A couple of things, though I haven't playtested a Fighter yet.
They get class abilities that enhance their weapon and armor choices above all the other martial classes.
As far as not "just full attacking" each round, the number of feats has increased for all characters, but the fighter is still on top. New feats allow them to do things like increase their range (Lunge) and create nasty status effects like blindness on critical hits. This lets them get in on the "save or suck" role that makes the wizard so preferable in 3.5.
There's more, but I'll leave it to someone who has actually playtested.
No toyrobots, I think you've got it right. I haven't played a Beta Fighter directly but I have been building a few NPCs.
Fighters primary class feature has always been Feats and you have to look through the feat section to see what they really did get. Also just using the Beta download, jpjandrade, you missed some of additional test content that was posted here.
Don't worry jpjandrade, you were far from trollish. Just appropriately inquisitive for someone arriving so late to the already closed Beta. I know there is the Shall Not Pass feat but back in 3.5 there was, still is, the Stand Still (XPH SRD) feat to help locking down foes.
Check out the extra feats that were posted for playtesting - most of them are combat feats, many are Fighter only feats.
|
And the rest come from role-playing...
The Pfighter is tabula rasa, the blank slate...
The Pfighter can be anything from a foppish scoundrel who fights with dual blades, to a dwarven axe murderer...
With 21 feats by level 20, you can customize your fighter to such an extent you have feats to burn...
Majuba posted the new feats, many of which do exactly what the OP seems to want.
Unfortunately, most of those feats can't be taken until fairly high levels.
Otherwise, well, fighter is the mainstay of combat, the bread and butter of battle, but he's not very interesting.
The interest for me, having played fighters, is not in "How can I design a fighter who is more cool than anything else I might design?", but rather "How can I tactically and strategically choose from my limited actions to make them count for maximum effect in this fight right now?".
Those tactical and strategic options can change from fight to fight.
Then, from a build perspective, I try to anticpate as wide a variety of strategic needs and build accordingly, selecting feats and buying/trading/bartering/making magic items toward achieving those build goals.
And finally, fighters can be anything they want in RP terms. Not so with many classes (there's only so many ways to RP a paladin). A fighter can be Conan, Tarzan, John Carter, Fafhrd, d'Artagnan, Zorro, Robin Hood, William Wallace, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Beowulf, etc. Be a courtier, a savage, a knight in shining armor, a whirling dervish, a swashbuckler, or whatever. Fancy or plain. Or anything in between. Mix and match.
So for me, the fun is the strategy, and the RP. If you want something that has exciting tools for all occasions, play a druid or a wizard. Or 4th edition. Or a high level Pathfinder fighter who can take all those cool feats.
Interesting bit of personal trivia ...
Back in 1978 when I was first shown these funny pinkish books, I was told "Play a fighter first, it's easier to learn the rules that way, less to worry about". Well, 7 or 8 Eowyn's later (I didn't bother coming up with a new name, she kept dying so bloody fast!) I finally told the DM I wanted a wizard or a thief, and never looked back. My mindset then (and for the most part now) was NOT compatible with a fighter, apparently, as I always died when I played one :)
Fast forward to now ... and I'm the fighter in our Second Darkness Campaign, and LOVING IT! She's a human, Garundi, kick-a$$ pirate gal, who puts up with just so much BS before it's time to wack the foe with her swords. Prior to pfRPG, I wouldn't have looked twice at playing the fighter, and luckily, there were always others in our gaming group who would gladly don that mantle. But this time around, I was ready to wrastle for the fighter :)
So, as a long time gamer and game master, I definitely am enjoying how fresh and interesting the fighter is now :)
Interesting bit of personal trivia ...
Back in 1978 when I was first shown these funny pinkish books, I was told "Play a fighter first, it's easier to learn the rules that way, less to worry about". Well, 7 or 8 Eowyn's later (I didn't bother coming up with a new name, she kept dying so bloody fast!) I finally told the DM I wanted a wizard or a thief, and never looked back. My mindset then (and for the most part now) was NOT compatible with a fighter, apparently, as I always died when I played one :)
Fast forward to now ... and I'm the fighter in our Second Darkness Campaign, and LOVING IT! She's a human, Garundi, kick-a$$ pirate gal, who puts up with just so much BS before it's time to wack the foe with her swords. Prior to pfRPG, I wouldn't have looked twice at playing the fighter, and luckily, there were always others in our gaming group who would gladly don that mantle. But this time around, I was ready to wrastle for the fighter :)
So, as a long time gamer and game master, I definitely am enjoying how fresh and interesting the fighter is now :)
That's really nice to hear, and I love to see your enthusiasm for the fighter. So I'm not trying to be snarky when I ask, can you answer the OP's question about how the fighter is more interesting now?
I'd love to hear the how of it, and I'm sure the OP would too.
Interesting bit of personal trivia ...
Back in 1978 when I was first shown these funny pinkish books, I was told "Play a fighter first, it's easier to learn the rules that way, less to worry about". Well, 7 or 8 Eowyn's later (I didn't bother coming up with a new name, she kept dying so bloody fast!) I finally told the DM I wanted a wizard or a thief, and never looked back. My mindset then (and for the most part now) was NOT compatible with a fighter, apparently, as I always died when I played one :)
Fast forward to now ... and I'm the fighter in our Second Darkness Campaign, and LOVING IT! She's a human, Garundi, kick-a$$ pirate gal, who puts up with just so much BS before it's time to wack the foe with her swords. Prior to pfRPG, I wouldn't have looked twice at playing the fighter, and luckily, there were always others in our gaming group who would gladly don that mantle. But this time around, I was ready to wrastle for the fighter :)
So, as a long time gamer and game master, I definitely am enjoying how fresh and interesting the fighter is now :)
That's really nice to hear, and I love to see your enthusiasm for the fighter. So I'm not trying to be snarky when I ask, can you answer the OP's question about how the fighter is more interesting now?
I'd love to hear the how of it, and I'm sure the OP would too.
::chuckle:: Not snarky, just a tough one to answer, because so much is subjective (to me) and wound up in the excitement that pfRPG and Paizo has brought to our gaming. But I'll try :)
Part of it is the fact that I have choices on how to make my fighter and make her work. Before, you were most definitely what many folks are calling a "sword and board" and the heaviest armor you could afford/find ... if you didn't do this, it just didn't work, and you were dead in the door.
Now, with the armor options, weapons choices and feats, I can tailor my fighter to something that fits what I want to play while still being the big bad butt kicker that needs to go in first :)
I have two weapon fighting, improved initiative, exotic weapon - bastard sword, and weapon focus - bastard sword so far (human fighter, second level), and can either use both weapons at a plus +1, use a single weapon at a +5 (not using the second if I already drew both), or draw a single weapon for a +5 to hit and 1.5 damage by using both hands. With a good dex and a chain shirt, I don't miss the shield that in older editions I would have _needed_ to survive.
I have several feats on my want next list (combat reflexes, defensive combat training, double slice, two weapon defense), but also like how with pfRPG I get my fighter feats and other feats so I can spread out options and take goodies to make me better in things other than fighting.
Don't know if that answers your question?
A fighter can be Conan, Tarzan, John Carter, Fafhrd, d'Artagnan, Zorro, Robin Hood, William Wallace, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Beowulf, etc.
I'm unfortunately forced to differ, due to sheer lack of skill points and class skills in some cases that make other classes a MUCH better fit, and due to some obvious class abilities from other classes. Farfhrd could sing like a bard and steal like a thief...
That aside, though, sheer systems problems crop up in most of those examples; like its predecessors, Pathfinder isn't the best venue for low-magic gaming.
The fighter is pure vanilla.
Sure, vanilla isn't very exciting, but some just like the taste. And it goes with everything.
The flavouring comes with the feats. And with what you yourself put in. You also have a couple of skill points, which can go a long way, especially now with the consolidated skills. (If you want more, ask your GM to use the variant that trades the first bonus feat for more class skills and skill points.)
You can also multiclass fighters with practically everything.
Depending on what way you go with feats (or ways, really - between class and character, you get one feat each level. Enough to do several things really well), you can hinder enemies (disarm them, sweep them off their feet, lock them down), rush all over the battlefield, or just beat the opposition into pulp.
Plus, fighters become virtually untouchable as far as AC is concerned.
Attack rolls that are simply insane, combined with massive damage and ACs that make enemies miss a lot - with their best attacks - means that few creatures can goe toe to toe with a fighter and hope to live to tell the tale.
|
I'm unfortunately forced to differ, due to sheer lack of skill points and class skills in some cases that make other classes a MUCH better fit, and due to some obvious class abilities from other classes. Farfhrd could sing like a bard and steal like a thief...
With the Pathfinder Skill system its so easy to cross class. You don't necessarily have to have max ranks in a skill for it to be effective, and if you have just a few ranks and a good skill modifier you can do just about anything.
|
|
With the Pathfinder Skill system its so easy to cross class. You don't necessarily have to have max ranks in a skill for it to be effective, and if you have just a few ranks and a good skill modifier you can do just about anything.
There's also the fact that dwarf, elf, half-elf and human fighters are all potentially going to be getting 1 more skill point each level than their 3.5 equivalents would.
|
|
There's also the fact that dwarf, elf, half-elf and human fighters are all potentially going to be getting 1 more skill point each level than their 3.5 equivalents would.
Oh yeah! A human fighter with a minimum 10 int could potentially be pulling down four skills a level. If you like your smart fighters...
no 3 skills 2 for class 1 for fav class. I'll still say lack of skill points is a flaw with the fighter. The PF system made it worse not better
|
|
A lot of it comes down to the feats, which fighters get a million of.
My group also found that 4E sort of smeared out the functions of classes in the name of game balance, and like you it didn't sit well.
Fighters just get feat after feat in pfRPG beta. We have two fighters in our current gaming group using pfPRG beta and you would swear they aren't even the same class given how they behave/act in combat. The biggest testament in my book to the new fighter is one of my players, who is the worse min/maxer I have ever seen is playing a fighter. Previously he wouldn't have touched a fighter with a 10' pole in v3.5 or early D&D now.
At the end of the day a fighter is going to attempt to "full attack" - it is what they are meant to do. But in pfRPG beta the options as to what the "full attack" results in are pleasantly diverse.
S.
|
|
no 3 skills 2 for class 1 for fav class. I'll still say lack of skill points is a flaw with the fighter. The PF system made it worse not betterDid I miss where humans lose their extra skill point as a racial bonus? As far as I know it should be 4.
To which I will also add, how in the world is it worse in PF?
Yep missed the human skill point but only they get it. As for hows it worse
PF half orc fighter Int 10...max number of skills 2
3.5 half orc fighter Int 10 ...max skills 8
True thats 1 rank per skill but still your stuck with 2, better cross skills yes, but still 2, ya may end up[ with better numbers but you still have 2 skills. thats worse not better
EDIT: Crunching numbers it looks like it takes 3-4 levels for the new system to help the 2 skill classes after that it works like 3.5 with a bit better numbers
My numbers if anyone wants to tell me where I am wrong, I may be, but don't think I am it takes the pf system 3 levels to catch 3.5, but it does give better numbers
STATS (Using the elite array)
S: 15 D: 14 C:13 I:10 W:8 CH:12
3.5
1:{8sp} Climb 1(+3) jump 1(+3) ride 1(+3) hide 1(cc +3) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1)
2 Climb 2(+4) jump 1(+3) ride 2(+4) hide 1(cc +3) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1)
3 Climb 2(+4) jump 1(+3) ride 2(+4) hide 2(cc +4) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1)
4 Climb 2(+4) jump 1(+3) ride 2(+4) hide 3(cc +5) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1)
5 Climb 2(+4) jump 1(+3) ride 2(+4) hide 3(cc +5) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1) Know dungeoning 1( cc+1)
6 Climb 3(+5) jump 2(+4) ride 2(+4) hide 3(cc +5) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1) Know dungeoning 1(+1)
7 Climb 3(+5) jump 2(+4) ride 3(+5) hide 3(cc +5) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1) Know dungeoning 1(+1) Intimate 1(+2)
8 Climb 3(+5) jump 2(+4) ride 3(+5) hide 3(cc +5) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1) Know dungeoning 1(+1) Intimate 1(+2) Bluff 1{cc+2)
9 Climb 3(+5) jump 2(+4) ride 3(+5) hide 3(cc +5) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1) Know dungeoning 1(+1) Intimate 1(+2) Bluff 2{cc+3)
10 Climb 3(+5) jump 2(+4) ride 3(+5) hide 4(cc +6) diplomacy 1(cc +2) craft1(+1) Know dungeoning 1(+1) Intimate 1(+2) Bluff 1{cc+2)
So 9 skills not huge numbers but 9 skills that that player wanted
Now with pathfinder same stats
1 Climb 1(+7) Acrobatics 1(cc+3)
2 Climb 1(+7) Acrobatics 1(cc+3) Ride1 (+6) Stealth 1(cc +3)
3 Climb 1(+7) Acrobatics 1(cc+3) Ride1 (+6) Stealth 1(cc +3) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4)
4 Climb 1(+7) Acrobatics 1(cc+3) Ride2 (+7) Stealth 2(cc +4) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4)
5 Climb 1(+7) Acrobatics 1(cc+3) Ride2 (+7) Stealth 2(cc +4) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4) Know dungeoning 2( cc+2)
6 Climb 2(+8) Acrobatics 2(cc+4) Ride2 (+7) Stealth 2(cc +4) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4) Know dungeoning 2( cc+2)
7 Climb 2(+8) Acrobatics 2(cc+4) Ride3 (+8) Stealth 2(cc +4) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4) Know dungeoning 2( cc+2) Intimidate 1(+6)
8 Climb 2(+8) Acrobatics 2(cc+4) Ride3 (+8) Stealth 2(cc +4) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4) Know dungeoning 3( cc+3) Intimidate 1(+6) bluff1(cc +3)
9 Climb 2(+8) Acrobatics 2(cc+4) Ride3 (+8) Stealth 2(cc +4) Diplomacy 1(cc+2) craft1(+4) Know dungeoning 3( cc+3) Intimidate 1(+6) bluff 3(cc +5)
10 Climb 2(+8) Acrobatics 2(cc+4) Ride3 (+8) Stealth 3(cc +5) Diplomacy 2(cc+3) craft1(+4) Know dungeoning 3( cc+3) Intimidate 1(+6) bluff 3(cc +5)
|
|
Yes they may be able to choose more skills... technically... they couldn't make as much use of all of those skill points as they can now. If you want a Fafhrd you don't have to do some silly (but highly interesting) multiclass bard-barian to pull him off. A Skald can be either a bard or barbarian now. You don't have to worry about dumping a whole lot of skill points into a skill to still have it suck compared to a guy who can dump a few skill points into a skill and whose check would still blow your check out of the water.
Plus, I don't think munchkining a skill to death will be as big a problem as in other editions because you have so much variety instantly at your finger tips. No "Total Jumping" pogo-fighters.
No "Total Jumping" pogo-fighters.
Drat.
*scraps his plan for action-figure product line*
A fighter can be Conan, Tarzan, John Carter, Fafhrd, d'Artagnan, Zorro, Robin Hood, William Wallace, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Beowulf, etc.I'm unfortunately forced to differ, due to sheer lack of skill points and class skills in some cases that make other classes a MUCH better fit, and due to some obvious class abilities from other classes. Farfhrd could sing like a bard and steal like a thief...
Then I'm unfortantely forced to differ back :)
Fafhrd, if I recall, never once created magical effects with his music, so he didn't sing like a D&D bard. However, he did have skald training, which equates to a few ranks in perform.
And picking pockets equates to a few ranks in sleight of hand.
He was pretty smart, and human, so he probably had 5 or maybe even 6 skill points, as a fighter, to throw around.
Really though, he had the benefit of being spawned in Fritz Leiber's imagination without any constraints imposed by a gaming system that tries to pigeon hole characters into specific roles.
Mister F might be a fighter/rogue.
all I do is "I get close to him, full attack". "Full attack again", while the mage is all "should I turn us all invisible, should I slow them all or should I just throw a fireball?".
Fighters won't get any magical or supernatural powers. There might be a way for them to move and still be at their full potential, or close to, but we don't know that yet.
Oh, and by the way, are there more "Beta enhancements" like this I should know about? Thanks!
Well, you have the extra feats. There's also an update to the Barbarian and Paladin. And the official web enhancements (the one that comes with the beta and has extra spells and magic items), the one about creating magic items, and the one about prestige classes. If there's any more, I haven't seen them myself.
My numbers if anyone wants to tell me where I am wrong, I may be, but don't think I am it takes the pf system 3 levels to catch 3.5, but it does give better numbers.
Unless you're talking about having a single rank in absolutely as many class skills as possible, Pathfinder is better in about all ways by 4th level, and most ways before that.
Scenarios:
3.5 Max out class skills:
- Identical in Pathfinder
3.5 Fully spread out class skills:
- Pathfinder has equal total bonuses to skills useable untrained at first level. 4th level would have all the skills at over twice the total (3.5 would have 14 points over the 8 skills, Pathfinder would have the equivalent to 32 points over the 8 skills).
3.5 Max out cross-class skills:
- Pathfinder behind at 1st, equal at 2nd level and 3rd, better beyond.
3.5 Fully spread out cross-class skills:
- Pathfinder fewer skills at 1st (4 @ 1 to 2 @ 1), equal at 2nd and 3rd, better beyond.
The *only* "loss" in the system is first level and perhaps second level diversifying.
Here's a more likely example:
1 Max skill, 2 halved, one cross-class.
3.5, 1st: Class +4, Class +2, Cross-class +1
PF, 1st: Class +4, Class +4 OR Class +4, Cross-class +1
3.5, 2nd: Class +5, Class +3, Cross-class +1
PF, 2nd: Class +5, Class +4, Cross-class +1
Distinctly better by 2nd level.
Oh, and by the way, are there more "Beta enhancements" like this I should know about? Thanks!
Here's a link to a forum with links to almost everything.
Really though, he had the benefit of being spawned in Fritz Leiber's imagination without any constraints imposed by a gaming system that tries to pigeon hole characters into specific roles.
And how! Another reason why I'll now play Classless Pathfinder.
I too played a fighter in second darkness.
From the beginning I was deadly, Silly deadly. The sorcess had a habit sincelevel one of buffing me to the point where it was literally impossible for the baddies to damage me. The rest of the party would sit back and watch me kill them all.
Several ho-hum combats were abandoned by the DM saying "you kill them all"
I stalled somewhere around 6th level (i cant remember) were the rogue was out shiining me because my capacity to deal out damage took FOREVER to catch up with me.
Finally I got a few feats I was waiting forand by the time I was 11th level and got vital strike I was walking death once more.
We actually never finished second darkness, why? because the fighter was too powerful (we had two fighters one was me the other was the an eldritch knight/arcane archer)
The combats got to be silly and pointless, we even killed the vonnarc matron in 5 rounds.
(largely due to the silly low hit points we had.)
When I built the fighter I didnt min-max him, rather I put extra into intelligence (to offset lack of skills) and wisdom (to offset weak will save).
I must say a few more skill points would have been nice, but honestly I dont know if they would have done anything for me.
I was never dominated or really ever in danger of it.
But because I didnt maxout my strength it hurt me at mid level.
I got bored of not being able to be hit somewhere around 8th level and chucked my +1 fullplate and bought some admanitie breast plate.
But when I was buffed I still had the AC of an ancient red dragon.
While i did get hit more often the DR from the shield feats and the breast plate off set that nicely.As it did when i picked up a viscious longsword and was pretty much immune to my own back lash damage form that item.
I decided to play a sword and board fighter as it was the least popular choice in 3.5
I would easilyplay a fighter again,although Im a monk right now in legacy of fire.
If my monk dies, I think Ill play a halfling fighter with a small great ax.
Although Ive been thinking of playing an elf fighter as well.
The sorcess had a habit sincelevel one of buffing me to the point where it was literally impossible for the baddies to damage me. The rest of the party would sit back and watch me kill them all.
So, you weren't playing just a fighter, you were in essence playing a fighter with an equal-level sorcerer cohort. Try the same trick in which the sorcerer's player exercises self-will and occasionally uses spells for combat instead of buffing, and the outcome is the same (monsters die), but you have a lot less part in it.
My numbers if anyone wants to tell me where I am wrong, I may be, but don't think I am it takes the pf system 3 levels to catch 3.5, but it does give better numbers.Unless you're talking about having a single rank in absolutely as many class skills as possible, Pathfinder is better in about all ways by 4th level, and most ways before that.
Scenarios:** spoiler omitted **
sorry but I have no Ideal what them nubers mean. 2 skills are 2 skill max or not max you can only have 2 skills
As I said it evens out about 3rd level and PF number are better, but no matter how ya put it 2 skills is all ya get at level one worse then 3.5
From the beginning I was deadly, Silly deadly. The sorcess had a habit sincelevel one of buffing me to the point where it was literally impossible for the baddies to damage me. The rest of the party would sit back and watch me kill them all.
I am curious as to what spells the sorceress was buffing you with that boosted your AC so high as early as 1st level. I've not had the opportunity to play an arcane caster yet in Pathfinder, but from what I remember, there are only three 1st level spells that boost AC: Mage Armor, Protection from Evil, and Shield. Of those, Shield doesn't stack with a physical shield and is self-cast only and Mage Armor doesn't stack with physical armor.
Not trying to start anything, just curious. For all I know, ya'll are using spells from other source material or house rules that would affect it.
From the beginning I was deadly, Silly deadly. The sorcess had a habit sincelevel one of buffing me to the point where it was literally impossible for the baddies to damage me. The rest of the party would sit back and watch me kill them all.I am curious as to what spells the sorceress was buffing you with that boosted your AC so high as early as 1st level. I've not had the opportunity to play an arcane caster yet in Pathfinder, but from what I remember, there are only three 1st level spells that boost AC: Mage Armor, Protection from Evil, and Shield. Of those, Shield doesn't stack with a physical shield and is self-cast only and Mage Armor doesn't stack with physical armor.
Not trying to start anything, just curious. For all I know, ya'll are using spells from other source material or house rules that would affect it.
In pfRPG, there is no mention that Mage Armor does not stack with physical armor ... nor does 3.5 ... nor does 3.0. Is this noted somewhere I am unaware of?
In pfRPG, there is no mention that Mage Armor does not stack with physical armor ... nor does 3.5 ... nor does 3.0. Is this noted somewhere I am unaware of?
Yes. The overriding system rule is that bonuses with the same type (except Dodge bonuses, for some reason) never stack. Mage armor provides an armor bonus, as does physical armor. The AC bonuses from those two different sources have the same type ("armor") and thus do not stack. For the same reason, magic vestment doesn't stack with a suit of magic armor's existing enhancement bonus, because they're both "enhancement"-type bonuses.
The "enhancement" bonus to AC from magic armor stacks with the "armor" bonus to AC from wearing the armor because the bonuses are of different types.
|
|
In pfRPG, there is no mention that Mage Armor does not stack with physical armor ... nor does 3.5 ... nor does 3.0. Is this noted somewhere I am unaware of?
Armor/Shield Bonus: Each armor grants an armor bonus
to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. Thearmor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other
effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the
shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other effects
that grant a shield bonus.
and
Mage Armor: Gives subject +4 armor bonus.
S.
I be Grumble Grog...Death with bad Breath!
This is the playtest L20 fighter we're using for playtest...
Note the AC in his profile...
In pfRPG, there is no mention that Mage Armor does not stack with physical armor ... nor does 3.5 ... nor does 3.0. Is this noted somewhere I am unaware of?
D&D 3.0 - DMG page #177
D&D 3.5 - DMG page #21PfRPG - page #157
PfRPG only discusses the restriction in the magic section since that is where most bonuses will be coming from. The 3.5 DMG had the largest write-up of the three editions so far. Hopefully the final PfRPG will have a more complete write-up about it.
In a nutshell, bonuses or penalties of the same type do not stack excepting: dodge, untyped, racial, and some circumstance bonuses. Also, natural armor from magic will stack with inherent natural armor. Though, I think every spell that grants Natural AC states that.
In pfRPG, there is no mention that Mage Armor does not stack with physical armor ... nor does 3.5 ... nor does 3.0. Is this noted somewhere I am unaware of?D&D 3.0 - DMG page #177
D&D 3.5 - DMG page #21
PfRPG - page #157PfRPG only discusses the restriction in the magic section since that is where most bonuses will be coming from. The 3.5 DMG had the largest write-up of the three editions so far. Hopefully the final PfRPG will have a more complete write-up about it.
In a nutshell, bonuses or penalties of the same type do not stack excepting: dodge, untyped, racial, and some circumstance bonuses. Also, natural armor from magic will stack with inherent natural armor. Though, I think every spell that grants Natural AC states that.
D'oh! ::second face palm of the day::
Not a spell we'd used a lot in our group, and we all missed that one. Oh, well, fixing it now in the brain for next play session as a GM.
However, I can state that my gal, mentioned up several spots, did not use this, or any other buffs during battles so far. The sorcerer has been far too busy using Color Spray on the mobs to buff me :)
From the beginning I was deadly, Silly deadly. The sorcess had a habit sincelevel one of buffing me to the point where it was literally impossible for the baddies to damage me. The rest of the party would sit back and watch me kill them all.I am curious as to what spells the sorceress was buffing you with that boosted your AC so high as early as 1st level. I've not had the opportunity to play an arcane caster yet in Pathfinder, but from what I remember, there are only three 1st level spells that boost AC: Mage Armor, Protection from Evil, and Shield. Of those, Shield doesn't stack with a physical shield and is self-cast only and Mage Armor doesn't stack with physical armor.
Not trying to start anything, just curious. For all I know, ya'll are using spells from other source material or house rules that would affect it.
I was having the same curiousity Quixque. Great write-up there Pendagast - it'd be nice to know what you were being buffed with.
One thing:
While i did get hit more often the DR from the shield feats and the breast plate off set that nicely.As it did when i picked up a viscious longsword and was pretty much immune to my own back lash damage form that item.
Damage from a vicious weapon cannot be prevented by DR. Still great combo - damage yourself about as much as you're not taking from that DR, no net change, plus lots more damage.
I like merciful for the same reasons. Non lethal is just as good as lethal in most instances, and when it's not you can simply turn it off.
The sorcess had a habit sincelevel one of buffing me to the point where it was literally impossible for the baddies to damage me. The rest of the party would sit back and watch me kill them all.So, you weren't playing just a fighter, you were in essence playing a fighter with an equal-level sorcerer cohort. Try the same trick in which the sorcerer's player exercises self-will and occasionally uses spells for combat instead of buffing, and the outcome is the same (monsters die), but you have a lot less part in it.
From what I've seen the sorcerer buffing the fighter works better. Just from what I've seen. The sorcerer just uses the fighter as vessel for their attack risking the fighter and not themselves. Smart playing and for some odd reason player playing fighter is ok with this. All the better!
From what I've seen the sorcerer buffing the fighter works better. Just from what I've seen.
Until about 12th or 13th level, I agree with you completely. After that, the sorcerer doesn't really seem to need the fighter anymore if they focus on save-or-die/save-or-suck spells that target various different saves.
How to be untouchable:
Well from the beginning doesn't mean 1st level. Probably 2nd level spells so that would be 3rd level which would mean better armor for the fighter and armor training so a cats grace would increase dexterity. Combine that with blur and protection from arrow and that buffs the fighter pretty good. Then there is Falselife for temp hit points as well. Lots of options to put up the AC of fighter.
It's conceivable that 3rd level fighter would have Fullplate +1 with Large Steel shield and full Dex bonus using armor training with the shield focus feat and dodge.
So that would Full Plate +9, Dex +2, Shield +3, Armor Training +1 and dodge +1 for 26 AC. Slap on Blurr for 20% miss chance and and 13 Temp Hit points and that's not too bad.
Depending on the encounters it could possible that the fighter was hard to hit.