
Thing is, Set, Fighters already get a flat bonus for getting Weapon Training, and if you read my feat rewrite for the weapon focus/weapon spec line, it does what you're suggesting (adds more bonus as you level up).
Adding your "precision damge modifier" class feature beyond weapon training and the weapon spec feats to give yet another flat damage bonus of yet another type (precision) adds nothing game-wise but more bookkeeping (so wait, the fighter's weapon training and weapon spec bonus count against the golem, but not the precision damage? I didn't record it separately... hold on...).
The damage dice increase similar to monk unarmed damage progression is something that was already suggested many times before, fits the character concept (I get better at fighting with my chosen weapon as I advance as a fighter), and provides incrased incntive to play a fighter. It also makes melee damage a viable option at higher levels, where "blasting" isn't usually the best route to success. This, combined with feats that multiply damage, add Con damage (like Deadly Stroke) and/or add situational save-or-die effects, will make the fighter actually better at killing things in melee than casters.
Casters will still be better at killing things in general, but hey, they're tier one (and probably wouldn't bother getting into melee range).
However Fighters should be the best all-round melee combatant, except when the other guy is in his element. A Ranger should be able to outshine a Fighter with his weapon style in his favoured terrain or against his favoured enemy. The Paladin should outshine fighters when fighting the forces of pure evil. Barbarians should outshine them when raging. But the rest of the time, Fighters should be the superior melee combatant.
The only problem is that it leaves the fighter with very few scenarios where he is preferred. Re-phrasing what you've said, the fighter is the superior melee combatant as long as:
- You're not fighting evil opponents
- The barbarian has used all of his rages
- The ranger isn't fighting in favored terrain or against a favored enemy
That isn't very often, and most of the time it's going to leave the party thinking, "Man, I wish we had an X instead of the fighter."
Adding cool tactical options unavailable to other classes helps the fighter stand out as being the best in some situations. Ideally, I'd like to see the fighter be given options to gain tactical advantage, and then given more combat power as he gains tactical advantage. Just brainstorming here, but what about something like this?
Combat Advantage
A fighter has combat advantage against any opponent that meets one or more of the following criteria:
- Flat footed
- Prone
- Fatigued or Exhausted
- Flanked (by the fighter)
- Unarmed
- Shaken, Afraid, or Panicked
You already have a series of feats that help create some of these situations, so add a few more that help create Flat-Footed and Fatigued advantages, or more ways to create the other advantages. Then you can add feats that improve the Fighter's effectiveness when he has combat advantage, such as these examples:
Tactical Opportunist
When an opponent acquires a condition that grants you Combat Advantage, you can make an immediate Attack of Opportunity against that opponent. If you are wielding a melee weapon, you must threaten the opponent to make the AoO.
Tactical Killer
You gain a +2 bonus to all damage rolls against opponents that grant you Combat Advantage.
Edit:
To be clear, the concept of Combat Advantage is not a feat, but a property that Fighters can exploit.
The Beta fighter is fine, lets wait to work on the feats and they will become devastating.
The beta fighter is fine for an npc class. All other martial characters are "better" with the possible exception of the paladin. This is an attempt to make the fighters stand out at fighting, and rewriting feats (for example weapon focus/weapon spec line) is a step towards doing that.
I'd like to add that the idea of designing the fighter as the "default" best fighter that is surpassed in certain situations is fundamentally flawed. Let's compare a specialist performance to a fighter performance. You have a couple scenarios, outlined below. ">" indicates marginally better. ">>" indicates significantly better.
Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist >> Fighter
Default: Fighter >> Specialist
You take a huge gamble with a specialist, as he'll be virtually useless much of the time.
Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist > Fighter
Default: Fighter >> Specialist
Quite simply, there's no point in taking a specialist for this case.
Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist >> Fighter
Default: Fighter > Specialist
You'll never want a fighter here, as the performance gain you get from the specialist in some situations outweighs the marginal hit you'd otherwise see.
Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist > Fighter
Default: Fighter > Specialist
Here there's no clear preference for one over the other, but the differences are marginal to where no class really feels special or unique.
So by modeling the fighter as a default, you have the problem that he is either always preferred or never preferred. I would contend that it's better to model the fighter as a specialist, so that the scenario comparison is more along the lines of:
Scenario favoring specialist: Specialist >> Other
Default: Specialist = Other
|
|
This is an attempt to make the fighters stand out at fighting, and rewriting feats (for example weapon focus/weapon spec line) is a step towards doing that.
Which should wait for the feats discussion forum, as Jason has repeatedly said.
Improving feats as a means to boosting the fighter is absolutely on the menu - but it has to wait for a bit yet. If you want to go down that road now, make a thread in General Discussion.
This is an attempt to make the fighters stand out at fighting, and rewriting feats (for example weapon focus/weapon spec line) is a step towards doing that.Which should wait for the feats discussion forum, as Jason has repeatedly said.
Improving feats as a means to boosting the fighter is absolutely on the menu - but it has to wait for a bit yet. If you want to go down that road now, make a thread in General Discussion.
I disagree. Perhaps re-writing feats should wait for the feats discussion, but making fighters stand out at fighting is not exclusive to re-writing feats.
|
|
I disagree. Perhaps re-writing feats should wait for the feats discussion, but making fighters stand out at fighting is not exclusive to re-writing feats.
I would've thought it was fairly obvious I was referring specifically to the feats that S W is offering, but regardless, I would agree. What other suggestions would you offer?
No complaints so far from any of the three fighter pc's currently active in our Beta efforts. They have a rapid and robust feat progression that has allowed the creation of three different distinct builds of fighter who are each sometimes frighteningly effective at what they do. When they are not dominating the enemy through their specialities or if rolling goes against their ability to deal mongo damage they still provide classic meat-shield functionality.
I think the key is in the feats, as previously stated.
I disagree. Perhaps re-writing feats should wait for the feats discussion, but making fighters stand out at fighting is not exclusive to re-writing feats.I would've thought it was fairly obvious I was referring specifically to the feats that S W is offering, but regardless, I would agree. What other suggestions would you offer?
Oops, sorry. I must have misinterpreted your post. For ideas, I spelled out why I think a fighter should be treated as a specialist rather than a "default" a few posts above. Do you have any comments on that?
I'd be interested to see what you are thinkign about, but I didn't get exactly what you meant by "specialist" there. What would the fighter be a specialist in?
Gaining tactical advantage, and using it. Certainly, many feats relate to gaining or creating tactical advantage. But at the moment it's not the clear province of the fighter. In fact, if you look at feats and what the fighter is encouraged to take to remain competitive in effectiveness, most of the feats a fighter takes just do more damage.
Instead, the fighter should be able to take advantage of tactical advantage in a way others cannot. Introducing the concept of Combat Advantage (name shameless borrowed from 4e) allows designing further options to make the fighter more effective. It's very possible, but not necessary, that some of those options would be feats. But the important thing here is the idea of Combat Advantage and the notion that we can add things to make Fighters more effective when they have it.
I'd be interested to see what you are thinkign about, but I didn't get exactly what you meant by "specialist" there. What would the fighter be a specialist in?
To elaborate a little more, many of the things that are lumped into Combat Advantage (prone, unarmed, etc) provide clear benefits. However, those benefits apply to everyone. There's nothing special about what a fighter can do with Combat Advantage that another PC cannot. A rogue gets the same +4 to hit a prone opponent as a fighter does. If we switch it around and design fighter options that build off of Combat Advantage, then the fighter begins to become a specialist in the area.
|
|
The Beta fighter is fine, lets wait to work on the feats and they will become devastating.The beta fighter is fine for an npc class. All other martial characters are "better" with the possible exception of the paladin. This is an attempt to make the fighters stand out at fighting, and rewriting feats (for example weapon focus/weapon spec line) is a step towards doing that.
I disagree - as is the fighter is pretty dam awesome - and FAR exceeds the paladin.
The barbarian and ranger have cooler abilities, but not more effective.
The fighter is no where near the NPC moniker you threw out.
Robert
|
Director of Games
|
Hi there all,
While I think there might be some room for improving the benefits granted by weapon and armor training (and I am all up for discussing such benefits), the real place we can improve the fighter is through feats, especially by adding higher level feats, which is something I intend to do. But, as I have stated many times, we are going to hold off on feat design until the feats chapter (if we break this rule, we are really going to run into some chaos when we hit spellcasters).
Anyway, I am interested in the idea of allowing a fighter's weapon training to allow him to apply weapon focus to all of the weapons in that group. Very interested. Any more ideas along these lines (ie, adding bonuses to weapon and armor training).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Anyway, I am interested in the idea of allowing a fighter's weapon training to allow him to apply weapon focus to all of the weapons in that group. Very interested. Any more ideas along these lines (ie, adding bonuses to weapon and armor training).
I assume you're talking not just about Weapon Focus, but all feats that require a specific weapon to be chosen (WF, WS, Imp Crit, etc.)? I think that would be awesome (and should have said so when it was first presented).
|
|
As a question to the optimizers, about what level should (assuming it gets changed to actually matter) Fighter be triggering Massive Damage saves, say, 20% of the time to keep up with casters?It's probably worth noting that the massive damage rules in Pathfinder Beta are actually weaker than in 3.5 - it's no longer a flat 50 points of damage, but rather half the target's hit points (minimum 50 pts). So I'm thinking Jason's not going to be a fan of increasing the utility of such effects.That isn't the main issue with massive damage. The main issue from my experience is the low DC for the save.
This properly applies to the Combat chapter discussion, but converting a failure (unless it's by a lot) on a massive damage save to some sort of lasting effect like ability damage, blindness, or whatever with a tougher save would have a number of benefits, including removing another save or die case and mean that the fighter's stock in trade, doing HP damage, matters. It might also give evocation a boost because you actually can degrade an opponent's effectiveness with HP damage.
with the remove of SOD spells being automatically letha - they should just consider getting rid of massive damage rules altogether.
Robert
Dear Robert,
In accordance with our community's atmosphere of diplomacy, explain how the fighter is awesome at higher levels without spellcasting, any form of save-or-consequence effect, or damage that scales appropriately with monster hp (especially the brutes he will inevitably face in melee)?
Does his +2 to hit and +4 to damage costing a whopping 4 feats in the rules-as-written somehow equal Large or larger shapeshifted druid with Bull's Strength and Greater Magic Fang in effect? Or a cleric with Greater Magic Weapon/Magic Vestment, Bull's Strength, Righteous Might and Divine Power running?
Not to mention Rusting Grasp... a giant, super strong melee'r with an extra attack (from Righteous Might) who can emulate a rust monster. Goodbye armor, goodbye shield.... Bull's strength alone is a 2nd level spell that even paladins can cast, costs no feats, and gives +2 hit and +2 dmg, more than weapon focus/weapon spec does unless you rewrite those feats. Also, the enlarging effects give a significant bonus to hit and dmg from incrased str, they threaten a larger area from increased reach, weapons base damage is significantly increased, and they get a good CMB bonus from being larger... need I say more?
If you want an "awesome" melee combatant under the current rules of 3.p, you want a cleric or a druid. A fighter is only comparable IF you have your PC spellcaster cast spells on him... like any npc/cohort.
Hi there all,
While I think there might be some room for improving the benefits granted by weapon and armor training (and I am all up for discussing such benefits), the real place we can improve the fighter is through feats, especially by adding higher level feats, which is something I intend to do. But, as I have stated many times, we are going to hold off on feat design until the feats chapter (if we break this rule, we are really going to run into some chaos when we hit spellcasters).
Anyway, I am interested in the idea of allowing a fighter's weapon training to allow him to apply weapon focus to all of the weapons in that group. Very interested. Any more ideas along these lines (ie, adding bonuses to weapon and armor training).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I propose the following changes to Weapon Training:
Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls. Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1 each. For example, when a fighter reaches 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level. (*this is exactly what you wrote in 3.P beta).
Increase damage dice of all weapons in a Weapon Training group by 1 step for each level of Weapon Training in that group. So the weapon group with +1 Weapon Training bonus gets one damage step increase, and by level 17 the weapon group with the +4 bonus from Weapon Training gets 4 damage step increases. (*this is the part I added. A damage step increase is not the same as a size category increase, it was in the 3.5 dmg and the weapon/armor book, the chart should be easy to find.)
The fighter's Weapon Training bonus is added to his CMB whenever he is using a weapon from that group. (*I added this because it makes sense and it fits the "tactical" vision of the fighter, that he is better at Combat Maneuvers than the feral barbarian or spellcasting melee classes).
Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups. A fighter can reassign his weapon training bonuses like a ranger can reassign his favored enemy choices. (*I added this part about reassigning weapon choices to avoid potential "newbie trap" headaches to new players who picked a "cool" weapon or tried something original that didn't work out mechanically as well as they had hoped).
Weapon groups are good in 3.P, but I would ask that we tighten up the groups somewhat, we have an Axes group but no Swords group. Dual wielders are going to want rapier and dagger, or longsword and shortsword and we want them in the same group for ease of use. Otherwise battleaxe/handaxe is a better choice than longsword/shortsword.
This is the way I've been using Weapon Training, and it works great for keeping fighters a step ahead of the curve when you compare him to enlarged druids and clerics with buffs running. The normal-sized fighter is doing more damage with his greatsword than the enlarged cleric is with his spell running.
It makes the fighter the Weapon master he always should have been, doesn't use up feats, and Sure, the cleric can still cast Enlarge person and buffs on himself, but if he casts it on the fighter it's several times more effective, becasue his base damage with his weapon training is a lot higher anyway.
|
|
Dear Robert,
In accordance with our community's atmosphere of diplomacy, explain how the fighter is awesome at higher levels without spellcasting, any form of save-or-consequence effect, or damage that scales appropriately with monster hp (especially the brutes he will inevitably face in melee)?Does his +2 to hit and +4 to damage costing a whopping 4 feats in the rules-as-written somehow equal Large or larger shapeshifted druid with Bull's Strength and Greater Magic Fang in effect? Or a cleric with Greater Magic Weapon/Magic Vestment, Bull's Strength, Righteous Might and Divine Power running?
Actually, your comment was in regards to comparing the fighter to other martial characters.
In complaiance with the communities atmosphere of diplomacy, I've taken the liberty to include your words quoted verbatim.
The Beta fighter is fine, lets wait to work on the feats and they will become devastating.The beta fighter is fine for an npc class. All other martial characters are "better" with the possible exception of the paladin. This is an attempt to make the fighters stand out at fighting, and rewriting feats (for example weapon focus/weapon spec line) is a step towards doing that.
In comparison the number of feats, amror training, and weapon training class features makes the fighter significantly more defendable and more offensive against the targets he's fighting than the ranger, and barbarian and significantly more than the paladin.
The barbarian may have 10 - 20% more hit points, but will have a much poorer AC and will get hit hit. He may have more strength and even more so when raging providing a difference of about +3 to attack rolls, but consider an 11th level fighter will have Weapon Training x 2, Weapon Focus, and Greater weapon focus - thats a total of +4 to hit - outclassing the barbarian in attacks.
The fighter can wear Full plate and buckler at that point with Armor training x3, providing a Max Dex AC of +4, and +3 to the Full plate giving an AC of 26 with the buckler - far more than the barbarian with breastplate and buckler and maxed out dex providing an AC of only 19. They can both power attack - the barbarian getting a slight advantage there and dmg from strength - but not significant - considering the fighters superior AC.
Comare that same fighter to the palading the numbers are horrendously different - considering the paladin's stregnth on avg will be 4 pts less than a fighter. The fighters bonus to attacks will be in the neighborhood of 7-8 points HIGHER than a paladin. And if he was a buckler wielder, the significant advantage in his attack rolls allows him to power attack more freely than a paladin would allowing for Better AC, Better attack rolls, and twice the damage.
Robert
|
Anyway, I am interested in the idea of allowing a fighter's weapon training to allow him to apply weapon focus to all of the weapons in that group. Very interested. Any more ideas along these lines (ie, adding bonuses to weapon and armor training).
Jason - here is my suggestion:
Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and +1d6 on damage rolls.
Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and +1d6 on damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1/+1d6 each. For example, when a fighter reaches 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus on attack and +1d6 on damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and +2d6 on damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups. Additional damage is of the same type as the weapon (slashing for Longswords, bludgeoning for clubs, etc.).
Metagame (non-mathematical) Analysis:
Adding d6 damage instead of +1's for each instance of Weapon Training will have the following effects (in no particular order):1) The ability doesn't start until 5th level - no real advantage for Fighter level dipping.
2) The abaility will boost Fighter damage and make it more competative with the Rogue's damage. Since a Rogue gets more damage dice, he will still deal more variable damage, but his damage is situational (like flat-footed or flanked foes). The Fighter's variable damage, though lower than the Rogue, would always be "on"
3) The abaility would be quite advantageous to two-weapon figheters (Vlaeros can smile).
4) Rogue level dipping is less desired (trade situational damage dice now for situation-independent damage dice later?).
5) No real advantage to two-handed versus "sword & board" fighters.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Sorry, I'm at work and I don't have time to do a realy metagame analysis.
Enjoy.
-Skeld