Fighter analysis + response to Jason Nelson


Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger


Analysis below response to Jason Nelson

Jason Nelson wrote:
[...]I have seen a misunderstanding that seems to keep cropping up, of fighters "learning feats they never knew and forgetting other feats," so pehaps I will take one final stab at re-explaining it.[...]

Hmm.

Quoting SRD 3.5 wrote:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do.
Quoting PFRPB Beta wrote:
Feats apply bonuses to your statistics and grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you.

In short, feats are binary abilities. If you need abilities which allow gradation, you are supposed to either use skills or construct chains of feats or use slot system.

Such division is important for keeping the simplicity of base game.

Therefore, if you need to offer ability which allows for differing levels of competence, you should create a feat which allows to use an existing skill in a new and exciting way instead of adding new mechanic.

Furthermore, there have been attempts to blur this distinction already - virtual feats (3.0, Ranger class), combat styles (3.5, Ranger class again) and needless to say, they failed to boost class attractiveness, while at the same time adding to complication of tracking class information ("you have a feat, but its not a feat, and the feat benefits work only when you do something in a specific way, but they are not active otherwise").

As one of the people who worked on PcGen data files long time ago, I'd like to say that such approach does not produce expected results while the exceptions to base system needlessly complicate it (for example, you need certain feat to qualify for prestige class or for other feat - is a virtual feat, i.e. feat which is active only part of the time, sufficient to meet class requirements or not?).

FIGHTER CLASS: COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

1. Big number of feats does not increase overall strength of a class.

Feats usually do not stack with each other (unless we chain them) and so greater number of feats increases class versatility. In terms of other subsystems, Fighter class could be compared to a Wizard who gains slots for new spells, but neither spell slot exceeds the 3rd spell level.
So, 20th level Fighter, with bigger number of feats, is just like a 5th level Wizard but with a larger amount of spell slots.

2. Chain feats (stronger feats requiring prerequisite feats) do not increase overall class power sufficiently.

In the beginning, chain feats were supposed to bring strength to characters specializing in certain tricks. Of those specialists, Fighters were supposed to shine thanks to potential to specialize in several different areas.

When you analyze a core feat like Whirlwind attack (3.0 prerequisites: : Int 13+, Expertise, Dex 13+, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4 or higher, Spring Attack), you find out that Dwarven Barbarian can learn it at 12th level. Mechanically its a weaker version of Fireball, 3rd level spell.
12th level spellcasters gain access to 6th level spells. That's three levels over Fireball.

Human Fighter (Pathfinder Beta) can boast use of Whirlwind Attack at 4th level - but what about later levels? Does he gain anything beyond this feat? No, because there is nothing beyond this power. And so spellcaster will leave him behind after 5th level.

3. Combat focus, melee or ranged, actually weakens the class by limiting class applicability.

So what a Fighter can do besides killing things? Nothing much since neither his skills nor his bonus feats allow him to open to more possibilities. The archetype of big and dumb brawler prevailed during original design of the class - apparently Sun Tzu wrote his work for experts, rogues and wizards.

However, even within his own niche, the mundane tools at Fighter's disposal make him especially dependent on magic trinkets, inferior to buffed rivals (Druids and Clerics). Why? Because Fighter lacks means to control battlefield or counter hostile abilities or escape spell effects after failed saves - he cannot push opponents away, stop charges or escape entaglement and grab attempts.

Also, as primarily melee class, he's going to be the guy to suffer most criticals and effects of special abilities... which brings us to another point:

4. Combat niche and separation of class areas of expertise.

The assumption of canonical D20 party proves to be the worst flaw of Fighter design. Basically, to motivate people to work in teams, class abilities were intended to be split among canonical four classes, i.e. magic user, skill specialist, priest and combat specialist.

The class ability separation led to all the classes becoming very vulnerable to each others' powers, however as anyone can see, versatility of magic proved to overcome or work around weaker combat abilities. Skill specialist, in addition to combat power ironically unavailable to combat specialist (Sneak Attack), gained three skills allowing Skill specialist to somewhat counter or imitate magic abilities (PFRPG Beta: Use Magic Device, Stealth, Perception).

No such luck for combat specialist - he remained as vulnerable as before with one exception - if he is within combat reach of any other classes, and if he wins initative, and if he uses full attack action and and if he rolls really good, he stands a chance of bringing down anyone, including other combat specialist.

That's a large number of IFs, isn't it?

Let's repeat again conclusion from #3: Fighter lacks means to control battlefield or counter hostile abilities or escape spell effects after failed saves.

SOLUTIONS... are there any?

Important! This is not a list of absolute abilities, i.e. nothing here of 4E silliness like "you slide mobs 3 squares away". These abilities should use contested rolls (CMB! CMB! CMB!), albeit with a significant advantage for Fighter.

1. Battlefield control.

Fighter needs to be able, via feats or class abilities, to control his opponents. Improved Trip and Improved Sunder are not very effective, but they are a good start. Other important abilities needed are are:
- controlling opponent movement (example: CMB manoeuver to push away people, CMB manoeuver to stop enemy advance) without resigning from damage dealing - i.e. Fighter should be able to inflict damage and add additional effects to inflicted damage.
Example: strike opponent, and on succesful hit, unbalance opponent (CMB test) with success meaning loss of next move action by opponent.
Example: lock opponent in combat (CMB after succesful hit), opponent using move action or 5 foot steps opens to Attack of Opportunity
Example: inflict temporary negative conditions (CMB after successful hit or Intimidate after succesful hit) like Bleed, Dazed, etc),
- providing morale bonuses to themselves and allies,
- improved perception (bodyguards should not have to take Rogue levels to spot ambushes),
- provide first aid (both to themselves and their cohorts).

2. Counter hostile abilities.

The easiest way to eliminate a fighter is to put him in a situation where his abilities either lose significance (blindness or concealment, restraint like grab or barrier, mind control, removal of weapon, bypassing armor, attacking weakest save, ability damage).

While fighter should not become a powerhouse immune to all of the above, he should be able to either lessen those effects through contested rolls or negate them.

Also, winning such contest should not allow to come back immediately with a counterattack - i.e. Fighter who just broke Hold Person effect, should not be able to immediately execute Full Attack upon spellcaster.

So, what should the fighter be capable of doing?
- contest round after round all effects which eliminate him from play, for example - attack and slowly overcome magical barriers, resist and gradually weaken magic control effects, wiggle out of grabs
- use improvised weapons effectively (i.e. no golf bag syndrome and no magical weapon dependency)
- switch to fully defense mode (at the expense of offense) if his defensive abilities are negated
- improve defenses (full defense mode) against attacks which bypass armor (touch attacks mostly)
- first aid or self-healing (after combat encounters)
- temporarily ignore effects of ability damage (Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement + Quickened Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement = -24 points of strength... and so 20th level Fighter goes down with 1 point of Strength remaining)
- Perception as class skill

3. Add room for additional development.

- 4 skill points
- improving team work: morale bonuses to allies (rousing speeches and so on)
- countering Fear and Mindaffecting control (i.e. imposing hero breaks rebellious crowds or controls his minions panicked by dragon flying overhead)

Regards,
Ruemere


I agree with many of your points, mainly the ideas that:

  • Fighters should be more capable of controlling what happens on the battlemat. It's been suggested in other threads (the AoO thread Sebastian started comes to mind) but the fighter should be much more mobile and able to control other creatures movement on the battlefield than anyone else. Stand Still, Knockback, move then AoO, all of these sort of abilities plus many others should give the fighter the advantage of maneuverability. How this happens... feats, class abilities, etc I am not particularly concerned with as long as it works.
  • Fighters have few defenses against a wizard's spells. This needs to be addressed. The wizard has a dozen ways to counter the fighter, how come fighters lack even a single significant defense against wizards?
  • Feats are weak compared to Spells - Enough said, there are no feats even in the ballpark of a 6th level spell let alone 8th or 9th.

I'm not sure why you addressed this to Jason Nelson since from what I've seen he agrees with much of what you suggest. A could other points.

"Big number of feats does not increase overall strength of a class"

This isn't exactly true. Each additional feat much like each additional spell adds to the overall versatility of the class. For example if a trip centered fighter finds himself on the isle of centipedes having some other feats to lean on (or exchange out) is going to be a huge help.

One of my concerns about adding to the feat count has always been that feats suffer from diminishing returns. As you get more and more feats each successive feat is worth less than the previous. So the fighter who already has a ton of feats benefits the least from the change from 1 feat/ 3 levels to 1 feat/ 2 levels.

The real solution is that if feats are considered a class feature of the fighter then those feats need to be relevant and there needs to be another tier of more powerful feats which are harder for other classes to get or only accessible to the fighter. One of the reasons I like the concept of feat chains is the possibility of a powerful capstone feat at the top of the tree. Feat trees should be filled with good relevant feats and have a powerful capstone. The current model is a feat tree filled with mediocre or downright lame feats and a capstone that is merely useful but not particularly powerful.

Liberty's Edge

ruemere wrote:

1. Battlefield control.

Fighter needs to be able, via feats or class abilities, to control his opponents. Improved Trip and Improved Sunder are not very effective, but they are a good start. Other important abilities needed are are:
- controlling opponent movement (example: CMB manoeuver to push away people, CMB manoeuver to stop enemy advance) without resigning from damage dealing - i.e. Fighter should be able to inflict damage and add additional effects to inflicted damage.

I have long ago thought of a new 'condition' like tripped; but not as severe. I thought about the ability of a fighters attacks to possibly do things like the knock-back etc, and perhaps with the right feat, weapon combo etc, can take advantage of this condition

UNBALANCED
It requires a move action to regain your balance and focus to fight. If you choose to ignore this condition on your turn, and make attacks anyway, you then are considered flat-footed until your next turn and have a -4 penalty to attacks.

{like trip, it would require a move action to recover from it - thus relegating the creataure to only taking a single-attack action, but unlike trip, it doesn't provoke an AOO to recover, and creatures dont get the +4 to hit them since they're not prone.}

Robert

Dark Archive

Most of this I like, and some I can leave behind. What I do appreciate (and it is something I have wanted put out here before) is addressing the issue of non-BAB, non-AC powerups/abilities which are considerably lacking for all martial combatants.

I disagree about the talent/non-feat approach, I think it was done perfectly with the PF rogue and can be implemented to some degree with the Fighter and Ranger (and placed inside of a rage system for Barbarians).

Responses
1st point -agree 100%...weapon focus is great at low level but since it doesn't scale or give anything other than a +1 and a PQ requirement it can't compete with say Maximize Spell. None of the martial feats compare with the power of metamagic feats. Maybe they should be relegated to talents/class abilities?

2nd point - don't like chain feats. The price for what they do is too high considering that feats are like gold. Since martial feats are overvalued (for what they do) I just don't like the pricing scheme.

3rd point - Don't agree that combat focus weakens fighters - it only weakens them if that is all they got. A a generalist fighters should be the best at what they do, and it is not reflected in their BAB nor in their abilities.

The second part to point 3 I agree with 100% and will add to it later on.

4th point – I agree 100% and will add to it later.

Solutions-

1st part - I don't wholly agree with the emphasis on battlefield control as being the fighters sole function (explain right after), but I did like some of your non-4e plausible abilities and explanations you offered. Far more elegant and practical than most anything I have seen in the past even if I don't agree with all the specific mechanical details.

IF the fighter class existed in a 100% MUNDANE world I would agree that practical battlefield control should be his core focus. The problem I have with this (and most approaches on caster vs. non-caster arguments) is that you are structuring after a very real world fashion.
In the Fighter’s (and Barbarian and Rangers) world exist flying invisible wizards, superbuffed clerics and creatures which defy the laws of physics both in power and mobility.

Would a really good combatant rise out of this world without some training in defeating all these different threats?

I do like many of your suggestions though and even if I don’t agree mechanically I do believe that in spirit you have the right idea

2nd and 3rd Points – Again, right on target and I would like to add a little more to what you offered.

Here are some vague and basic ideas-

In my homebrew I am experimenting with the idea that:
Fighters are precision and tactics machines- The may have a chance at circumventing hindrances to their person (held, blinded, etc) and may be able to use their skill (talent, feat, etc) to get around things that make the foe harder to deal with

Ex- Wizard is blurred and mirror imaged…fighter makes a check and lands a sound blow on the real target.
Ex. Attacks which disable, impede or negate ongoing magical effects or attacks.

Barbarians are anti-magic juggernauts – While raging he can step through (smash through) magic barriers to get past and crush his foes. He excels in killing summoned and or bizarre monsters without the aid of magic gear (or turning his weapon into lightning and suddenly gaining magic powerz)

Ex. Evil caster is hedged with protection from chaos and is under the effect of stoneskin. Angry barbarian ignores wards (maybe even canceling them) and sticks his bastard sword into the evil caster…ignoring his DR. In the past 1st ed Barbarians had the ability “to hit” creatures that needed a +1,+2, etc magic item. DR is the modern translation of that creature ability; hence Barbarians should be able to negate DR (to varying degrees of course).
Ex. Barbarians should have the best chance to “shake off” effects while fighters should be able to function best by working around impeding effects (finesse and skill vs. force).

Rangers are masters of the wild and things of nature. They don’t like unnatural things and their training should reflect that. Disrupting and negating ongoing spells would be part of their focus. Dealing with mobility (and things that breaks those rules) would be another.
Melee and ranged attacks which impede movement (teleportation), use of items, or just plain old walking around would be something a ranger could also deal with and impede. Every martial class should have some ability to impede (not 4e style) but a ranger should excel in wounding, maiming and called shoting his way around enemy combatants (like a rogue, but tougher).

Ex. Flying invisible fireball wizard – a Ranger has a good chance to detect unnatural things, and if it is outdoors there is a greater possibility that he can sense where the flyer is at in the sky at any given time. With a good disrupting shot he can bring that caster crashing down to his death. The disrupting shot doesn’t even need to hit all types of flyers…maybe only those using magical means…or not. As a part of his training a ranger may be able to befoul winged flyers, or use it to tap into nature to “realign” a caster currently under a fly spell.

Some ideas I’m sure people will hate but I felt a need to get them out there. In many ways I feel that some of these changes do a few good things:
Reduce the BAB/AC ++++ direction, reduce the +1d6 direction,
Eliminate the need for quasi magical abilities (elemental rage) and replace them with
very anti-magic abilities/tactics/etc.
Visually and internally consistent with D&D tradition, and can be applied to low powered to high fantasy campaign while all abilities remain plausible. If there is no need for these abilities in a given world (low magic) then a myriad of other class talents can be picked (again leaning towards a martial talent system for each class akin to the PF rogue which IMO is brilliant) instead.

The Paladin is better focused (could be better still) than any other of it’s cousin classes to deal with its focus threat (undead, evil outsiders). My suggestion is that in addition to Martial prowess (however that is handled, be it feats, etc) that the issues facing non-casters be addressed in a non BAB/AC boost method.

So flame/shoot down/gouge away

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

ruemere wrote:
Analysis below response to Jason Nelson

Wow, a thread just for me! I'm touched...

Jason Nelson wrote:
[...]I have seen a misunderstanding that seems to keep cropping up, of fighters "learning feats they never knew and forgetting other feats," so pehaps I will take one final stab at re-explaining it.[...]

Hmm.

Quoting SRD 3.5 wrote:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do.
Quoting PFRPB Beta wrote:
Feats apply bonuses to your statistics and grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you.
ruemere wrote:

In short, feats are binary abilities. If you need abilities which allow gradation, you are supposed to either use skills or construct chains of feats or use slot system.

Such division is important for keeping the simplicity of base game.

I'd say simplicity is a bit overrated, because personally I prefer complexity, but I understand that everybody's game is different. For general consumption, I'd agree that simple is better than

Conceptually, I don't agree that either of the sentences you posted above really say anything pertinent to the use of feats as permanent, virtual (a la rangers), or temporary (a la the proposed 'martial training' idea, or the use of action points in Unearthed Arcana that allows you to do much the same).

Permanent, virtual, or temporary, they are still things you are enabled to do and things that allow allow you to take actions you're otherwise prohibited from doing.

I can see how they could potentially cause problems for creating a computer program, though, as you would have to specify the contingencies under which feats were legal or not.

Perhaps I've been blessed with good players over the years, but I really don't see the potential abusability of temporary feats. You spell out that they cannot be used as prereqs (except for other temporary feats, and nothing else). You literally CAN'T run into problems with temporary feats because it is literally impossible to build things onto them that are not similarly temporary.

Feat retraining, which Jason B suggested, does have the potential to do that, so you would have to spell out, quite simply, that feats that are prerequisites for ANYTHING cannot be retrained. If you want to retrain a prereq feat, you'd have to first retrain the feats 'above' it on the chain/tree. To retrain Weapon Focus, you'd have to retrain Weapon Spec first. If you were in a PrC that required WF as a prereq, you couldn't retrain it. Period.

In either case, if a player violates that rule, they aren't abusing the rule, they are ignoring it. That's simply cheating, and no rule in the world can stop a cheater because the essence of cheating is ignoring the rules in your own best interest.

Really, besides the above, I agree with most of the ideas you've thrown out, and have proposed many of the same for that matter. There was one thing I saw that I thought I should point out, though:

ruemere wrote:
- temporarily ignore effects of ability damage (Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement + Quickened Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement = -24 points of strength... and so 20th level Fighter goes down with 1 point of Strength remaining)

This trick doesn't work because RoE doesn't inflict strength damage, it inflicts a penalty to Strength, and penalties overlap and do not stack with one another. You would just use the best roll of the two spells and apply that. It would make it harder to dispel, however, as both spells would be in effect (though one would be superfluous); you would have to dispel both spells to bring back the fighter's normal strength.


Auxmaulous wrote:
1st point -agree 100%...weapon focus is great at low level but since it doesn't scale or give anything other than a +1 and a PQ requirement it can't compete with say Maximize Spell. None of the martial feats compare with the power of metamagic feats. Maybe they should be relegated to talents/class abilities?

When it all boils down if feats are all fighters got then they need to rework the feats to make them workable.

Auxmaulous wrote:
2nd point - don't like chain feats. The price for what they do is too high considering that feats are like gold. Since martial feats are overvalued (for what they do) I just don't like the pricing scheme.

I would suggest that 3.5 has perhaps 1 or 2 feat chains/ trees that are well executed at all. The best of the bunch have a capstone that provides a mediocre result at best. Get some base feats that are meaningful (Weapon Focus that scales, TWF that scales, etc) then make the feats that sit on top of that do 'really cool things'. Unfortunately we are not really at the point of talking about feats yet which is a little disjointed.

Talk about fighters now and feat later but fighters are made or broke on the strength of feats. How can you say the fighter is 'fixed' if you don't know what's happening with the feats? So see my response to your first point... feats need serious help, without that nothing will help the fighter.

Dark Archive

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
1st point -agree 100%...weapon focus is great at low level but since it doesn't scale or give anything other than a +1 and a PQ requirement it can't compete with say Maximize Spell. None of the martial feats compare with the power of metamagic feats. Maybe they should be relegated to talents/class abilities?

When it all boils down if feats are all fighters got then they need to rework the feats to make them workable.

Auxmaulous wrote:
2nd point - don't like chain feats. The price for what they do is too high considering that feats are like gold. Since martial feats are overvalued (for what they do) I just don't like the pricing scheme.

I would suggest that 3.5 has perhaps 1 or 2 feat chains/ trees that are well executed at all. The best of the bunch have a capstone that provides a mediocre result at best. Get some base feats that are meaningful (Weapon Focus that scales, TWF that scales, etc) then make the feats that sit on top of that do 'really cool things'. Unfortunately we are not really at the point of talking about feats yet which is a little disjointed.

Talk about fighters now and feat later but fighters are made or broke on the strength of feats. How can you say the fighter is 'fixed' if you don't know what's happening with the feats? So see my response to your first point... feats need serious help, without that nothing will help the fighter.

I agree. Maybe they can keep weapon spec and add in a scaling feature, or a list of manuvers per weapon type which also scale with level (and complexity). I just don't think that the current exchange is fair. But PF is a golden opportunity to fix some of this stuff. If weapon focus retained its value like some metamagic feats do then I would be more comfortable, they don't.

I am not for any kind of retraining/morining training swap out system. That starts to go down the road of 4e metagame practical vs. making any kind of common sense (IMO of course). Making the baseline fighter (and other martial classes - but less so) just better and more versatile might help, then the feats which are added on can be real big deals. The feats should cover the exotic, or super specialized. Or maybe some of the other abilities I outlined earlier (Distrupting Shot for Rangers or High dex fighters) etc.


Auxmaulous wrote:
I agree. Maybe they can keep weapon spec and add in a scaling feature, or a list of manuvers per weapon type which also scale with level (and complexity). I just don't think that the current exchange is fair. But PF is a golden opportunity to fix some of this stuff. If weapon focus retained its value like some metamagic feats do then I would be more comfortable, they don't.

I know a lot of people gripe about the synergy between Improved Trip and the spiked chain. Personally, I think that is the sort of synergy that the fighter class needs (Though I hate the spiked chain itself).

Reach Weapons + Stand Still or Improved Trip

Auxmaulous wrote:
I am not for any kind of retraining/morining training swap out system. That starts to go down the road of 4e metagame practical vs. making any kind of common sense (IMO of course). Making the baseline...

I am but I think the idea of worthwhile feats is a much more important subject. I see the feat swap idea as an interesting side ability but ultimately as long as we have sh!tty feats it's just a distraction. Forgive me but I'm going to reuse that quote.


You almost had me interested, until you completely discounted the fact that 4E DID fix this.

Having to crunch variable mathematical expressions during a supposedly "dynamic" combat is lame. Adding additonal layers of complexity to a complex game is also lame.

Kudos for the effort, but it is misguided. The problems with the class are much more deeply rooted in the core mechanics.

Good luck with that, I'm just gonna go "slide some mobs" because it's fun, and because I can.

Dark Archive

Donny_the_DM wrote:


Good luck with that, I'm just gonna go "slide some mobs" because it's fun, and because I can.

Yeah, I'll pass on that. Sorry if common sense outweights any desire to metagame balance all the classes. That can fly with spells and elves but when it comes to combat I want my guys to follow the rules of their physical world as close as possible.

Enjoy

Liberty's Edge

Auxmaulous wrote:

In my homebrew I am experimenting with the idea that:

Fighters are precision and tactics machines- The may have a chance at circumventing hindrances to their person (held, blinded, etc) and may be able to use their skill (talent, feat, etc) to get around things that make the foe harder to deal with

This is exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for.

I am very intersted in hearing more about what you're doing here - some specific rules (if you have them worked out); I have been trying to establish the same kind of themes for rules mechanics to no avail yet.

If you feel more comfortable sharing off-list, you can send to my email at SirKicley{at}Yahoo{dot}com

Robert


Auxmaulous wrote:
Yeah, I'll pass on that. Sorry if common sense outweights any desire to metagame balance all the classes. That can fly with spells and elves but when it comes to combat I want my guys to follow the rules of their physical world as close as possible.

While I don't agree with the Donny, I think ourselves to the physical world we are going to wind up with a fighter who is every bit as weak as he is now.

More Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, more James Bond/ Jason Bourne heck, maybe a little XXX (the movie not the pr0n), I would even go so far as to say add touch of The Matrix, and a sprinkle of Jet Li. I'm a simulationist at heart but the fighter is one of the few classes in the game which is expected to be limited to the real world and that's part of why it sucks.

Liberty's Edge

ruemere wrote:
...

Too much text...

I was going to say that I really like the ideas you presented. I'm particularly keen on the idea of allowing an attack to combine another effect. Being able to 'bull rush' with a damage dealing attack, or 'trip' with a damage dealing attack, etc, would be a really cool ability.

I love it.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Yeah, I'll pass on that. Sorry if common sense outweights any desire to metagame balance all the classes. That can fly with spells and elves but when it comes to combat I want my guys to follow the rules of their physical world as close as possible.

While I don't agree with the Donny, I think ourselves to the physical world we are going to wind up with a fighter who is every bit as weak as he is now.

More Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, more James Bond/ Jason Bourne heck, maybe a little XXX (the movie not the pr0n), I would even go so far as to say add touch of The Matrix, and a sprinkle of Jet Li. I'm a simulationist at heart but the fighter is one of the few classes in the game which is expected to be limited to the real world and that's part of why it sucks.

The problem is more one of as is the fighter at best gets within sight of the boundaries of the physical world and then stops. Most of what you listed as examples are still within the boundaries of the physical world, put push the limits of those boundaries to the edge.

It's not that the limits of realism exist, it's that they are approached very conservatively with regard to physical combat. Fighters aren't seen as Jason Bourne, James Bond, XXX, or John McClane. They are Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Special Forces. Better than your average grunt in training and equipment, but don't necessarily have the heroic edge to push the boundaries of human ability and consider it all in a day's work. Fighters need to be more like Captain America or Batman. Exceptional humans with no super powers who can battle in the same arena as heroes and villains with reality altering powers.

The fighter need to have a benefit from their feats that pushes them from topping out at elite mook level and into being truly heroic.

I do not see swapping out feats daily as a solution, and disagree with it for reasons of both flavor and mechanical nature. Retraining to swap feats when a character levels is a different matter to me, as is the ability to switch weapon specific feats to other weapons. Fighters need to get more out of their feats, not access to more feats. They also need to be able to make exceptional use of otherwise mundane combat abilities. As ruemere suggested, one way would be allowing fighters to add normal attack damage to Combat Maneuvers instead of sacrificing the damage to gain use of the maneuver.


First of all, big THANK YOU to all participants and small request: don't let the content to be lost to noise of details.

I know that most of us had different experiences with various version of d20, so everyone is welcome to share. Hopefully, the analysis and your input will contribute to final version of Pathfinder.

Apologies to those, whose replies I'm skipping - this thread is a challenge to Jason Nelson proposal, and in order to be able to address his points, I need to focus on his posts.

Onto the stuff...

Jason Nelson wrote:
Wow, a thread just for me! I'm touched...

Please, consider this a token of appreciation of your well formed post.

Jason Nelson wrote:
[...]I'd say simplicity is a bit overrated, because personally I prefer complexity, but I understand that everybody's game is different. For general consumption, I'd agree that simple is better than [sentence ends in whitespace]

My experience of appreciation of formal design of d20 started with my work for PcGen. I was tasked with transcribing certain rules of certain supplements into data files. Thanks to valuable input of other developers, I have also became aware of danger posed by rule exceptions.

My opinion on the system is to keep it clean of exceptions - development is welcome provided the system base stays intact.

Let me digress here: I have been charmed by simplicity of 4E, yet the fact that it added even more abstract representations of various features of game world without providing clean methods of translation from character actions to game world consequences, destroyed it for me. And that's why I use broad term of 4E silliness - it's a great system far removed from inner logic of a game world, where characters compete using abstract abilities, of which results require significant handwaving before they can be applied to game reality. Finally, non-euclidean geommetry... it's just not for me.

Jason Nelson on feats/traits wrote:

[...]Permanent, virtual, or temporary, they are still things you are enabled to do and things that allow allow you to take actions you're otherwise prohibited from doing.

I can see how they could potentially cause problems for creating a computer program, though, as you would have to specify the contingencies under which feats were legal or not.

Quite the opposite. Software can easily handle such things provided the logic is clear. And it was most definitely not - having perused number of supplements where people, due to lack of clear ruling, made mistakes during design of their own supplements, convinced me of keeping core stuff simple and light on logic.

Pathfinder, if I understand corectly, is about providing a new core system. There will be authors reading core book and creating their works - so, the more complicated design, the more likely the errors in secondary books.

Jason Nelson on feats/traits wrote:
Perhaps I've been blessed with good players over the years, but I really don't see the potential abusability of temporary feats. You spell out that they cannot be used as prereqs (except for other temporary feats, and nothing else). You literally CAN'T run into problems with...

Again, the problems were neither with my players or core books. The problems originated within classic d20 books designed by WotC and third party publishers. Of course, skill point system and progression of saves are the most troubling part of derivative OGL publications, however feats and introduction of feat exceptions or feats which function in a way similar to skills, are likely to complicate stuff for future developers.

Again, this is not about abusability but rather trying to make sure that the core book stays simple and clear.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Ray of Enfeeblement is an error of mine - I was hastily trying to construct a simple example and decided that poisons were not appropriate. Rephrasing relevant fragment:

new version wrote:
- temporarily ignore effects of ability damage or ability penalties (Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement + Quickened Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement = -24 points of strength... and so 20th level Fighter goes down with 1 point of Strength remaining)

About this spell, does anyone else think that Ray of Idiocy (targetting Intelligence, no save allowed) as a first level spell would be rather overpowered? Yet, while Fighter, with his single score dependency, remains a potential victim here, while Wizard's most important score is rather safe from first level spells.


ruemere wrote:
new version wrote:


- temporarily ignore effects of ability damage or ability penalties (Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement + Quickened Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement = -24 points of strength... and so 20th level Fighter goes down with 1 point of Strength remaining)

{Emphasis added by me}.

Actually JN was pointing out that you would not have -24 points of strength, but -15 at most, from a single Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement. Ray of Enfeeblement inflicts a penalty, and penalties from the same spell source do not stack with each other.

This is the same as being subjected to the Bane spell twice - you only have a -1 to attacks and fear saves, not -2.

I do have one point of my own. You rated Weapon Focus as inherently inferior to Maximize Spell, and stated it didn't scale at all. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Weapon Focus provides a 5% bonus to hit. That is essentially a 5% increase in damage. Damage scales with level, thus the bonus from Weapon Focus scales. Does it scale enough? Let's take a quick example.

Your 12th level Fighter - let's give him some moderate stats, a 22 strength, Greatsword +3, with Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), Improved Critcal (Greatsword), and Backswing (his 7 fighter bonus feats at work). Assuming two hits per round from his three swings (more with Haste/Speed/etc.), he will do an average of about 71 points per round (2d6 + 3magic +4spec +2weapon-training +9strength * 2attacks +9backswing * 1.2critting).

Weapon Focus adds about 5% to damage, or 3.55 points per round. He also has Greater Weapon Focus for another 3.55 points per round. That's 7.1 points, every round. Compare that to Maximize on a Fireball - adds 25 points, once per day per spell slot. Reasonable to give the Wizard two targets taking that damage (mitigating for bigger groups, avoiding party members, saving throws, and evasion) for about 50 points of damage per spell.

Except Cone of Cold (or Chain Lightning) would do just 18 points less, for only 36 difference (and save a spell level). With that amount the Weapon Focuses make up the difference in 5 rounds of combat per spell.

I really feel there is a huge underestimation of the power of any ability that stacks in combat. This example does not take into account anything along the lines of Bardic Music, Prayer, Enlarge Person, Rage, Haste, etc., and is *modest* in the stats provided for.

... That got long - thanks for listening.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I agree. Maybe they can keep weapon spec and add in a scaling feature, or a list of manuvers per weapon type which also scale with level (and complexity). I just don't think that the current exchange is fair. But PF is a golden opportunity to fix some of this stuff. If weapon focus retained its value like some metamagic feats do then I would be more comfortable, they don't.

I know a lot of people gripe about the synergy between Improved Trip and the spiked chain. Personally, I think that is the sort of synergy that the fighter class needs (Though I hate the spiked chain itself).

Reach Weapons + Stand Still or Improved Trip

Yeah, the problem with the spiked chain is that, besides being just kinda dumb (IMO), it is like a light weapon (cuz you can WeaponFinesse with it) PLUS a two-handed weapon (so you can uber Power Attack with it), plus a reach weapon, plus a close-in weapon, plus a tripping weapon.

Did I miss anything?

To over-generalize, why bother having any other melee weapons in the game when right here you have one weapon that does everything that every other weapon does, all in one?

Bleah on the spiked chain!

Scarab Sages

Jason Nelson wrote:


Yeah, the problem with the spiked chain is that, besides being just kinda dumb (IMO), it is like a light weapon (cuz you can WeaponFinesse with it) PLUS a two-handed weapon (so you can uber Power Attack with it), plus a reach weapon, plus a close-in weapon, plus a tripping weapon.

Did I miss anything?

To over-generalize, why bother having any other melee weapons in the game when right here you have one weapon that does everything that every other weapon does, all in one?

Bleah on the spiked chain!

You forgot 2d4 base damage (arguably 3rd best for Medium weapons, tied with 1d10), and +2 on disarm attempts. And it is the cheapest one-handed or two-handed Exotic Weapon (cheaper even than the greatsword or falchion).

The only thing it doesn't have is a good critical range, and it deals piercing damage, which is typically not a good choice for overcoming DR.

Ick.


Majuba wrote:

[...]Actually JN was pointing out that you would not have -24 points of strength, but -15 at most, from a single Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement. Ray of Enfeeblement inflicts a penalty, and penalties from the same spell source do not stack with each other.

This is the same as being subjected to the Bane spell twice - you only have a -1 to attacks and fear saves, not -2.

I stand corrected (though the maximum penalty is 16 or 17 [depending on interpretation of rounding down :)], as (5 + 6)*1.5 = 11 + 5.5 = 16.5).

Majuba wrote:
I do have one point of my own. You rated Weapon Focus as inherently inferior to Maximize Spell, and stated it didn't scale at all. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that.

Actually, I did not. I have only compared top chain feat, Whirlwind attack to weakened version of Fireball.

Majuba wrote:
Weapon Focus provides a 5% bonus to hit. That is essentially a 5% increase in damage. Damage scales with level, thus the bonus from Weapon Focus scales. Does it scale enough? Let's take a quick example.

Your reasoning is incorrect.

Specifically, Weapon Focus increases to hit chance only if the to-hit success threshold falls between 3 and 20 (i.e. for cases where difference between armor class and attack bonus is equal to or lower than 18). Also, since the basic threat range is not affected by Weapon Focus (unless to-hit threshold is higher than threat threashold), Weapon Focus impact on additional damage from critical hits is much smaller.

Finally, damage scaling is rather weak assumption - wealth acquired is often spent on defensive or miscellanous items. Also, most spells have damage dice cap, i.e. certain damage limit.

Majuba wrote:
[...]Your 12th level Fighter - let's give him some moderate stats, a 22 strength, Greatsword +3, with Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), Improved Critcal (Greatsword), and Backswing (his 7 fighter bonus feats at work). Assuming two hits per round from his three swings (more with Haste/Speed/etc.), he will do an average of about 71 points per round (2d6 + 3magic +4spec +2weapon-training +9strength * 2attacks +9backswing * 1.2critting).

I do not really understand how you arrived at 71 points of average damage per round, or how did you found out average number of succesful hits. You have also complicated the example by adding Backswing feat, which affects only first strike of strike iterative attack sequence executed with two handed weapon.

My simple Excel sheet shows, that sample monster (as per PFRPG, page 294) with CR12 has AC of 27.
Your fighter attack sequence bonus totals: 25/20/15.
Average damage per attack (no criticals factored in yet): 34/25/25.
Expected damage per round (using averages, criticals factored in): 73,26.

If we break the system somewhat (Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus are prerequisites here) and remove +2 to hit, the expected damage falls to: 67,26.

Damage falls by 8,1% for both feats and 4,05% per feat.

Majuba wrote:
Weapon Focus adds about 5% to damage, or 3.55 points per round. He also has Greater Weapon Focus for another 3.55 points per round. That's 7.1 points, every round. Compare that to Maximize on a Fireball - adds 25 points, once per day per spell slot. Reasonable to give the Wizard two targets taking that damage (mitigating for bigger groups, avoiding party members, saving throws, and evasion) for about 50 points of damage per spell.

It's 4%, and Weapon Focus feats are mandatory for your example - that pretty much invalidates your reasoning. Still, if we agree to this, both feats add 6 points per round.

Also, kindly remember that:
- excess damage is wasted, so without making another set of assumptions about target hitpoint reserve it is difficult to assume effectiveness of mass attack effects vs single target attack effects,
- for each round opponents attack, they cause higher resource drain - it's 1 round vs 5 rounds in your example, so the opponents are likely to cause additional resource drain for at least 4 rounds,
- average encounter significant round count is between 3 and 4,
- special abilities (highly mobile opponents, damage reduction, regeneration) decrease effectiveness of Fighter attacks (mobility = fewer full attack actions, damage reduction = harder to overcome than energy/spell resistance, regeneration = improved effectiveness against attacks spread over several rounds).

In short, unless your encounter degenerates into game of attrition, Wizard will overwhelm Fighter's output while preserving party resources.

Regards,
Ruemere

Scarab Sages

Freesword wrote:
It's not that the limits of realism exist, it's that they are approached very conservatively with regard to physical combat. Fighters aren't seen as Jason Bourne, James Bond, XXX, or John McClane. They are Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Special Forces. Better than your average grunt in training and equipment, but don't necessarily have the heroic edge to push the boundaries of human ability and consider it all in a day's work. Fighters need to be more like Captain America or Batman. Exceptional humans with no super powers who can battle in the same arena as heroes and villains with reality altering powers.

It's rather depressing that in order to emulate either of those last two heroes, one would need to take levels in Rogue.

"You want to bypass the security system? Well, you can't."
"I don't care how many ranks of Search or Disable Device you have, I'm not letting you use them."
"Why? Well, because...well, BECAUSE! Hmm, yes! So there!"

Liberty's Edge

Jason Nelson wrote:

Yeah, the problem with the spiked chain is that, besides being just kinda dumb (IMO), it is like a light weapon (cuz you can WeaponFinesse with it) PLUS a two-handed weapon (so you can uber Power Attack with it), plus a reach weapon, plus a close-in weapon, plus a tripping weapon.

Did I miss anything?

To over-generalize, why bother having any other melee weapons in the game when right here you have one weapon that does everything that every other weapon does, all in one?

Bleah on the spiked chain!

I'm with you on the spiked chain - when it comes time to discuss equipment - either the other exotic weapons will need to be improved to make them on par, or the spiked chain needs to be dumbed down; and I'm thinking at the very least, the spiked chain needs to lose the Weapon Finesse capability.

Robert

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Robert Brambley wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:

Yeah, the problem with the spiked chain is that, besides being just kinda dumb (IMO), it is like a light weapon (cuz you can WeaponFinesse with it) PLUS a two-handed weapon (so you can uber Power Attack with it), plus a reach weapon, plus a close-in weapon, plus a tripping weapon.

Did I miss anything?

To over-generalize, why bother having any other melee weapons in the game when right here you have one weapon that does everything that every other weapon does, all in one?

Bleah on the spiked chain!

I'm with you on the spiked chain - when it comes time to discuss equipment - either the other exotic weapons will need to be improved to make them on par, or the spiked chain needs to be dumbed down; and I'm thinking at the very least, the spiked chain needs to lose the Weapon Finesse capability.

Robert

I'd actually go the opposite direction, keep WpnFin and make it an exotic light weapon, basically like a pointy metal whip.

Knock down the damage to 1d4. Make it a two-handed light weapon (so it gives no damage advantage for THF use).

It's still got plenty of juice as a utility weapon for CMBs and for reach/close, but less retardly overpowered as a straight-up damage weapon.

My two bits...


Jason Nelson wrote:

I'd actually go the opposite direction, keep WpnFin and make it an exotic light weapon, basically like a pointy metal whip.

Knock down the damage to 1d4. Make it a two-handed light weapon (so it gives no damage advantage for THF use).

It's still got plenty of juice as a utility weapon for CMBs and for reach/close, but less retardly overpowered as a straight-up damage weapon.

My two bits...

Heh, I guess I touched a nerve with the spiked chain reference.

My point was lost in the spiked chain hate though. The good part about the spiked chain is the weapon/ feat synergy which can be achieved without having a weapon quite so broken as the spiked chain.


Snorter wrote:

It's rather depressing that in order to emulate either of those last two heroes, one would need to take levels in Rogue.

"You want to bypass the security system? Well, you can't."
"I don't care how many ranks of Search or Disable Device you have, I'm not letting you use them."
"Why? Well, because...well, BECAUSE! Hmm, yes! So there!"

Ok... lets be honest here, James Bond or Jason Bourne should have some ranks in rogue. If the multi class system actually worked they would probably be Rogue 8/ Ranger 12. I was looking more at the sort of physical feats they could do though more than the breaking and entry/ spying aspects. The fact that usually about 3 times during the movie you say something like "Wait... there's like a 1 in a million chance anyone could pull that off"... The stuff they do 10 times per movie which is possible but would likely kill you 99 times out of 100.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Nelson wrote:

I'd actually go the opposite direction, keep WpnFin and make it an exotic light weapon, basically like a pointy metal whip.

Knock down the damage to 1d4. Make it a two-handed light weapon (so it gives no damage advantage for THF use).

It's still got plenty of juice as a utility weapon for CMBs and for reach/close, but less retardly overpowered as a straight-up damage weapon.

My two bits...

I completely disagree. I think its a two handed weapon and should not be 'finnesed'

To me it seems the dex folk abuse it the most, AND as a two handed weapon goes - its less damage than most two handed weapons get.

Robert


I feel your pain. I know this would be a problem, as despite all the problems you have listed, the fighter feats have all seem to be a bit nerfed. Not just power attack and combat expertise, but dodge also and a number have become swift actions. I don't like what they have done to feats for the sack of simplicity, it has made the weaker classes even weaker dispite the buffing they have done.


LoL. Just saw this in the DriveThruRPG e-letter:
---
Newest Staff Reviews
The Deft Fighter

by Thomas W. Simpson
LINK
Price: (was $10.00) Now $5.00 )**[$2.50]**

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars (from Peter Ingham)

Review
A lot has been said through the years about the fighter class of the revised OGL core rules. One of the complaints trumpeted by many is that the higher level fighter, and indeed to a certain extent the lower level fighter, spends most of his time locked in rather mundane and boring attack actions swinging his or her weapon. Many attempts have been made to correct for this, mostly focused on trying to spice up the fighter's options and tactical abilities in combat. In most cases, this has cantered around the use of the fighter class' bread and butter - feats. The Deft Fighter is Thomas W. Simpson's effort to create a more interesting combat and tactical fighter using a new feat, the Deft Fighter feat, and a large number of fighter tricks.

The Deft Fighter is a 24 page pdf and indeed the first product from new OGL publisher, Thomas W. Simpson. This product comes as a single pdf file, and is a well presented document with good single column layout, clear writing, attention to detail, and some good illustrations from artist William McAusland. There are no bookmarks in the product. The Deft Fighter is a presentable product from this new publisher.

The concept behind the product is the Deft Fighter feat which allows you to specialise in a number of fighter tricks and abilities that create a more interesting combat fighter. The concept has been attempted in numerous different ways by other publishers, so is generally nothing new, but this take provides a flexible option to expand the list of new fighter tricks, and even the associated additional feats for the deft fighter. Fighter tricks are special actions or manuevers that are performed in conjunction with a normal attack, and resolved using opposed skill checks. It's fairly easy to expand on the list of fighter tricks, making this a flexible system for the martial warrior.

There are 24 fighter tricks in this product, all of them non-magical tricks or abilities rather than supernatural or other magical abilities. Examples include Nowhere to Run, which allows the fighter to prevent an enemy escaping; Dastardly Dancer which allows the fighter to weave out of combat with skill, and Death from Below, a Gimli kind of manuever from The Two Towers. The naming of the various feats leaves something to be desired, but mostly these achieve what they set out to achieve - if you succeed at the skill check, you gain some additional advantage, whereas if you fail, you are unable to pull the manuever off, and suffer a penalty.

While this is an interesting idea and certainly opens up the possibilities for combat, the underlying mechanics are probably not as robust as ithey seem. Take the Heart Attack trick as an example. This trick is a Balance vs. Sense Motive skill check, success which paralyzes your opponent for 1d4 rounds. Firstly, not many fighters, let alone monsters, have any decent ranks in the Sense Motive skill, whereas a fair many characters use the Balance skill. It's fairly easy to envisage a character that specialises in Balance, thereby succeeding at this trick frequently, rendering pretty much any opponent helpless and hence open to easy coup de graces. The balance of the power is just not there in all instances, particularly where monsters are concerned. In addition, rogue/fighters are far more likely to excel at these tricks than pure fighters are due to improved skill points.

Overall, I think this idea has merit and there are several interesting ideas and concepts in the product. I think the implementation, though, in some cases requires a little more thought, particularly where the underlying mechanics are concerned. If you are planning to adopt material from this product, then most likely you'll need to bear it in mind when throwing enemies at your party, since you'll need to boost certain skills in most enemies. The Deft Fighter feat and its tricks is certainly useful though, placing more emphasis on skills for fighters, and adding some useful options for tactical combat to the table.

---

I am in no-way associated with the author or the reviewer. I just thought it was timely to this discussion.

Best,
-K


Robert Brambley wrote:

...

I'm with you on the spiked chain - when it comes time to discuss equipment - either the other exotic weapons will need to be improved to make them on par, or the spiked chain needs to be dumbed down; and I'm thinking at the very least, the spiked chain needs to lose the Weapon Finesse capability.

Robert

Nope, it should use any strength bonuses to damage IMO. Hiting with the chain isn't a problem, but it isn't rigid, so it shouldn't allow power attacks, ... How exactly would second hand apply to the chain? At best I'd make it into a double weapon.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Zmar wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:

...

I'm with you on the spiked chain - when it comes time to discuss equipment - either the other exotic weapons will need to be improved to make them on par, or the spiked chain needs to be dumbed down; and I'm thinking at the very least, the spiked chain needs to lose the Weapon Finesse capability.

Robert

Nope, it should use any strength bonuses to damage IMO. Hiting with the chain isn't a problem, but it isn't rigid, so it shouldn't allow power attacks, ... How exactly would second hand apply to the chain? At best I'd make it into a double weapon.

I've thought about that angle as well. The illustration in the PH almost looks like it should be a double weapon.

Make it a double weapon that does 1d4/1d4 and still allows you to do all your tricks with reach/trip/disarm, bearing in mind that you CAN use a double weapon as a two-handed single weapon (just whack with one end of it).

It's a little more complicated fix, but it could work.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:

...

I'm with you on the spiked chain - when it comes time to discuss equipment - either the other exotic weapons will need to be improved to make them on par, or the spiked chain needs to be dumbed down; and I'm thinking at the very least, the spiked chain needs to lose the Weapon Finesse capability.

Robert

Nope, it should use any strength bonuses to damage IMO. Hiting with the chain isn't a problem, but it isn't rigid, so it shouldn't allow power attacks, ... How exactly would second hand apply to the chain? At best I'd make it into a double weapon.

I've thought about that angle as well. The illustration in the PH almost looks like it should be a double weapon.

Make it a double weapon that does 1d4/1d4 and still allows you to do all your tricks with reach/trip/disarm, bearing in mind that you CAN use a double weapon as a two-handed single weapon (just whack with one end of it).

It's a little more complicated fix, but it could work.

I think that there was a different chain weapon in one of the WotC splatbooks, the chain lash in Savage Species, but the weapon still applies strength and can be used in 10 ft. reach mode.


One thing that would help with fighters is that their shield protects against touch attacks.

This won't complicate the game at all for most, as I always calculate my AC, Touch AC, Flat Footed AC, and Incorporeal AC.

I like your point of view here. Making the fighter into not just into a kill one thing and take hits guy. However I wonder what you think about the massive power down of power attack, combat expertise, and cleave?

Field control is a great Idea, I like some of the hints on ideas you gave.

Being able to reduce their ability to being effected by spells, or over come them is a tough idea to pull off, but a great one. This would put them to par with a spell caster with some field control abilities.

FYI personally I am not pleased with the power down of many key fighter/melee feats as this was our only real niche other than taking damage, and have made them more useless than they were before despite the other bonuses they got.


I very strongly agree with the notion that fighters seem to be capped at the "3rd level fireball stage", whereas the casters get powers to go above and beyond. It's a matter of content and the spell lists are vast and multi levelled, whereas feats get a lot less space.

When a fighter player gets access to more books, like "sword and fist", then the extra feats help, as do extra prestige options, but it always seems that in the initial rulebook, fighers have to make do with living in a third of the feat section. One extra page, with a new tier of melee feats, would go a long way towards evening this out. It's like people forgot that fighters beyond level 8 or so even exist.

It is worth noting, however, that any changes to fighters must be carefuly balanced against barbarians. Knockback, for example, was mentioned above as being desirable "battlefield control". Barbarians pay a hefty cost to get this, both in rage and the fact that it is a swift action and thus prevents any other use of rage powers. It's a really big thing for the barbarian to do, so if the fighter gets it with more utility, you will find that barbarians all reroll as fighters (especially if their other powers are taken in the same way).

Currently the barbarian thrives on being able to do the funny things a warrior cannot...that difference is a very fine line and the barb could be very quickly made obsolete by even the slightest changes. I am hopeful that the current rage and rage power review that Jason B is undertaking will improve barbs and thus allow fighters to "move up" a bit in power terms.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger / Fighter analysis + response to Jason Nelson All Messageboards
Recent threads in Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger