Fighters and possible tweaks


Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:

Some other ideas here.

Let's bring some ideas from there, or port some over from here!

I posted the adaptation of Pressing Attack and some thoughts/ideas regarding fighter feats there and would be willing to discuss them if anyone has questions.

The Exchange

one of the biggest frustrations the figting types in my game have is having to lose out on many of their attacks becasue an opponent is dropped on their second attack and no enemy is close by.

It may be useful for fighters to be able to spend attacks for more movement (an extra five foot step) or maybe allowing them to split attacks with movement options in between. Attack twice, drop opponent, move to engage next opponent and use remaingin attacks.

When a fighter can't use all of their attacks to put out damage, they drop in effectiveness very quickly.

This isn't the case for casters as a single action spell is still powerful at high level.

Mobility is a key at high level. This can be achieved by magic items but means they're taking away from items that make them more effective at damage output or sucking up damage.

Also, something to make creatures selectively target them.
A challenging call at higher levels as a class abilty rather than a feat. Link it to intimidate to make that particular skill more useful as a combat option. They did something like this for the Knight in PHB 2. I know paizo can't use this class but they can certainly look at options similar to it.

Alternatively, you could make the intimadte in combat alot more effective at high levels. Shaken is ok at low levels, introduce fear and terror casuing at higher levels for some battlefield control


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

It is not a matter of convincing, truth be told. I am pretty opposed to adding an entirely new system to fighters that overcomplicates them. I am much more interested in adding feats that give fighters more of a punch. Some of that will certainly come in the form of extra damage, but other effects are needed as well, as this is an area that the fighter is sorely lacking. But as I have mentioned many times, that will come when we get to feats.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'm sorry Jason, but to me you just said "I have no interest in actually fixing the problems with the fighter class". Because more feats, while possibly helpful, will not save the fighter. He needs some class features which matter, and aren't just bigger numbers (which is all your weapon/armor mastery progressions are - bigger numbers).

He doesn't really need damage, he needs to be able to do something. Make enemies fight him, or have a schtick annoying and versatile enough that enemies want to be fighting him. And he needs it to be his schtick, not any joe who spent the feats to do so.

But even if we assume more feats will help, I'm especially worried because Pathfinder seems determined to give martial characters really bad feat options. You've already made Power Attack unplayably bad. There's utter dreck like Overhand Chop, which mostly exists to make Backswing more expensive to take, and Backswing isn't good enough to justify that cost. In fact, I'm not convinced there's a single feat in the beta that's worthwhile for THF or SaB, certainly nothing that isn't buried down past 2 mostly worthless feats before you can take it. (TWF got some love, but it desperately needed it). And the way CMB currently scales using maneuvers has been seriously nerfed, so you can't even make a viable spiked-chain build anymore.

In 3.5 with enough splatbooks at least a highly specialized martial build could feel useful into late mid levels. With the exception of the ubercharger, all of those niches are now unplayably bad. And for some reason that I can't fathom, the Wizard simultaneously got a serious power boost.

For the record: There is no way to make the Fighter class worthwhile without substantial rebuilding. Any sort of band-aid solution you propose is just that, a band-aid. Except you aren't dealing with a small cut, you're dealing with a gaping chest wound.

Whether this is backwards-compatible depends on what you think that means. Your changes to the Barbarian/Monk/Paladin classes suggest that quite a lot is possible within backwards-compatibility.


Squirrelloid wrote:

I'm sorry Jason, but to me you just said "I have no interest in actually fixing the problems with the fighter class". Because more feats, while possibly helpful, will not save the fighter. He needs some class features which matter, and aren't just bigger numbers (which is all your weapon/armor mastery progressions are - bigger numbers).

[...]
But even if we assume more feats will help, I'm especially worried because Pathfinder seems determined to give martial characters really bad feat options. You've already made Power Attack unplayably bad. There's utter dreck like Overhand Chop, which mostly exists to make Backswing more expensive to take, and Backswing isn't good enough to justify that cost. In fact, I'm not convinced there's a single feat in the beta that's worthwhile for THF or SaB, certainly nothing that isn't buried down past 2 mostly worthless feats before you can take it. (TWF got some love, but it desperately needed it). And the way CMB currently scales using maneuvers has been seriously nerfed, so you can't even make a viable spiked-chain build anymore.

I strongly object to your condescending armchair experting, none of these feats are worthless and the fighter has more than enough feat slots to burn for some not-so-spectacular prerequisite feats. While I indeed think that the melee classes in general and the fighter in particular need some additional love, I wait patiently for what Jason has planned.

Now you can rant on how I didn't give explanations why I don't think the feats you mentioned are worthless, this discussion is way off topic anyway. Bring it up when Pathfinder is in the appropriate beta phase.
I for my part are done wasting my time arguing with people like you.

Scarab Sages

Krensky: I'll move our discussion to the appropriate thread. I'm reading your feat now.


Squirrelloid wrote:
I'm sorry Jason, but to me you just said "I have no interest in actually fixing the problems with the fighter class". Because more feats, while possibly helpful, will not save the fighter. He needs some class features which matter, and aren't just bigger numbers (which is all your weapon/armor mastery progressions are - bigger numbers).

To be fair, a feat which says "you must be a fighter to take this feat" is essentially a fighter class feature. So there's nothing prohibiting Jason from adding some fighter-only feats that don't just add "bigger numbers". Then you'd both be happy (in theory).


Jal Dorak wrote:
S W wrote:
Grappling, Tripping and combat maneuvers don't have the same level of threat they did in 3.5.
How so? Aside from reducing the Improved feats bonus by 2 (and no more free attack after trip - hurray) they generally improved - flat DC, all use BAB+Str, reduced size penalties/bonuses. Warriors almost always win a CMB check, whereas in 3.5 it was a crapshoot.

Like you said -- Improved Trip is much worse. Also, grappling is worse as well (you only get one grapple check per round, if you fail your grapple check your opponent escapes, being grappled no longer prevents you from using full attacks or non-"light" weapons, etc.). The rest of the maneuvers are about the same.


I think fighter only feats are a great way to go. we just need lots of them

Liberty's Edge

And some of the existing ones need adjusting. One thing that would help a fighter actually is bigger numbers. Higher damage means greater chances of a Massive Damage save. Now, the current DC for that is pathetic, but that can either be addressed by changing the math for it, or by some feats.

I'm inclined to actually do both, since DC 15 is meaningless since almost anything that can survive a 50 HP hit without dropping will almost certainly beat DC 15. I'm half tempted to just suggest that anything over 50 HP triggers the save with the DC equal to half the damage done, but that may be a bit much. I would also suggest, since getting rid of save or die is a goal and massive damage should be the fighter (and the barbarian's) stock in trade, to change it from death to reduced to 0 hit points.

Some fighter feats to further manipulate this, converting the save or die into ability damage, permanent effects like blindness or deafness or even a long term disruption of casting and spell like abilities.


Tholas wrote:
I strongly object to your condescending armchair experting,

I'm sorry, where do I go to play full-contact D+D?

Tholas wrote:


none of these feats are worthless and the fighter has more than enough feat slots to burn for some not-so-spectacular prerequisite feats.

Should we treat other's class features in the same way? This is one of the problems with having just feats as meaningful class features - they become worthless because someone says 'oh, its just feats, they can afford to burn some of them'. No one forces the wizard to memorize bad spells or the Barbarian to take bad Rage powers. Why should the Fighter be forced to waste his class features on bad feats? This is part of the reason fighters are in as much trouble as they are.

Tholas wrote:


Now you can rant on how I didn't give explanations why I don't think the feats you mentioned are worthless, this discussion is way off topic anyway. Bring it up when Pathfinder is in the appropriate beta phase.
I for my part are done wasting my time arguing with people like you.

Yes, because trying to talk about the fighter without talking about feats is really going to go somewhere useful...


Squirrelloid wrote:
Why should the Fighter be forced to waste his class features on bad feats? This is part of the reason fighters are in as much trouble as they are.

That trouble can be ameliorated by coming up with more ideas for good fighter-only feats. That seems like an easy fix for the fighter, it seems to be what Jason is looking for, and it seems like whether you call them "fighter-only feats" or "new variant fighter class features" is really a matter of semantics only.

BTW, as I mentioned elsewhere, I'd also nominate the SRD feats Burst of Speed, Devastating Critical, Dire Charge, Overwhelming Critical, et al. have their designations changed from [Epic] to [Fighter level "X" or Epic].

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hey there all,

I am getting a little concerned about the tone of some of the posts in this thread. Lets keep it civil everybody. I am more than happy to discuss fighter design choices and options, but I want to keep the class simple. This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

If you cannot discuss this in a polite and civil manner, I suggest you take some time to remember that we are all working toward the same goal here.

Thanks

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

Indeed, I think most of the people here are forgetting the first rule of Fighter Feat Club:

You do not talk about Fighter Feat Club.

;-)

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
BTW, as I mentioned elsewhere, I'd also nominate the SRD feats Burst of Speed, Devastating Critical, Dire Charge, Overwhelming Critical, et al. have their designations changed from [Epic] to [Fighter level "X" or Epic].

Add "Spellcaster Harrier" or whatever it's called to the downgrade-from-Epic list.

-Skeld


Look Jason, i would really like to see some simple class abilities that the fighter could get, like weapon and armor training and this kind of thing. Not complicated systems. Something simple, and that novice players could just note down on their character sheets and play, without even remembering why the numbers are like that.

I think that PF shouldn't be just for the pros, the guys who think no one likes a high level fighter because a wizard is so much better. This is just because I usually dm long campaign, with beggining, middle and end, and they go around 1,5 - 2 years. And I always seem to have at least one inexperienced player, and then, I always seem to have at least one fighter in my group -and imagine, rarely one wizard.

I think that there should be options, however, for the pros to do complicated things like adjusting 5 foot steps, or some other mumbo-jumbo that older players love beside "just more damage".

For that, I ask you: Better feats. Better simple feats by that. Feats that the novice wants, and the pro looks with a smile.

BUT, if you tell me that the feats are the way to go, and that you already have some good ideas, then i'll wait for the feats session -I think it won't be possible to read the forums because of so many topics, but...-.

But I just ask one thing: Please, please, good feats with "Fighter Only" on them. They are essentially class features, and can be as simple (for the novices) or complicated (for the pros) as the player and the DM wants.

Geez, and cool down guys. We should help each other, not bite each other's throats. Leave that for WtA's Get of Fenris...

Sovereign Court

If we're going to go the feat only route for fighters, I think the feats available need a complete overhaul. Feats taken at low levels should improve with BaB - most first level spells improve to a certain extent as the caster gains caster levels. Feat trees shouldn't involve an improvement in numbers for higher tier feats, they should include new options altogether.

I am concerned because while the fighter is simple to play, he's anything but simple to build. In fact, I would say building a fighter that is fun to play over the long haul is the hardest class of all - because there are so many "trap" feats that turn out to not scale at all with levels, there are so many trees that are hard for a novice player to pick up on, and they have so few out of combat capabilities to keep them interesting when they're not hacking at something.

One feat related ability I would love to see fighters get is the ability to lessen attribute requirements when selecting feats. For example, maybe for every 4 fighter levels, a fighter can ignore 1 point in fighter feat stat requirements. A level 4 fighter could take combat expertise with an intelligence of 12, or a level 12 fighter could take it with an intelligence of 10...of course, if the feat description doesn't change, this is not helpful, but it's an example of what I'm looking for (and the rest of that discussion is for later anyway).

Key options necessary for fighter viability in mid to high levels is:

Options to improve saves / provide extra saves / lessen or delay the effects of failed saves versus spells.

Options to improve mobility to allow at least some ability to keep up with movement modes provided by spells

Options to allow the fighter to both have defensive and offensive capabilities, and then use those abilities to protect the members of their party.

Options to improve a fighter's ability to prevent or hamper enemy spellcasting. Readied actions seriously lessen the fighter's abilities by removing iterative attacks. Either hamper or eliminate defensive casting, or give fighters improved abilities to interrupt casting.


Well perhaps the fighter should be last on the list of classes to look at. We should get through the feats section BEFORE we look at the fighter class.

If we talk about the Fighter without going into feats, we talk about Armor Training, Weapon Training, and Bravery. That's the meat of it, the rest is feats. Weapon Mastery too, but there are already Melee Weapon Mastery feats in existing 3.5 material. The PHB2 comes to mind.

Adding new class features would be the only other thing to talk about, suggestions like Fighter Talents.

Here's a question: Why have fighter only feats in the feats section, if only fighters can take them? Wouldn't that make them optional class features like the Rogue Talents? Wouldn't that make them... Fighter Talents?

So let's move on to the Barbarian and Ranger.

Everyone who's wheels are turning (and I read a lot of good ideas on various threads) should make an effort to revise the 3.P fighter. As Jason said, it's a relatively simple class as-is, so revising or adding features/options isn't as much work as, say, revising the spells.

Then when we're about done with the Class Suggestions for the other martial classes - we can post and compare fighter ideas. I'm sure the Feats forum will be out by then, and we can give everyone's up-and-coming Fighter Feats a fair evaluation. Sound good?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am more than happy to discuss fighter design choices and options, but I want to keep the class simple. This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

I think the really starts from a false premise. The fighter is not a simple class to create. It may be relatively simple to play, as it lacks many meaningful options, but actually creating a fighter which can contribute to even an average group requires you to think carefully about feat choices, pre requisites and prestige classes.

If you want a simple beginners class then the Barbarian is probably your best choice.

Asking a beginner to pick multiple feats from dozens (hundreds if you include splat books) of options is a recipie for frustration.


andreww wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am more than happy to discuss fighter design choices and options, but I want to keep the class simple. This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

I think the really starts from a false premise. The fighter is not a simple class to create. It may be relatively simple to play, as it lacks many meaningful options, but actually creating a fighter which can contribute to even an average group requires you to think carefully about feat choices, pre requisites and prestige classes.

If you want a simple beginners class then the Barbarian is probably your best choice.

Asking a beginner to pick multiple feats from dozens (hundreds if you include splat books) of options is a recipie for frustration.

+1

Fighters have never been a simple class - that has traditionally been the Barbarian.


Squirrelloid wrote:
andreww wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I am more than happy to discuss fighter design choices and options, but I want to keep the class simple. This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

I think the really starts from a false premise. The fighter is not a simple class to create. It may be relatively simple to play, as it lacks many meaningful options, but actually creating a fighter which can contribute to even an average group requires you to think carefully about feat choices, pre requisites and prestige classes.

If you want a simple beginners class then the Barbarian is probably your best choice.

Asking a beginner to pick multiple feats from dozens (hundreds if you include splat books) of options is a recipie for frustration.

+1

Fighters have never been a simple class - that has traditionally been the Barbarian.

Though the new barbarian is not as simple as it once was either.

I have certainly gnashed my teeth trying to work out a good fighter build that would fit a theme.


S W wrote:
Well perhaps the fighter should be last on the list of classes to look at. We should get through the feats section BEFORE we look at the fighter class.

Indeed, and we should look at spells before looking at the wizard class, too.

Scarab Sages

Jess Door wrote:
One feat related ability I would love to see fighters get is the ability to lessen attribute requirements when selecting feats. For example, maybe for every 4 fighter levels, a fighter can ignore 1 point in fighter feat stat requirements. A level 4 fighter could take combat expertise with an intelligence of 12, or a level 12 fighter could take it with an intelligence of 10...of course, if the feat description doesn't change, this is not helpful, but it's an example of what I'm looking for (and the rest of that discussion is for later anyway).

I like this idea, as it allows for say, a Rogue, to learn Expertise by being smart, but a Fighter with a more modest Int can take the same path through dogged determination and drilling.

It protects against losing access to his main class features when taking ability damage (in D&D3.5, Ray of Enfeeblement or Touch of Idiocy can wipe out whole feat chains).
And it is fully-compatible with any previous material. The feats don't need to be changed (and non-OGL books can't be changed). Add an ability to the Fighter class, that states "The Fighter can treat an ability score as being +1 higher, for the purposes of feat pre-requisites. At level X, this rises to +2, and by a further +1/Y levels."

Jess Door wrote:
Options to improve saves / provide extra saves / lessen or delay the effects of failed saves versus spells.

Slippery Mind from the Rogue Talents is a great candidate for this. Fantasy literature is full of warriors who fall victim to some diabolical sorceror, only to shake off the effect, and hack him to mincemeat, during the climax of his foul schemes.

In fact, I'd say it's standard fare, in those books Erik is currently championing.

Of course, there is the small matter that some Enchantment spells have much longer durations than they should, and should have a save re-roll after a random period, to keep the caster on his toes, but that's a subject for another day...

Jess Door wrote:
Options to improve mobility to allow at least some ability to keep up with movement modes provided by spells.

A change is required to the movement rules, to allow any character to run round corners (for double/triple/quad cost), charge through/under/over/around irrelevant non-obstacles, and store unused movement, so as to follow up anyone moving or taking a 5'-step. This is a general weak area, not just a Fighter fix, though the Fighter is one of the classes most often stymied by this.

Jess Door wrote:
Options to allow the fighter to both have defensive and offensive capabilities, and then use those abilities to protect the members of their party.

Allow the Fighter the free action ability to transfer his own shield AC bonus to one ally within 5'.

Jess Door wrote:
Options to improve a fighter's ability to prevent or hamper enemy spellcasting.

Raising the DC of Defensive Casting by +2/extra threatening enemy (as per Tumble, and suggested by me in another thread) would go some way to increasing the likelihood of AoO.

Counting any damage taken by the caster within the last, say, 10 initiative counts (including the tail-end of last round), to the concentration roll, would also remove the loophole of a caster taking a mighty blow, then casting with no impairment, one-quarter of a second later. He would have to bite down the pain, or delay half the round, possibly drawing further attack, or missing his opportunity.

Some nice ideas, there.

Sovereign Court

Snorter wrote:
Jess Door wrote:


Options to allow the fighter to both have defensive and offensive capabilities, and then use those abilities to protect the members of their party.
Allow the Fighter the free action ability to transfer his own shield AC bonus to one ally within 5'.

This is something I'd love to see as a feat - that improves as you gain armor training or BaB - BaB improvement justified as you're better able to "aim" your shield to prevent the incoming blow to your ally.

But I was also referring to what has come to be called "stickiness" in fighters. A fighter with a high AC is usually incapable of being a threat, and such fighters are also unable to stop enemies from thus ignoring them and proceeding to pound on the squishier casters - leaving the turtle until last.

If a fighter is going to go defensive but is part of a team, his goal isn't to be the last character killed - it's to use his defensive capabilities to protect the rest of his party. The fighter needs relatively easy way to hamper enemies' movement near him on the battlefield. As it is now, he can only prevent movement through 5' of space( 10' enlarged ). If he's defensive in nature, even his AOOs are easy enough to eat and then ignore.

Offensive meleers take the fight to the enemy - they need mobility and sheer damage output to do their thing. Defensive meleers need a way to do their thing - prevent enemies from just ignoring them to get at the back lines.


Skeld wrote:
Add "Spellcaster Harrier" or whatever it's called to the downgrade-from-Epic list.

YES! You and I are obviously thinking along the same lines here.


Jess Door wrote:
One feat related ability I would love to see fighters get is the ability to lessen attribute requirements when selecting feats. For example, maybe for every 4 fighter levels, a fighter can ignore 1 point in fighter feat stat requirements. A level 4 fighter could take combat expertise with an intelligence of 12, or a level 12 fighter could take it with an intelligence of 10...

Seconded. This is a great idea, and fits thematically with fighter = feat monkey.

Jess Door wrote:

Key options necessary for fighter viability in mid to high levels are:

  • Options to improve saves / provide extra saves / lessen or delay the effects of failed saves versus spells.
  • Options to improve mobility to allow at least some ability to keep up with movement modes provided by spells
  • Options to allow the fighter to both have defensive and offensive capabilities, and then use those abilities to protect the members of their party.
  • Options to improve a fighter's ability to prevent or hamper enemy spellcasting.
  • Yes. Jess' concerns here mirror mine; the feats I wrote earlier address points (2) through (4) in part. I'll re-post them in the appropriate place once the Feats discussion is up, and we can maybe hash through them there.

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Jess Door wrote:
    One feat related ability I would love to see fighters get is the ability to lessen attribute requirements when selecting feats. For example, maybe for every 4 fighter levels, a fighter can ignore 1 point in fighter feat stat requirements. A level 4 fighter could take combat expertise with an intelligence of 12, or a level 12 fighter could take it with an intelligence of 10...
    Seconded. This is a great idea, and fits thematically with fighter = feat monkey.

    Why not just give the fighter a class ability that allows them to ignore prerequisites when selecting a fighter bonus feat? I honestly feel that would be a simpler solution.

    My biggest gripe is Combat Expertise - there are many decent feats tied to it, but you have to have Intelligence to grab them. Ot how about the two-weapon fighter with high dex who wants to be able to sunder?

    Sovereign Court

    Jal Dorak wrote:

    Why not just give the fighter a class ability that allows them to ignore prerequisites when selecting a fighter bonus feat? I honestly feel that would be a simpler solution.

    My biggest gripe is Combat Expertise - there are many decent feats tied to it, but you have to have Intelligence to grab them. Ot how about the two-weapon fighter with high dex who wants to be able to sunder?

    It really depends on what feats are available with this restriction removed from fighters. It may be unbalancing to allow a fighter to ignore stat prereqs on feats from the get-go....or it may not.

    Combat expertise is the most painful example for fighters, with two weapon fighting coming up second. If the feats aren't unbalancing for a fighter to take at 1st level, I'd say go for it.

    This is the difficulty with discussing the fighter without discussing feats. Since feats are 90% of his class abilities, we're unable to discuss this seriously without violating the posting request on this forum.

    I would like to suggest we either put off discussing fighters until after we have discussed feats, or we address fighter only feats now.


    The biggest problems I see with fighters are defensively. With the various overhand chop, vital strike, etc.... They come out OK for damage - but they still stink denfensively.

    All fighters are good at basic AC. Brutes are good at Flat-footed, but horrible at touch AC. Dex-based fighters are good at Touch, but not so good at flat footed, and generally don't do as much damage as a high-str fighter (especially when they are not going "full attack" with two weapons).

    All fighters will be pretty good at Fort. And if you play the rare one with a low con, everyone else in the universe will THINK you have a good fort, and avoid awasting resources by making you prove it. Effective camouflage.

    Reflex and Will both rpetty much stink. For the high-dex fighter, this can be reasonably OK, sometimes. But unless you did something odd with your build and poured a big stat into Wisdom (thereby almsot certainly making you less effective in generic combat), your will save will stink.

    Rogues get Evasion, Barbarians get "clear mind" as an option. Fighters, whio spend all their time and energy doing nothing but training to fight, can't fend off a simple charm spell or dive effectively for cover from a fireball? Clearly, any warrior worth the name in a fantasy settign will work on fending off magical attacks jsut like they would work on fending off swords and arrows.

    THere are many possible fixes for this.

    The simplest is probably to give fighters good saves for all three. But, this also makes it a HUGE class for cherry picking.

    You can solve the issue through feats also, Perhaps a pair of feats that emulate evasion then improved evasion, and a pair like them for the metnal side of the game. These would require Lightning Reflexes or Iron Will as pre-req's. Maybe a feat that allows them to burn HP for a save bonus (Maybe 3 hp each +1, with a max bonus of 1/2 fighter level - that should limit the dippers), showing how the fighter is using his martial prowess and fighting will to overcome an obstacle. But if Fighters start spending feats for decent defense, then they probably need more feats than they currently get - because they need everything they have now to be competent combatants.

    Maybe make the above "feat" into a class feature:

    Martial Prowess: +1 to a save for each 3 hp spent, max of +1 per two fighter levels. The decision to use Martial Prowess can be the Player is aware that the save has failed. Once activated, the PC must spend enough hp to make the save, even if this results in the PC falling below 0 hp. The PC must make the decision without knowing how many hp he has to spend to make the roll.

    Alternately, the Fighter picks an amount of hp to spend on any given roll and hoeps for the best. In this case, it should probably be 2 hp per +1 to the roll.

    With this, the fighter clearly can't do it all day long, but he is using his knowledge of all things "combat" to fend off threats using the resources he has. And even a made save costs some hp, thereby offsetting the advantage of getting to make saves so freqently.

    Maybe it's 5 hit points of non-lethal damage. This means he can use it less per encounter, but still use it effectively throughout the day.

    I'm really just thinking out loud here, but the effect I'm going for is "Fighter's can shrug off the worst of what hit's them, no matter what it is." This would go a long way to making the fighter as effective as a caster - but he does it through consistent offense and defense, instead of sort-term magical boosts.

    Liberty's Edge

    Jason Bulmahn wrote:

    Hey there all,

    I am getting a little concerned about the tone of some of the posts in this thread. Lets keep it civil everybody. I am more than happy to discuss fighter design choices and options, but I want to keep the class simple. This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

    If you cannot discuss this in a polite and civil manner, I suggest you take some time to remember that we are all working toward the same goal here.

    Thanks

    Jason Bulmahn
    Lead Designer
    Paizo Publishing

    As respectfully as possible, I believe that over half of the boards believe that fighters at least need 4+ skill points per level. I think that a large number believe that all classes should have at least 4+.

    Since your goal is to make a game that everyone here wants to play, and my goal is to help you make that game that I want to play, I really want to ask you specifically to give this a try in a Beta update. It really makes the game better.

    You say it can be houseruled in. I agree. But the Beta Stage is not where we should be talking about what we're going to houserule. If 55% or more of the audience will be using the same houserule, unless it has some undesireable side effect, it probalby ought to get some testing. If it is better (and I believe it is) it will show in playtest. If it is tried and turns out not to be better, people like me will have had no reason to complain.

    This wouldn't be an issue for me if it weren't such a popular choice. But in large part my disillusionment with Pathfinder is the sense that such a pragmatic change is not even meriting the serious consideration I think it deserves. Compared to all the other changes that have been discussed (like rogue abilities) I can't believe that this is getting the 'backward compatability hammer'. Respectfully, that is crazy.

    *Takes deep breath*

    You certainly don't owe anyone here an explanation or a test. But since we do have the same goal in mind, I would really suggest trying to explain why you consider this idea so 'unlikely'.

    Grand Lodge

    On the OP, discussing the Will save. Where do we stop there? Shouldn't Paladins get a good Will save? Barbarians? What about Rangers? Arguing for fighters to get it begs the question of why other melee types don't get it. I like the idea of a class level dependant bonus rather than a better base.

    Skill point wise I agree with 4 points per level, as a minimum for all classes.

    As for the discussion of fighters needing an ability to control the battlefield, I think it should be a feat. Because once again, what of the other melee types? How can your pally defend his party if the fighter gets the feature that gives the front line the ability to hold the line? Just my thought.


    Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    On the OP, discussing the Will save. Where do we stop there? Shouldn't Paladins get a good Will save? Barbarians? What about Rangers? Arguing for fighters to get it begs the question of why other melee types don't get it. I like the idea of a class level dependant bonus rather than a better base.

    I was throwing the idea out there for discussion. The Paladin and Barbarians have ways of helping themselves against mind affecting spells/abilities.

    I was also suggesting another way of helping the fighter stay in control of himself.

    Mistwalker wrote:


    And/or at 8th level, have a new class feature, Dutiful or such, add in ½ class level to saves vs mind affecting spells/abilities.


    Since I just came up with it and it's my new pet idea, how about burning non-lethal hp for a host of fighter class abilities. Increase HD to d12, and have the fighter spend hp to move further, gain bonuses to saves and possible even to hit / damage bonuses. All of these have readily apparent in-game ties (to hit over extends you, leaving you vulnerbale, more damage causes minor muscle pulls, etc...). You could even make each ability a fighter-only feat. Not every fighter feels the need for speed, not every fighter is worried about charm spells, etc...

    Clearly 5 hp at a time is too much for a martial PC, so lower it to 3 or something. Or perhaps different costs for different effects (but that's increasing the complexity).


    Well I have not read this whole thread just throwing some things out.

    More feats are needed and fighter only ones. This includes bot maneuver and stance feats as well as fighting styles.

    4 skill points min for all class be nice but really the fighter needs this as he has been pigeon holed into one thin line with his skills and not broad like the class needs.

    Armor training should count for armor and shields both

    Grand Lodge

    Mistwalker wrote:

    I was throwing the idea out there for discussion. The Paladin and Barbarians have ways of helping themselves against mind affecting spells/abilities.

    I was also suggesting another way of helping the fighter stay in control of himself.

    I agree with that idea. Some sort of bonus similar to the Scout's Battle Fortitude, except for will. I also think fighters should get Mettle, because that is too cool of an ability to be out of core, and fits with my image of a strong willed warrior.


    DeadDMWalking wrote:
    As respectfully as possible, I believe that over half of the boards believe that fighters at least need 4+ skill points per level.

    Really? Silence on an issue can hardly be construed as acceptance.

    [i][/i]
    If we want to make the fighter relevant, we could always take a page from the monk's book regarding Stunning Fist and say that whilst feats such as TWF, ITWF, GTWF etc. all still exist, the fighter's advanced training allows him to conflate those feats into one, unlike everyone else.

    That might be a really crap idea, but at least it makes the fighter unique and highly-skilled.

    Liberty's Edge

    Arakhor wrote:
    As respectfully as possible, I believe that over half of the boards believe that fighters at least need 4+ skill points per level.

    Really? Silence on an issue can hardly be construed as acceptance.

    Since those asking for 4 skill points and those asking for 2 skill points cannot claim to speak for the silent majority, I refuse to make that claim. However, by definition we cannot know which side the silent majority is on without getting their voice involved. If the silent majority favors 2 skill points, if it is changed in a Beta download, the designers will hear. If they try to change it back to 2 and the silent majority liked it, they'll hear that as well.

    I'm hoping for some shake-ups and some rethinking the 'problems' in 3.5. I don't want them to think after 1 year that they should have gone further.


    Bonus to CMB!

    As far as I could follow the discussion(s), it seems that many believe the fighter lacks "something", but at the same time that the fighter should be kept "simple". Feats offer themselves as a solution, but alas, we cannot discuss them properly yet.

    I personally agree to the above - and believe that the fighter is, as written, *boring*. He does damage, ok, and many feats (written and suggested) let him attack more often and/or more precisely under certain circumstances. However, when we say that the fighter is there to fight, and let him just attack more and do more damage, we don't take into account that fighting is way more than attacking and rolling for damage. Hey, CMB is there for a reason, and I don't see why a barbarian should be better at this than a well-trained fighter (same BAB, higher STR).

    I thus want to add to the discussion by suggesting to give the fighter a plain bonus on CMB - say, +1 for every 4 levels. This is simple (once every four levels, add +1 to one figure on the character sheet), and still requires the fighter to use feats to make good use of that.

    What do you think?


    armnaxis wrote:

    Bonus to CMB!

    [..]

    Hey, CMB is there for a reason, and I don't see why a barbarian should be better at this than a well-trained fighter (same BAB, higher STR).

    I thus want to add to the discussion by suggesting to give the fighter a plain bonus on CMB - say, +1 for every 4 levels. This is simple (once every four levels, add +1 to one figure on the character sheet), and still requires the fighter to use feats to make good use of that.

    What do you think?

    I had the same idea yesterday....for the monk! I think it's sad that the monk has a class ability which makes him as good (but not better) at wrestling and tripping as a paladin. Why not give the monk something to excel at? (Unless you count "having good saves" as the pinnacle of excellence.)

    51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger / Fighters and possible tweaks All Messageboards
    Recent threads in Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger