Rangers: I can hit people with a bow REALLY well, or I hit people with a bow decently and power attack with a greatsword the rest of the time. Oh, I've got this useless pet that dies alot.These are power level issues, not conceptual issues. These are the sorts of issues which really can be solved with +1 to whatever, because the main issue is not that pets aren't interesting, it's just that they're awfully weak.
The rest is willfully obtuse stuff, including some spectacular switching of the meaning of the word "thing" in the paladin description. Don't do that.
No, each meaning of thing is refering to an evil monster.
I already posted that anime isn't a genre, and claiming it as such is the height of idiocy.My wife scolds me, "Lady Gaga and Fergie sound NOTHING ALIKE !!!" And to her, they don't. But I can't tell them apart, because I'm not that into pop. She can't tell Jazz from Blues, however, even though they're different styles of music; to her, they're lumped together into a mental "old black guys music" genre. I can explain the differences between the two styles and play examples until I'm blue (pun intended) in the face, but that still doesn't change her view, and shouldn't necessarily do so.
Sailor Moon and Berserk or whatever might look NOTHING ALIKE to you; to me, they look exactly the same, because I'm not that into Japanimation. So if Anime/Manga isn't a genre, fine; it's still an easily-identified mental grouping for Japanese or Japanese-inspired cartoons, typically featuring oversized eyes with triangular pieces missing from the iris, flying action, and little texture. And claiming that people can't and shouldn't do that is, to borrow your expression, the height of idiocy.
This isn't the seperation of Jazz and Blues, this is listening to The Ramones and saying "Oh, just like that violin crap from Classical music."
Let's look at your examples: oversized eyes, flying action, little texture. Like Haibane Renmei. Wait no, that doesn't fit. Like Planates. Wait no, that doesn't fit. Like Paranoia Agent. Wait no, that doesn't fit. Like Last Exile. Wait no, that doesn't fit. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
I don't read western books because they're all about mysteries and detectives.
Now how stupid does that sound?
It warms the cockles of my heart that my "triumph points" suggestion netted a good 50 responses as of when I logged off last night.
Have you seen Spartacus: Blood and Sand, the new Showtime series? Its on Netflix Watch Instantly as well, and totally worth checking out. In the final scene of the first episode, Spartacus is up against five armored gladiators who are (not surprisingly) kicking has butt. But then he hears the voice of his wife in his head and he opens up his own can of whoopin'. He chops off the arm of one guy attacking him, the legs of another, and yanks one enemy into the path of another's blade protecting himself and killing the unfortunate human shield. That was entirely awesome.
There's no mechanic to make anything like that possible. Sure you can say, "I chop at his legs," but there is no mechanic that makes that do anything. Why couldn't a Fighter spend some points to switch places with an adjacent enemy and have that enemy take the damage from another enemies attack? Why is there so much distress about a Fighter getting to do something cool?
Hrm... how would I do these?
Advanced techniques
Human shield -- Immediate interrupt. Upon being attacked but before the roll has been made, a fighter may spend 3 triumph points to replace himself with any enemy no greater than 5 ft. away, causing the enemy he replaced himself with to be attacked instead. A fighter may not use this technique more than once per round.
Gaping wound -- As a part of a fighter's normal attack, he may cause a major wound to a non-critical area, causing blood to gush out and the target to suffer from 1 Con bleed damage each succeeding turn. The target or one of his allies must make a heal check (DC 15) to stop the bleeding.
It's because of these crowning moments of awesome why I'm in favor of triumph points.
---------
Ok, here's another idea. So, I've been thinking that fighter paradigm concepts are not compartmentalized as per 3.5/PF rules. However, cleric, ranger, wizard, and even sorcerer paradigms are compartmentalized -- if you want to be a necromancer, you play a wizard with the necromantic school specialization, if you want to play a cleric of destruction you pick the destruction domain, and so on and so forth.
But what of fighter specializations? At best, you just pick a feat build and run with it, many of those feats of which can be picked by any other class, with varying effectiveness (why, pray tell, would a ranger be better at TWF than a fighter who's spent multiple levels specializing in that very field?). I daresay that there are some builds that actually have to be built with specific feats, and that therefore if one wants to play such-and-such fighter paradigm, then they should just automatically get some feats that build up that archetype as they progress, and then allocate their bonus feats as they see fit.
So, let's say that there are some "builds" or "kits" or "specialties" or "disciplines" of fighter that give free feats that mesh nicely with the character concept. These would take away from some of the bonus feats, naturally, as some of the feats normally picked would be from the fighter bonus feat list. A useful point of comparison, though, would be the baseline fighter -- the fighter equivalent of the wizard's Universalist school specialization. Honestly, this particular build is in many ways deficient to other schools -- they can't prepare as many spells, and they don't get the cool bonuses each other school gets. But what they give up in terms of raw power, they gain in flexibility. So, if we have a system of "disciplines" for fighters, then the baseline discipline is the generalist "man-at-arms," which gets the same progression of feats as is normally listed.
So, different "disciplines" would have different synergetic bonuses from simply declaring that particular discipline when taking a level in fighter. I daresay that some of the disciplines already in this thread are simply A-one, and I'll use them as archetypes to build off of. Special thanks to anthony Valente and A Man In Black for helping bounce off ideas and developing thoughts towards this direction:
- Brawler -- a maneuver specialist; would be good in fighters pretty much exclusively vs. humanoids, but would be a real nice guy to have in a bar fight (Someone pull out a dagger? Well, Brak the Brawler can pry that dagger from his scrawny little fingers lickety-split! Now let's send him to the floor, then Unarmed Strike him into unconsciousness.)
- Weaponmaster -- a multi-weapon spec fighter; would be able to draw any of many types of weapons and be extremely useful at it (Let's see... my longsword's not working? Good thing I packed that +1 golem bane warhammer, and have weapon spec in it thanks to my class...) Builds in redundancy in weapon specs, which makes it more reliable when one's weapon isn't working.
- Warlord -- a leader of men and source of strength for his allies. Could be used to buff allies, as per 4E warlord. Haven't decided.
- Slayer -- a fighter specializing in killing a specific type of monster (i.e. Dragon Slayer, Undead Slayer, Giant Slayer, etc.)
- Guardian/Sentinel/Champion/Knight (name suggestions, folks?) -- a fighter specializing in defending and protecting his allies
- Samurai -- an imposing battlefield controller who frightens lesser opponents with his mere presence. Ideas can probably be lifted off of Complete Warrior samurai class.
- Mage Killer -- a fighter specialized in disrupting, disabling, and killing magic-users.
That seems like a pretty nice list to start off with. If these made it into a core or even a supplemental rulebook, that would give us 7 specialties -- 1 less than the wizard in the PFCR, 3 less than the sorcerer, and 26 less than the cleric. Considering all the different "fighting styles" that are folded into the fighter class, I reckon this is movement in the right direction.
Also note that many of suggested Disciplines listed above may have been variants or new core classes introduced in the past. I daresay that if these fighter rule variants come into play, then we can translate martial classes pretty easily into fighter Disciplines, much like new sorcerer bloodlines and cleric domains are released in every AP module or so. This is intended to add modularity, and therefore customizability.
-------
And for those who may think that the fighter is just fine as-is, just remember that Your Mileage May Vary, and the Most Important Rule always trumps any suggestions you find in books or on the internet. The fact that we're even having this discussion, as opposed to talking about why bards are underpowered or why monks need more ki attacks, means that there's something dissatisfactory to many DMs about how the fighter class is designed.
Of course, criticism about balance or exploitation are always appreciated. Do be sure to chime in if something doesn't sound right about this framework.
This isn't the seperation of Jazz and Blues, this is listening to The Ramones and saying "Oh, just like that violin crap from Classical music."
I actually took the effort to look up your examples. All of them except #4, to an uninitiated observer (me), look like stereotypical Japanimation-type art. Although the Last Exile diverges the most, they still have those ridiculous eyes in spades, but the artist at least gives a nod to texture. Still, to one who isn't an afficianato, the differences are small compared to the similarities.
A person who grew up hearing only Han Dynasty-era classical Chinese music would correctly put the Ramones with the Clash, and would put Bach and Beethoven together, and would keep those two groups separate.
They might also stick Count Basie in with Lightnin' Hopkins, or put Albert King in with Journey -- as a fan of Jazz, Blues, and Rock, I'm familiar enough with them to wax enthusiastic about the differences, but someone who had never heard any of them probably would not. That's fine; the styles influenced one another strongly enough that separation is useful for fans, but not so useful for anyone else.
Looking down your nose at anyone not "into" these things enough to distinguish them is fine, if you just want to be a snob and show off your encyclopedic knowledge of a group of forms that, to everyone else, all look alike. Acknowledging that fundamentally, the art is more similar than not -- because all of your examples stem from, or are highly influenced by, the same tradition -- isn't totally unreasonable.
I can tell a Bordeaux from a Burgundy. A wine snob might be able to tell a '63 from a '64. A non-drinker might be hard-pressed to tell a red from a white. All those are OK. Even if I secretly scoff at the non-drinker, I don't call him stupid, or claim his lack of knowledge of a subject he cares nothing about is "the height of idiocy."
There is a genre of anime people are talking about when they're talking about anime and D&D; it's just that there's also a lot of anime that isn't in that particular genre. However, the vaaaaaaast majority of the anime that isn't in that particular genre is also not anime that you'd associate with D&D for any reason.
Gotcha; I can understand that, and agree with it. Thanks for the clarification.
I should also state clearly that I don't give a damn if Robilar and Cu Chulainn and Robot-Cowboy-Samurai-Meebotbo-7 can do some of the same things, as long as those things make for a more enjoyable game, and don't break the general-fantasy theme too far. Swords that are 15 feet long (a la "Berserk" et al.), and people who inexplicably hover in the air before every attack (a la "300" and "The Matrix"), I can do without. If they're options rather than hardwired features, fine, I can always ignore them; no loss.
Being able to shoot down flyers with a bow, or raise an army on short notice, or move and still attack, or anticipate incoming spells -- even deflect them with a shield -- would be sure be nice, though.
I like fighter-only feats because, even though it seems disingenuous to make feats that might be construed as more powerful than other feats and only let Fighters take them, I think it's reasonable to say that sometimes a Fighter would rather take another general or combat feat than a fighter Feat. It lets the fighter put their abilities when and wherever they want them and, because of that, be more versatile.
What do you want and why?
Good question. I'd like to see at least some of the following. The list is not exhaustive, nor do I want every fighter to be able to do all of them. But as options, I'd like to see:
1. Armies that mean something, and fighters being better at raising and/or leading them than anyone else. Along these lines, some Marshal and/or Warlord and/or Bard-like abilities would not be out of place.
2. Tactical abilities. At high levels, a fighter should be able to target the square an invisible enemy is in, for example, through tactical reasoning and deduction ("His last attack came from over here, but then he'll probably want to get a shot off at Fred..."). Ditto for defeating blink, obscurement, mirror image, project image. I don't want him to out-magic them; just to be good enough at combat (his main schtick!) that he's got better tactical reasoning than others, that actually shows. When you see an army of goblins, the fighter should be the guy to say, "Look at the way they're all lined up -- that means they've probably got snipers on those cliffs over there, and a leader they're all afraid of -- probably one with ranged attacks, or magic -- who's probably over there somewhere."
3. Iron will and superior endurance from his years of campaigning. Immunity to nausea, from seeing so many dead bodies. Good Will save progression, because of grueling training endured, and forcing himself to cut down enemies hundreds of times in the past despite his weariness, outright repugnance, etc. Along these lines, intimidation that scales up to a full-strength Frightful Presence when he attacks, and meaningful combat and social bonuses against demoralized enemies.
4. Some ability to actually protect allies. Parry incoming attacks against them, or intercept incoming enemies, etc.
5. Skills that represent years of campaigning. Ability to assess enemies' likely strengths, weaknesses, and status relative to each other. Ability to carry more gear than others, and to produce items faster than they can, because he's so used to life in the field.
Those two things don't have much in common besides being stylistic presentation quirks that quite possibly wouldn't be represented in the rules even if you were making D&D: Thermopylae Campain Setting or D&D: Players' Guide to Final Fantasy VII.
Heh. Maybe someone can explain that to WAR as well...
I actually took the effort to look up your examples. All of them except #4, to an uninitiated observer (me), look like stereotypical Japanimation-type art. Although the Last Exile diverges the most, they still have those ridiculous eyes in spades, but the artist at least gives a nod to texture. Still, to one who isn't an afficianato, the differences are small compared to the similarities.It's kind of a red herring. If someone were to complain about all the epic poetry BS in D&D (...it could happen!), even if they clearly know nothing about epic poetry they're pretty obviously not talking about "Yggr begat Fnord" or whatever. There is a genre of anime people are talking about when they're talking about anime and D&D; it's just that there's also a lot of anime that isn't in that particular genre. However, the vaaaaaaast majority of the anime that isn't in that particular genre is also not anime that you'd associate with D&D for any reason.
tl;dr: It's annoying for people to assume that shounen action series are the only kind of anime, but it's not annoying to assume that shounen action series are the vast majority of the anime relevant to D&D.
Ehhh, still rather bothers me.
Again, I look at my previous example. If I complained that all western books were just about mysteries and detectives, most people would smack me upside the head and say "Well stop reading Mysteries all the time, there are lots of other genres out there!"
As for D&D and shonen, where would Vinland Saga fall?
Oh, and regarding 15 foot swords, D&D has the Fullbladed (granted, Pathfinder doesn't yet), double swords, dire flails, spiked chains, and other bizarro weapons. I think D&D actually has most shonen anime beat in terms of weird weapons ;)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
What do you want and why?Good question. I'd like to see at least some of the following. The list is not exhaustive, nor do I want every fighter to be able to do all of them. But as options, I'd like to see:
1. Armies that mean something, and fighters being better at raising and/or leading them than anyone else. Along these lines, some Marshal and/or Warlord and/or Bard-like abilities would not be out of place.
2. Tactical abilities. At high levels, a fighter should be able to target the square an invisible enemy is in, for example, through tactical reasoning and deduction ("His last attack came from over here, but then he'll probably want to get a shot off at Fred..."). Ditto for defeating blink, obscurement, mirror image, project image. I don't want him to out-magic them; just to be good enough at combat (his main schtick!) that he's got better tactical reasoning than others, that actually shows. When you see an army of goblins, the fighter should be the guy to say, "Look at the way they're all lined up -- that means they've probably got snipers on those cliffs over there, and a leader they're all afraid of -- probably one with ranged attacks, or magic -- who's probably over there somewhere."
3. Iron will and superior endurance from his years of campaigning. Immunity to nausea, from seeing so many dead bodies. Good Will save progression, because of grueling training endured, and forcing himself to cut down enemies hundreds of times in the past despite his weariness, outright repugnance, etc. Along these lines, intimidation that scales up to a full-strength Frightful Presence when he attacks, and meaningful combat and social bonuses against demoralized enemies.
4. Some ability to actually protect allies. Parry incoming attacks against them, or intercept incoming enemies, etc.
5. Skills that represent years of campaigning. Ability to assess enemies' likely strengths, weaknesses, and status relative to each other. Ability to carry more gear than others, and to...
*Spoiler Omitted*
Sorry -- I should also have mentioned that I (a) do not want them as capstones of feat chains with 6 prerequisite feats each; and (b) I don't want them to cost me so many actions or involve so many restrictions as to be a poor trade ("As a full-round action, you can parry one opponent's attack if you make a DC 600 Reflex save and give up all movement and attacks for the next 2 rounds"), which is what Step Up and the absurdly long and too-restrictive Vital Strike chain leave me thinking.
Am I demanding, or what?!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
*Spoiler Omitted*Sorry -- I should also have mentioned that I (a) do not want them as capstones of feat chains with 6 prerequisite feats each; and (b) I don't want them to cost me so many actions or involve so many restrictions as to be a poor trade ("As a full-round action, you can parry one opponent's attack if you make a DC 600 Reflex save and give up all movement and attacks for the next 2 rounds"), which is what Step Up and the absurdly long and too-restrictive Vital Strike chain leave me thinking.
Am I demanding, or what?!
Just a little. :)
There are some that are feat chains (but nothing like a Whirlwind Attack level of insanity) or branching feat trees (as in, one root feat, then say two-feats strings in either direction from it), some that are standalone feats or single-prereq feats. Some aren't feats at all. Sorry to have to be intentionally vague, but (a) who knows exactly what will sift out through the development & editing phases and (b) some stuff is just not announced yet, so no-go on the free previews, alas.
All I can say is that some form of solution to a number of the problems brought up by you and others in this thread should be present in the APG. Whether the solutions ultimately satisfy, and whether other contributors were thinking similarly, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
I <3 Paranoid Agent but it's not relevant to D&D, whereas even series as disparate as Berserk and Slayers are close enough to each other that we can talk about them as part of one whole when D&D's inspirations already include both the Song of Roland and Fritz Leiber.
With note to your Slayers comment. Goury is actually a pretty good example of what the fighter as is tends to play as. Even with all his intensive training he only keeps slightly behind the casters and gishes when he has a super great magic item. He gets mind controlled into attacking the other party members at least once, and he does very little outside of combat.
To recap the check list:
1-Needs magic sword to do extraordinary things
2-Seems to be doing much less to help the group even when he has all he needs
3-Doesn't participate much until the fighting breaks out.
Yup straight class 2-handed weapon fighter.
All I can say is that some form of solution to a number of the problems brought up by you and others in this thread should be present in the APG. Whether the solutions ultimately satisfy, and whether other contributors were thinking similarly, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Thanks for the heads-up, Jason -- I didn't mean to come across like I was pressing for more details -- I can easily wait until the release. At the very least, though, you've probably just sold another copy of the APG for Paizo: the alchemist class I can do without, but useful fighter options are a must.
Thanks again, amigo.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
All I can say is that some form of solution to a number of the problems brought up by you and others in this thread should be present in the APG. Whether the solutions ultimately satisfy, and whether other contributors were thinking similarly, I guess we'll have to wait and see.Thanks for the heads-up, Jason -- I didn't mean to come across like I was pressing for more details -- I can easily wait until the release. At the very least, though, you've probably just sold another copy of the APG for Paizo: the alchemist class I can do without, but useful fighter options are a must.
Thanks again, amigo.
I live but to serve. :)
Gah, Paranoia Agent. I can spell, srsly.
With note to your Slayers comment. Goury is actually a pretty good example of what the fighter as is tends to play as.Slayers is a D&D parody, down to a mage who casts Fireball and tends to crisp her friends unintentionally, so I'm not surprised.
How about Lodoss War? Surely one can watch that and get some ideas for D&D without being decried for it ;p
It's called the Right to Suck.
I'm not interested in what people call it.
If fighter-only feats are Just Better than other feats, then the fighter needs to be balanced based on the idea that all of its fighter feats are fighter-only feats. Therefore, any fighter who doesn't take these superfeats any time he can is behind the intended curve.
Only if the Fighter-Only feats do things that other feats already do, except better or if they do what other class abilities do.
There's nothing wrong with this necessarily; not all feats are created equal as it is. You just need to advertise, in big bold letters as obviously as possible, that fighters are taking Fighter-Only Feats and are trading down if they take anything else.
Only if the Fighter-Only feats do things that other feats already do, except better or if they do what other class abilities do.
...and that amounts to a rewrite of the class.
No, it's called versatility.
At which point I'd rather see a more radical rewrite
I'd rather pull my f##*ing eyeballs out.
that solves the core problems with the class,
...that totally undermines the core concept of the Fighter. I don't want feats that do crazy B.S. that make the class not a Fighter and if I insinuated that, I apologize. Just make another class. Leave my Fighter alone.
instead of trying to make another catchall "Every other fighting man" class.
Too late.
When you try to make a class that includes too much, it's very hard to balance.
I totally agree. Again, sorry if it seemed I was saying that. Fighter feats, IMO, should still totally stay within the idiom of the current Fighter class.
Feats or abilities that allow the Fighter to cast lightningbolts out of Warhammers, give the Fighter the ability to jump 200' in the air, and pass every damned will save are NOT something I'd want to see.
How about Lodoss War? Surely one can watch that and get some ideas for D&D without being decried for it ;pGah, Paranoia Agent. I can spell, srsly.
With note to your Slayers comment. Goury is actually a pretty good example of what the fighter as is tends to play as.Slayers is a D&D parody, down to a mage who casts Fireball and tends to crisp her friends unintentionally, so I'm not surprised.
From what I understand, Lodoss War WAS the creators' D&D campaign. Correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: Yep...
Record of Lodoss War was created in 1986 by Group SNE as a Dungeons & Dragons "replay" serialized in the Japanese magazine Comptiq. Replays are not novels, but transcripts of RPG sessions, meant to both hold the interest of readers and convey the events that took place. They have proven to be popular, even to those who do not play role-playing games but are fans of fiction (including fantasy fiction). Similar to light novels, many characters and parties in replays have become popular as characters of anime. An example of such a character is the female elf Deedlit in Record of Lodoss War, who was played by science fiction novelist Hiroshi Yamamoto during the RPG sessions.
Leave my Fighter alone.
I thought the whole point of the First Rule of Pathfinder was that if you as DM don't want something messed with, then it can't be messed with.
But for those who think fighter is underpowered, a "drastic rewrite" may be in order. These are the people who are interested in changing up fighter options and giving them cooler stuff. Some of the cooler stuff is just jim-dandy, and some of it may be less kosher (wu xia, anyone?)
Or, let me put it away: your fighter is not our fighter. You can still play with your own toys, and we won't bother you for it.
What do you want and why?Good question. I'd like to see at least some of the following. The list is not exhaustive, nor do I want every fighter to be able to do all of them. But as options, I'd like to see:
...
I think everything you said can be handled with feats.
1. I would like to see a tactical feat chain, probably with leadership as a prereq and goes from there.
2. knowledge(tactics) as a skill. Its not core, but in my experience you can do a lot by adding non-core knowledges. You could also allow proffession(soldier) to make these kinds of knowledge checks, and I think it would be well in line. (I also think its an oversight that proffession(soldier) is not a fighter calss skill.)
3. You can already take the feats to boost your will. I don't want to see the fighter get a good will save personally, because it is an intentional flaw that I feel is very ballancing. I would like to see annother boost off dazling display to do it as part of an attack/on a crit, or something.
4. Can't agree more. Some new shield feats would be great.
5. see point 2
From what I understand, Lodoss War WAS the creators' D&D campaign. Correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT: Yep...
That's more or less my point ;)
I think everything you said can be handled with feats.
Some of them certainly can. Others... not so much.
The thing is, if they're all "just feats," then anyone can out-fighter the fighter again -- unless you put them at the end of long feat chains, in which case no one else gets them, and a fighter who takes one gets nothing else. No thanks.
Alternatively, if you make them BETTER than other feats and declare them fighter-only, then you're basically creating "fighter talents" but dishonestly labelling them as "feats." Why not just come right out and call them what they are?
Leave my Fighter alone.But for those who think fighter is underpowered, a "drastic rewrite" may be in order. These are the people who are interested in changing up fighter options and giving them cooler stuff. Some of the cooler stuff is just jim-dandy, and some of it may be less kosher (wu xia, anyone?)
If a drastic rewrite is called for why not just a new class and keep the basic fighter for those who like it that way. I personally like fighter though I tend to drop into a prestige class around 9th or 11th level just grab Weapon Training II or Armor Training III before going into the prestige class. Did that with a dualist at level 9 and worked quite well.
If a drastic rewrite is called for why not just a new class and keep the basic fighter for those who like it that way. I personally like fighter though I tend to drop into a prestige class around 9th or 11th level just grab Weapon Training II or Armor Training III before going into the prestige class. Did that with a dualist at level 9 and worked quite well.Leave my Fighter alone.But for those who think fighter is underpowered, a "drastic rewrite" may be in order. These are the people who are interested in changing up fighter options and giving them cooler stuff. Some of the cooler stuff is just jim-dandy, and some of it may be less kosher (wu xia, anyone?)
The way I'm rewriting it, the standard fighter is a "generalist" specialization, with just a couple of additions (Will boost, for example)
Speaking of which, I've started a new thread -- The Dramatically Rewritten Fighter Thread.
If a drastic rewrite is called for why not just a new class and keep the basic fighter for those who like it that wayBecause people don't like it when we call Fighter an NPC class.
Which he is not.
Which he is not.If a drastic rewrite is called for why not just a new class and keep the basic fighter for those who like it that wayBecause people don't like it when we call Fighter an NPC class.
It's what would happen to those who used the new class.
Why call it a different class if it fills the same stylistic and game dynamic niche?
My point proven. Thanks seeker.Which he is not.If a drastic rewrite is called for why not just a new class and keep the basic fighter for those who like it that wayBecause people don't like it when we call Fighter an NPC class.
Bout as much as y'all like us calling what you want the anime class.
Why call it a different class if it fills the same stylistic and game dynamic niche?
why call it a fighter when it clearly is not?
They aren't going to revamp the official Fighter.
I'd say it has the statistical likelihood of actual work getting done in the US Senate.
Fighters and Congress should band together to shoot Seeking Douchebane arrows at the Senate and Wizards.
Ok guys lets ask this again. I hear alot of it needs something but all I hear is "rework the class" not ideals for things we can do
So lets ignore feats for right now. Lets say they open up a line of replacement training "schools" if you will. We have a base armor one, and a weapon one so far. Along those lines what would you like to see?
* Armorless or light armor training??
* Leadership/ buff training?
That is what we need to address, not how you would rebuild it, but how do you add to the class without a total rebuild
Ok guys lets ask this again. I hear alot of it needs something but all I hear is "rework the class" not ideals for things we can do
So lets ignore feats for right now. Lets say they open up a line of replacement training "schools" if you will. We have a base armor one, and a weapon one so far. Along those lines what would you like to see?
* Armorless or light armor training??
* Leadership/ buff training?That is what we need to address, not how you would rebuild it, but how do you add to the class without a total rebuild
Erm, I think you missed the whole "These are the paradigms we would like to see as fighter builds/schools/specialties" bit we went through, and the whole "Feats can do that/No they can't!" fight. Basically, the anti-side is that the Fighter-As-Written (FAW) isn't distinctive enough.
One might say that the FAW is still a holdover from the very foundations of D&D, where Fighting Men were mundane, and the other classes were significantly better. Thus, some DM's/designers 'round these parts feel that the fighter needs a buff from FAW. The degree to which it needs to be rewritten (and let's say it, any deviation from the FAW is some form of rewrite) varies from person to person.
Eh all I am getting from alot of you is replace it, which is not a constructive reply in this thread. Not saying your doing it but thats what I keep seeing
Ya'lls options for the APG are feats, alt trainings or maybe, just a slim chance of some kind of talents. Useful input would be the kinds of Trainings and feats you want not "fighter is the suck replace it" which seem to be said often and by the same few people over and over again. And is in no way useful. If you really think it needs improved give feedback as how it could be done with in the limits given.
Paizo is simply not going to invalidate the fighter as written. New options or replacement ablitys are doable, a rewrite is not.
Eh all I am getting from alot of you is replace it, which is not a constructive reply in this thread. Not saying your doing it but thats what I keep seeing
Ya'lls options for the APG are feats, alt trainings or maybe, just a slim chance of some kind of talents. Useful input would be the kinds of Trainings and feats you want not "fighter is the suck replace it" which seem to be said often and by the same few people over and over again. And is in no way useful. If you really think it needs improved give feedback as how it could be done with in the limits given.
Well, there's a serious problem that many people have with feats as a mechanism for patching fighters -- namely, to do anything weapon-related to get near-parity with another martial class (i.e. monk, barbarian, ranger, paladin), a fighter has to spend a hefty "feat tax" in order to do that. In other words, out of the feats he has to spend on doing cool fighter-related things, he has to spend feats to emulate class features of other classes. And then if he does that, he sacrifices the feats he needs to do what the fighter does best -- dealing damage.
Why the bloody Norway would we suggest an in-RAW method for "patching" the fighter if we're thoroughly dissatisfied with both the methods of "patching" and the philosophy itself behind the class design (namely, "Let's fix Fighting Men from OD&D, which were clearly inferior then, but we can make them a PC class because we can't think of anything more interesting than an infinite variety of variants!")?
WORDY DESCRIPTION IS WORDY.
Paizo is simply not going to invalidate the fighter as written. New options or replacement ablitys are doable, a rewrite is not.
I don't know. With men, few things are possible, but with Paizo, all things are possible! PRAISE PAIZO, WHO GIVETH TO ALL MEN (AND MAIDENS) LIBERALLY AND UPBRAIDETH NOT!
Edit: I'm very pleased that "triumph points" are sticking, if only reluctantly XD