I am going to right now say I am not suggesting that Paizo get rid of the Fighter. I am trying to provoke meaningful productive discussion by stating the reasons I am not allowing the Fighter in my game.
1. Too Generic
The Fighter has to cover everybody that can use weapons good. This seriously limits what class features might be available if you want to change it. You have to consider whether it would fit all of the available archetypes.
2. Too Weak
Honestly the Fighter is just too weak. In a world where wizards can use Meteor Swarms and such the ability to hit somebody with a sword really hard just isn't good enough. There are better Fighter classes, such as the Barbarian, but when you try to improve the Fighter you run into problem #1.
3. The Name
Why is the Fighter limited to fighting? I don't want to play a character that has no out of combat capabilities. I want to play an adventurer that has a role in the party including both in and out of combat capabilities.
I admit, some of these are surmountable to a certain degree. But I'm not going to bother. In my game you can be a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Knight or Swashbuckler, but not a Fighter. So what do you think?
I think if you have a player who wants to play a fighter, you should let them play a fighter, and try to throw them a bone now and again to keep them balanced with the rest of the party. Perhaps whip up some really nasty fighter-only feats specific to said character's concept, or ask us to do it if you're not especially good at feat design.
Honestly, I think that's the fighter's main problem: feats are awesome, but there aren't that many fighter-only feats, and what few of those there are are generally unimpressive. Then again, that's probably the topic for another thread.
Well perhaps if I had a player that really loves the Fighter class I'd allow them to take it. I'd probably try to convince them to take the Knight or another class instead based on there concept. If they still wanted to play the Fighter class I'd probably modify it extensively as well. I am considering making a Weapon Master Prestige Class with some of the Fighter's class features as well.
I've noticed that you have stated your case against the 3.5 fighter, but haven't listed too many specifics of the Pathfinder Fighter. I'm not saying that it perfectly addresses your concerns, but it would probably form a better basis.
As far as weak classes go, and that being a reason not to include the fighter, is the swashbuckler you are introducing the Complete Warrior swashbuckler? Because if it is, while it may have more "flair" than a fighter, its still a pretty weak class for all of the reasons you listed for the fighter.
There obviously has to be a fighter, because its not an option for Paizo, in the interest of backwards compatibility, to drop fighter and add "duelist" or "heavy armsman" or "cavalier" to the list instead. So whatever happens has to happen within the framework of the fighter as he stands.
Also, most of Paizo's changes have revolved around adding, not taking away any abilities of a given class. Obviously as long as you don't mess with the extra feats, this is pretty easy with the fighter.
Conceptually, the fighter isn't as plain as you make him look, to my way of thinking. A fighter is a gifted fighter that has been trained in formal combat techniques. This is different than rangers, who are trained in survival and nature lore, or paladins, who are called to learn religious tenants and channel the divine as well as fight, and its different from babarians, who learn, greatly through just living, to channel their adrenalin and passion into their fighting.
In a lot of ways, the fighter is to the barbarian what the wizard is to the sorcerer.
Now, fighters do need to be able to do some cool things with their one trick, i.e. feats. They can be virtually any kind of armsman with these feats, but without having a few "killer" feat chains, by the time they are high level they tend to just be a guy with a lot of feats that would have been great to have at lower level.
One of the things I really, really liked about the Book of Experimental Might II by Monte Cook was the ability of the fighter to get an extra benefit from a given feat if they took that feat as a fighter bonus feat.
In other words, everyone that takes Improved Initiative gets +4, but if a fighter uses his fighter bonus feat to take it, he gets a +6.
And this only works if the fighter uses his fighter bonus feat slot to take it, i.e. feats he takes with his normal character level feats don't get the bonus.
I'd probably go one step further and allow the fighter bonus feat benefit to scale, i.e. +6, then +8, then +10 by 20th or something like that. This would kind of make up for the lack of double feats and uberfeats from that source (which I kind of liked but were pretty specific to the system and a bit awkward in standard 3.5).
The thing about the Swashbuckler is that I can work on improving it without running into problem #1. I know Paizo can't drop the Fighter or make it something it's not. And another thing I said that I don't like the idea of the Fighter being the guy who fights, where the Ranger is the guy who fights in the wilderness and the barbarian is the guy who fights angrily. As far as I'm concerned the "skilled combatant" archetype is a part of other archetypes and doesn't do as well on it's own.
When the GM goes and bans stuff because it's too weak, you know you're in a power gamer's wet dream!
;-P
Seriously:
1. Too Generic: I consider that its strength. You can use the class for every character who just fights, without any spiritual or magical stuff attached. If you want to play something martial, but you don't want eastern crouching tiger moves, or play a sneaking nature boy with a pet wolf and racist tendencies, or a wild buy with foam at the mouth, or a guy who can't shut up about how great his god is with his justice, you go play a fighter.
Also, if you play something else and just want to add some instant martial ability, like a battle-mage, or a warrior-priest, fighter always fits well for multiclassing.
2. What would you want to do with the fighter? An ability to wield 30 foot swords? The ability to shoot fireballs out of his sword?
I'm not buying that the fighter (especially the PRPG beta version) is too weak. At least one feat each level (if you play a straight-up fighter), up to +4 to attacks and damage with your favourite weapon (in addition to the +2/+4 you get from feats), +4 to AC in addition to the lowered armour check penalty and increased maximum dexterity), and of course heavy criticals you don't have to confirm at the highest level....
Just wait until we see the new high-level feats Jason promised us for fighters, I think the fighter will be okay then.
I almost forgot in my above post . . . I read someone propose this, and I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, but I can't find what thread it was in, but I think that fighters should get, as part of their armor training, the ability to move at full speed in armor.
Yeah, it won't be as useful to dwarven fighters, but that's a trade off of them being slow and steady (and it wouldn't kick in until the fighter got his armor training bonus, so the dwarf would enjoy some benefit until then). But if the fighter is suppose to intercept the damage dealers and hold them off while the party does what its suppose to do, it really should be able to move into place, and if the only thing he is getting is moving at his full normal speed, than its not stepping on the barbarian or the monk's toes.
I almost forgot in my above post . . . I read someone propose this, and I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this, but I can't find what thread it was in, but I think that fighters should get, as part of their armor training, the ability to move at full speed in armor.
Yeah, it won't be as useful to dwarven fighters, but that's a trade off of them being slow and steady (and it wouldn't kick in until the fighter got his armor training bonus, so the dwarf would enjoy some benefit until then). But if the fighter is suppose to intercept the damage dealers and hold them off while the party does what its suppose to do, it really should be able to move into place, and if the only thing he is getting is moving at his full normal speed, than its not stepping on the barbarian or the monk's toes.
I'd advocate for this too.
Fighters need a rewrite (all martial classes do) that gives them unique class abilities that provide interesting combat options. Feats generally expand upon existing options (everyone can fight defensively, for example, some feats provide more of a bonus to do that).
Besides, wadding through hordes of orcs and other evil humanoids like Conan leaves you feeling like a man. Shooting them with colorful fu-fu spells...well, not too manly. ;-p
The dwarf could still have some benefit from the "slow and steady" since they also maintain their movement rate when encumbered. the fighter ability to move at full speed should still be subject to carrying capacity limits.
Good point.
|
Good point.
The dwarf could still have some benefit from the "slow and steady" since they also maintain their movement rate when encumbered. the fighter ability to move at full speed should still be subject to carrying capacity limits.
One idea proposed was rolling speed reductions and max Dex bonus into encumbrance rules. I'd like to come up with a simple way for determining encumbrance, and have your Str score and maybe Con determine if you take penalties or not. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of worms to deal with.
|
i agree
when the idea comes to enter into the fray and resist giving lots of damage the fighter is the one you call for
i don't use fighters myself... but ihave seen fighters well used and badly used... with the right feats and a hard concept i have seen fighters destroy oposition in a place before the wizard is placedin the right place to bring burning fury vs their enemies...
also its a matter of team... the wizard won't be too useful ifhe has a fighter close to him dealing damage constantly and making him call for spellcraft rolls to not lose his precious spells...
yes i go for the diea of moving in armor at full speed when they get armor training, but encumberane would slow them down...
also... i almost took a fighter for my hunter of the dead instead of the ranger after reading theone in Pathfinder RPG...
what keep me away from him?
skill points... i needed more skill points for what i planeed... so i changed the full versatility i would get for an archer hunter of thedead... for favored enemy... just forthe skills...
which i think is the true achille's heal of the fighter and where he lacks versatility.
I am not allowing the Fighter in my game.
Thanks for sharing.
1. Too Generic: I consider that its strength.
I wonder if the Fighter was made so simple because some people love having a simple character. It's also a great character to start new players off with. Even some veteran players just don't have the patience for more complicated characters. I've gamed with several people who played fighters for the sole purpose of how simple they were. They didn't want to keep track of how many spells they have per day, what spells they can cast, what the spells can do, how they work, what weird special class feature gets triggered in which circumstance, blah blah blah... they just wanna hack and slash some stuff!
Some people love the standard issue Human Fighter and consider it's simplicity a good trade for playing at a disadvantage. I really don't think many players believe the fighter is something it's not. They know it isn't as awesome as other classes but they despise flipping through books between every turn and the only counter they want to keep track of is their HP. I really don't see any reason to ban it from someone's game table. However I do see why people want to improve it and I like what Paizo has done so far with it.
I am not allowing the Fighter in my game.Thanks for sharing.
You're welcome. I'm hoping that by pointing out the reasons I don't like it, those who will still use it will see ways to improve it.
I wonder if the Fighter was made so simple because some people love having a simple character.
I'm quite sure that's one of the main reasons the fighter was made as simple as he is.
Fighter can remain the simple child of the core classes, thats fine. I just need another class called a "Swordsman" to play the actually COOL and dynamic melee class (nope, dont want to be a slavering, raging swordsman, or a holy and devoted swordsman, or a woodland ,two weapon fighting swordsman)
but can we rename the Fighter, "Warrior" and put in in the NPC classes? and lets do away with all those CONFUSING feats, new players will have difficulty picking them....
I am an experienced player and I would like to play a more complicated Master of Arms. (shouldnt new players be your clerics anyways?j/king)
Lets give fighters a Fighter only skill that gives them temporary access to feats and special abilities if they make certain DCs.
Hi, I think making PA weaker was not nececary, but it was OK - but only if you give the Fighter a new source of damage! The Barbarian can Rage, the Ranger has his Favoured Enemies an the Paladin can Smite. But what about the Fighter? He needs PA even more than the other meele classes. And this is why there should be more Combatfeats like Devastating Blow, or even much stronger for higher levels. Those Combatfeats should have a lot of requirements, especially other Combatfeats. If that was so, other classes could use one high-end-Combatfeat, but the Fighter, who has all these Bonusfeats, could have much more! I think in D&D 3.5 the Warblade was a much better Fighter. I see that you can not just copy the Warblade, but cool Combatmaneuvers are much more Fun, than the Full Attack Action and if they are are different from each other, you can use them in a tactical way, and that is how Combatfeats should work.
Apart from this, I think it is OK if a Fighter acts like a Fighter in a Game. Beowulf, Leonidas from 300 or Achilles from Troy are perfect examples of Fighters who are just born to Fight. Their skills should all be athletic, thats enough. A Fighter does not need to find Tracks or steal someones Pocket. To me the Fighter has his firm place in the party. Instead of disallow the Fighter, you should disallow (does this word exist in english?) Intelligence scores of 6 or lower. To me, in the meaning of roleplaying, the stupid orc barbarian is the one who can only hit monsters, while a Fighter with Intelligence 10 is really able to help the party with riddles and stuff.
The pathfinder fighter is great all it needs is 4 skill points per level and it works for many concepts. But 2 skills have always kinda crippled him and shoehorned the fighter into a very narrow spot.
The fighter as an archetype should cover a large area from war collage trained to farmer who learned to use his paw's sword. From the well informed knight to the dashing swashbuckler.From the archer to the heavy armored infantrymen.
the Pathfinder fighter does must this it does need more skills.
To me the normal Fighter is boring. If I really want to hurt my opponent, I have to use the Full Attack again and again. As a Warblade, I would have so many other options, which are much more fun. And a Warblade does have the 4 skillpoints. So, why should I play a Fighter, when I can play a Warblade? And if there is no good reason, than why saving the not that good, but old concept of the Fighter, instead of giving him new powers, so that he would have a chance against other meeleclasses?
And as a farmer, a fighter would start as a Common...
|
|
To me the normal Fighter is boring. If I really want to hurt my opponent, I have to use the Full Attack again and again. As a Warblade, I would have so many other options, which are much more fun. And a Warblade does have the 4 skillpoints. So, why should I play a Fighter, when I can play a Warblade? And if there is no good reason, than why saving the not that good, but old concept of the Fighter, instead of giving him new powers, so that he would have a chance against other meeleclasses?
And as a farmer, a fighter would start as a Common...
then so would half the classes,others wouldbe experts or aristocrats, or warriors...
he is just talking about a concept... as in Luke Skywalker did beggin without class, but at half the movie he was already a Jedi in training...
and i agree with seekeroflight...
skills for the fighter is what he needs for versatility
no new powers
no new magic
i don't see Conan with new powers, hurling fireballs or draining the life of his enemies... or Leonidas, or Aquiles, or Beowulf
i see them killing their enemies in awesome ways... because that is how the storyteller (or the player) describe the action... but they kill dozens of enemies because they have aside of the health the experience in the battlefield and the tactical acumen to win against odds where lesser people (or chaacters of other classes would fail)
the fighter is and always should be epythome of fighting... that is his job... and that is what he does best... if its using bow and arrow, sword, trebuchet, pistol or an army... that is matter of options and training...
anyone who thinks that warblades shoot fireballs, hasnt actually read Bo9S. (that the secondary BAB Swordsage) Ive gone through the Warblades list, from first to 9th level abilities, and found them believable for a "nonmagic" fighter. sure an attack that does straight +100 damage looks broken, but at 18+ level, a full attack may do as much damage.
(I just wish it was a little less monotonous, Steely Wind,Mountain Hammer, Refocus, Steely Wind, Mountain Hammer, Refocus, Steely Wind....etc)
|
an the Paladin can Smite.
AH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Paladin smite is the most overatted class ability in the game. In my playtest if I could trade my 1 smite a day for a bonus feat I would in a heartbeat, hell even two a day next level there are feats I would much rather have. Smite doesn't hit real utility till about 5 or 6th level, at the same time even with the new PA a fighter's new to hit bonus means he can more reliably be PAing and combining it with synergistic feats. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fighter doesn't need work, just that don't think for a second that a paladins smite is any consolation for a well chosen feat.
Honestly, I think that's the fighter's main problem: feats are awesome, but there aren't that many fighter-only feats, and what few of those there are are generally unimpressive. Then again, that's probably the topic for another thread.
Well, talking about some splats (like Bo9S... the most broken - IMHO - splatbook of all RPG history), PHB2 introduced some really cool "Fighter only" feats, like Melee Weapon Mastery, Slashing Flurry and Weapon Supremacy. Some of these feats, slightly reworked, could be easily used with the current PFRPG Rules; Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Greater Weapon Focus + Greater Weapon Specialization + Weapon Training Feature + (splat) Melee Weapon Mastery = +8 to hit and + 10 to damage at 17th level... adding something like (splat) Slashing Flurry for an extra attack, and (splat) Weapon Supremacy at 18th to add a +5 to one of the secondary attacks, and suddenly the Fighter doesn't feel so weak anymore...
Of course, I completely agree with the people who say that the Fighter doesn't need necessarily feats to improve his damage (raw damage is the work of Barbarians, and SHOULD be work for Paladins fighting evil... Smite Evil is effectively powerful ONLY with a charging mounted Paladin with a Lance and Spirited Charge, an effective combo to hit-and-run and dealing huge damage with a single attack), rather feats to improve his effectiveness on the battlefield (extra mobility, interrupting spellcasting, blocking movement of foes, etc.)
This is surely a pointless discussion from a Pathfinder design point of view but I certainly share some of the ideas expressed in this thread.
To me, the main problem with the fighter class is that it's the only martial-only class available. I like the fighter as is, i.e. as a versatile trained warrior. However, the class is meant to model too many Archetypes.
Whenever I ask a new player "What character would you like to play?” I’ll often get a Archer, Swashbuckler or "Big Armor unmovable guy" answer. The only class we have for all of those is the Fighter.
Sure a player can choose ranger to be an Archer or rogue/fighter to be somewhat of a Swashbuckler but that's a gross approximation of the character concept. If I’m an Archer, I’m assuming I’m not really skilled with big armor (fighter) or I don't necessarily want my character to be an animal lover (ranger).
I wouldn't ban the fighter. The class concept does have its place. What we would truly need (I know this won't happen) is a few more martial classes. Iron Heroes had some great examples of this and it still had the generic fighter class (which they called man-at-arms). The setting had range fighters (Archer), finesse fighters (Harriers), hulking armor dudes (Armiger), etc...
I've seen quite a few posts in this forum saying fighters should have Awesome ability X. To me, Fighters should be fighters. They should be easy to play and effective at what they do which is: kicking arse with their weapons.
I don't want my fighter to have a stunning shockwave blasting strike (..or some other non-sensical dumb ability). If I’d do, I’d be playing 4e, a dragonballz game or World of Warcraft. Which is not to say that fighters shouldn't have more abilities. I'm all for that as long as they are believable.
Well that was my 2 cents.
M
This is surely a pointless discussion from a Pathfinder design point of view...
I agree. Fighter is not only fine, he does his job very well. He's the undisputed master of fighting - 'nuff said. This type of "I don't like this, this, and this because I prefer (blank) type of discussion is like discussing air travel while you're halfway to your location on a boat.
|
|
I wouldn't ban the fighter. The class concept does have its place. What we would truly need (I know this won't happen) is a few more martial classes. Iron Heroes had some great examples of this and it still had the generic fighter class (which they called man-at-arms). The setting had range fighters (Archer), finesse fighters (Harriers), hulking armor dudes (Armiger), etc...
I've seen quite a few posts in this forum saying fighters should have Awesome ability X. To me, Fighters should be fighters. They should be easy to play and effective at what they do which is: kicking arse with their weapons.
I don't want my fighter to have a stunning shockwave blasting strike (..or some other non-sensical dumb ability). If I’d do, I’d be playing 4e, a dragonballz game or World of Warcraft. Which is not to say that fighters shouldn't have more abilities. I'm all for that as long as they are believable.
Well that was my 2 cents.
M
I agree in all this
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In my game you can be a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Knight or Swashbuckler, but not a Fighter. So what do you think?
I'd find me a new DM. I'd rather be a fighter than a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin (more feats.) I don't like the Knight's funky abilities, personaly taste. The Swashbuckler is still sub par to a straight Fighter in most every case (Especially if you take Sense Weakness.)
|
...but can we rename the Fighter, "Warrior" and put in in the NPC classes? and lets do away with all those CONFUSING feats, new players will have difficulty picking them....
While I suspect you were being facetious (?), there isn't actually a bad idea lurking there, but in reverse.
The Warrior, in 3.5 is a very poor class, with no class abilities.
This just doesn't seem right to me, since many of the standing armies need warriors who are drilled to perform complex maneuvres, or specific attack styles (close order fighting, phalanx fighting through allies, defending neighbour with shieldwall, etc). These are all abilities taught to the rank and file, and they should not all be assumed to have Fighter levels, which are often described as being 'officer' material.
Some may say that these fighting styles can be bought using general feats, but I disagree. Every class should cover its core abilities within the class itself, and the feats one gets for character level are there for personal hobbies and interests.
Therefore, please can the Warrior NPC class be brought up to match the D&D3.5 Fighter? This has several advantages;
- It gives them the feats they need to do their job,
- encourages use of actual Warriors in-game (I currently have to replace them all with Fighters),
- allows DMs running old adventures to assume that all old-style 'Fighters' are new-style 'Warriors', if they don't want to convert them,
- and, most importantly, frees up the PF designers to be creative with the new Fighter, without having to worry too much about backwards-compatibility, since the class, as originally conceived, stilll exists (albeit, under a different name).
Of course, any actual Warriors in old adventures will need a few feats adding, but I can't see that as a problem, since a) it's fairly straightforward, and b) Warrior NPCs only seem to be used at lower levels anyway, since they aren't a credible threat to high-level PCs. Any writer wanting a high-level martial threat would mostly have used a PC class anyway.
There are a lot of good points made above.
I strongly agree with the suggestion that we need another dedicated martial class. Especially as barbarian and monk are *alignment restricted*. We currently have a lot of melee "archetypes" that don't work well. I made a barbarian who uses unarmed combat primarily, only to discover that most of the unarmed feats need wisdom (clearly intended for monks only) and that as barbarian is chaotic and monk lawful i cant multiclass both together. Even turning to fighter levels, the "unarmed brawler but not a monk" doesnt seem to exist in a decent manner.
I am hoping that prestige classes will help the melee classes. As it is, the clerics, wizards et al have all got their family and school powers, but fighters, barbs and monks are all left with their starting package which is quite lacking in diversity. Traditionally, where the melee's shine, is when they pick up their prestige options.
Fighters specifically are a very deceptive class. They seem easy and can be played as such, but they can also be very complex. The old fighter books like "sword and fist" really set out some good feat options, strategies for combat and weapon options. A fighter needs to get the right tools for the job and at the moment many of those tools seem to be lacking or require backwards compatability and a willing gm.
What we really need is to free up the melee feats from their class pidgeon holes. Too many feats seem specifically tailored to one class or other, be it monk or fighter. If we had some more compatability between the melee 3, then i think we would see a lot more of those archetype options functioning. That and the coming prestige tests will go a long way to solving our problems.
You know what would be awesome? Tactic feats. Just a bunch of tactic feats that only the fighter can take/it's hard for anyone else to get more than one.
|
|
wow, you guys must have access to actual game changing feats. please do tell were you have found feats better than Barbarian Rage, Fast movement, DR, uncanny dodge and so on. ive played high level Fighters and either they are one trick ponies (and soooo boring) or spread so thin they barely feel better at anything.
GO ahead and Ban the Fighter so you dont have new players fall into its black hole. (I pray enough changes are made to make them more playable)
note: Weapon and Armor training is bland and not a play aid, its duct tape over a problem
|
|
have you checked the old Sword and Fist as it was mentioned?
its an interesting book, some interesting feats (but aye... i hate that some of the "martial artist" feats are unable to be taken by other classes because of feats andattribute requeriments)
also as it was stated they have new ways to attack combat isntead of just going front and hit
mmm tactics feats...
like the tactical advantages provided by the hunter in iron heroes nmmmm
Fighters able to train soldiers and make them adecent unit... mmmm
i love that idea :D
|
Contributor
|
I can see how some people would dislike fighters, but I think it's just a matter of taste. I can't stand playing Druids, even though they are arguably the most powerful class in the 3.5 PHB. I find the generic nature of the class excellent for turning the Fighter into any of a variety of archetypes.
While I agree that the Wizards starts out-pacing you for raw-damage-in-a-single-blow, it's very nice to not worry about running out of "swords" you can cast per day, get to attack three or four times versus the one spell most casters get in a round, and (by 16th level)you've got almost 20 feats, giving you a lot of options to customize what you can throw out, from extra damage to super mobility to status effects, and even boost up those weaker saves and pad out their skill points.
Admittedly, in a one-on-one fight, a high-level wizard will probably own a single fighter, but in any low-level fight the opposite is true. If you want a fighter-type that can effectively 'cast spells', then take a look at "The Book of Nine Swords" to bring in anime-style fighting maneuvers. I consider it unbalanced, but it might bring in the power level that you're looking for.
|
|
Your game, that is fine.
personally the fighter is my favorite class. It is THE fantasy archetype.
As far as too generic... I find that completely strange. What you see as generic I see as the most customizable class in the game. If I can imagine a martial adventurer who doesn't use magic then I can make him with a fighter.
With your list you are including it seems like the real problem with fighters is the lack of spells. You seem to prefer spellcasters. My interpretation that is. Which is no problem. It's your game so it is fine.
I say, therefore, your game so have fun without the fighter.
In regards to the general criticisms I think it is just personal biases. The fighter is the most customizable class in the game.
BUT!!!! His skills suck! No class should only get two skill points per level (and a lot will get the 1 minimum point).
BUT!!!! His skills suck! No class should only get two skill points per level (and a lot will get the 1 minimum point).
this is the one thing I have always hated about the fighter. I never found them too boring or generic as thats part of the charm but lack of skills just kills so many fun things you could do.
If you must insist on playing Int 8, non-human fighters, you must expect to only have 1 skill point per level. Why do you want more skills and more points for a fighter, if your excuse is that many will only have 1 if the rules aren't changed? A slow, unlettered and somewhat dull non-human is not my idea of a versatile and skilled character.
If you must insist on playing Int 8, non-human fighters, you must expect to only have 1 skill point per level. Why do you want more skills and more points for a fighter, if your excuse is that many will only have 1 if the rules aren't changed? A slow, unlettered and somewhat dull non-human is not my idea of a versatile and skilled character.
well an average intelligence non human should have more then 2. Hell a commoner gets 2 no player character should ever have less then 4 unless they have low int
|
Contributor
|
If you must insist on playing Int 8, non-human fighters, you must expect to only have 1 skill point per level. Why do you want more skills and more points for a fighter, if your excuse is that many will only have 1 if the rules aren't changed? A slow, unlettered and somewhat dull non-human is not my idea of a versatile and skilled character.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Skills are a great way to flesh out your character, but so many classes scrape by with only a few points. My fiance' house-rules it that every class gets a minimum of 4 per level, and that seems to work out pretty well. I usually break Craft, Profession, and Knowledge into a seperate categorey of "character skills", and every PC gets as manay character skill points as they do normal skill points for things that help flesh out their PC.
well an average intelligence non human should have more then 2. Hell a commoner gets 2 no player character should ever have less then 4 unless they have low int
If you say so, I won't disagree, but I'm not going to lose sleep over waiting for a rules change either :)
|
|
If you must insist on playing Int 8, non-human fighters, you must expect to only have 1 skill point per level. Why do you want more skills and more points for a fighter, if your excuse is that many will only have 1 if the rules aren't changed? A slow, unlettered and somewhat dull non-human is not my idea of a versatile and skilled character.Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Skills are a great way to flesh out your character, but so many classes scrape by with only a few points. My fiance' house-rules it that every class gets a minimum of 4 per level, and that seems to work out pretty well. I usually break Craft, Profession, and Knowledge into a seperate categorey of "character skills", and every PC gets as manay character skill points as they do normal skill points for things that help flesh out their PC.
i concur... i do the same
4 skills + int mod is the less i give
I have used that rule for close to 8 years. I'll tell ya it made STAP alot more fun since 1/2 the party was fighters and they had a blast having enough skills to help
|
|
Your game, that is fine.
personally the fighter is my favorite class. It is THE fantasy archetype.
As far as too generic... I find that completely strange. What you see as generic I see as the most customizable class in the game. If I can imagine a martial adventurer who doesn't use magic then I can make him with a fighter.
With your list you are including it seems like the real problem with fighters is the lack of spells. You seem to prefer spellcasters. My interpretation that is. Which is no problem. It's your game so it is fine.
I say, therefore, your game so have fun without the fighter.
In regards to the general criticisms I think it is just personal biases. The fighter is the most customizable class in the game.
BUT!!!! His skills suck! No class should only get two skill points per level (and a lot will get the 1 minimum point).
I completely agree with Krome, here. The fighter is one of my (if not my most favorite) class. I love the versatility of modeling different archetypes (the only problem with which is the lack of skills, and that's a ot better, at least, in PRPG).
The fighter should be brought up to snuff, not abandoned.
|
|
Some interesting posts and all of them seem to have some essence of truth to them. The bottom line is this post would not exist (along with so many other threads along the same topic) if the fighter wasn’t missing that something extra it needs.
Personally I embraced its perceived weakness and made it the class core strength. Namely its “genericness”. To me being generic speaks of versatility. So I took that to the next level. I gave the fighter slightly more options and the ability to exercise those options. Some ideas I used:
• a simple increase to 4 skill points,
• the ability to change feats every 2nd level
• the ability to spend time training each day to refocus his weapon specific feats onto a new weapon of choice
• an adaptive feat slot every few levels that can be changed daily (and at higher levels multiple times a day). i.e. they can “spontaneously” fill that feat slot with any fighter/combat feat they require when they require it.
• finally I added some extra minor options that can be taken in lieu of the weapon or armor training or bonus feats so that you can build even more options such as dodge bonuses and skill bonuses for swashbuckler types, or physical training options that improve physical stats, or the ability to combine multiple attacks into one solid blow (i.e. 3d8 damage as apposed to 1d8) by sacrificing accuracy.Personally though I find the fighter was not the only class that suffered from blandness, but it was the easiest to tweak. All martial characters could do with some more options and maybe some increased access in abilities. Non spell casting variants of paladin and ranger with some decent non spell casting abilities would be a great thing too! (Don’t quite remember any legendry rangers or paladins in any of the classics, whipping out spells in the middle of combat – or perhaps I’m just not reading the right novels).
interesting
i willhaveto bite on this...sounds promising