Umm man in black I have no ideal what Conan you have read, but he feared and ran from magic, alot. He would only fight anything magic if there as no other option and he got the hell out as soon as he could. He got lucky alot and often if he overcame a wizard it was with the help of magic or shear luck.
The wizard always outclassed him, every time. He just often got lucky or out smarted them with cunning.
Or Leonidas and the 300 spartans.Leonidas is a loremaster and an inspiring leader of men, and is capable at surviving in harsh conditions. I guess he's multiclassing ranger!
Let's just be honest here for a second. Leonidas definately gets a +1 to hitting people in the face.
Really though if your making a dex based fighter your looking at 3 to 5 points less on stealth, and fighters can easily afford the stealthy feat so your looking at 1 to 3 points then, less if the fighter keeps boosting dex, but not a massive difference.
Side note , goblin rogues may be damned near unbeatable in stealth and a goblin fighter would be stealthier then a human rogue in many cases. Sneaky little bastards
I can totally sell someone rogue by giving them a Leiber collection. I can sell someone on cleric by telling them it's like playing Galahad. I can hook someone up with old episodes of Kung Fu to give them an idea of what playing a monk is like. To sell someone on a fighter, I can use...uh... Caramon and the two guards from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
Gimli. That's a person notable first and foremost for being a fighter.
But sure, you have a very good point, and I think I agree with you more and more for every point.
I mean, really. If you are equally good at X as a commoner, X is not your schtick. Can we all agree on that?
Yes. Unless it's farming :)
I mean, really. If you are equally good at X as a commoner, X is not your schtick. Can we all agree on that?
An equal-leveled commoner focused at sneaking. And you're as good as the focused commoner at a secondary schtick, while kicking his ass in your major schtick.
A rogue has bluffing as a secondary schtick, yet anywhere before he gets spell mastery he's about as good at that as a commoner. A cleric has religious knowledge as a secondary schtick, yet isn't better than a commoner at any given level.
I don't really have a problem with this exactly. I've got more problems when the class can't have a secondary schtick.
Sure the commoner is just as stealthy to he puts armor on anyhow. Even a rogue can't do that
And the only time he was interesting in the books was when he practically fell in love with what's-her-name the elf queen of Lothlorien. And that was a purely RP moment.
Gimli. That's a person notable first and foremost for being a fighter.
Well, then take the movies representation. It's a well-known description of him, and it seems to be quite liked.
Anyway, along the lines of dwarves, I guess you could include several of the dwarves from Bilbo, or Bruenor Battlehammer for that deal. He sneaks on occacion, but primarily against a common duergar.
What option sounds better for the game in general?
*All classes are as generic as the fighter, but you are supposed to multiclass and take levels in prestige classes to make a character concept/be playable at higher levels. Kind of a d20 Modern meets D&D type of thing.
*The fighter and other generic classes should be replaced with more specific classes that can form the basis of a 20 level progression all on their lonesome.(I wouldn't see much use of multiclassing or prestige classes in this type of system)
I understand that these two options are not the only two presented in this thread, but they are the two that I would most likely endorse.
I flip and flop between wanting a system that encourages every PC to take an appropriate Prestige Class and one where the PC's never consider a prestige class. The 3.5 fighter was usually my vehicle of choice to get into a combat prestige class because I felt that every level of the prestige class improved the character more than another level of fighter.
I would prefer specific classes, each with a several options to go in an even more specific direction (the Fighter, Wizard, and Sorcerer come to mind, the Cleric and the Ranger coming in a close second). If I were a designer, I would prefer this as well. It's a lot easier to make a balance decision when you have the whole class to tinker with rather than just a part of it.
To me, that's what it seems like Paizo is doing.
I would prefer specific classes, each with a several options to go in an even more specific direction (the Fighter, Wizard, and Sorcerer come to mind, the Cleric and the Ranger coming in a close second). If I were a designer, I would prefer this as well. It's a lot easier to make a balance decision when you have the whole class to tinker with rather than just a part of it.
To me, that's what it seems like Paizo is doing.
I disagree. I believe the generic class is a good thing. And PRC should be only 5 levels, so as not to loose the base class flexibility and add uniquenes to the character. Options would be even cooler, like 2nd edition Kits, man I loved those.
MiB, I haven't seen you come up with an "iconic" fighter that I would use a straight fighter for. Gimili is a good one, and he has skills in recognising beauty, and you can build that with a fighter. Its called knowledge(architecture) or craft(stone) or any of many skills power gamers usually overlook but I fill my character sheet with whenever possible. A fighter can take these skills and be competent at them. You don't have to be the best.
As for your Conan example, I would build him without any fighter levels at all. Barbarian/Rogue would make a perfect Conan. There is a reason he is called Conan The BARBARIAN, and he is pretty much the iconic for that class.
The fighter can do many things no other class can do. Like sneak in full plate. If a rogue gets the proficiency, he still can't do it effectively. A fighter doesn't even need to spend feats to do it better than him.
As for killing multiple people with a single swing, thats what cleave is. Intimidating people: dazzling display (sure you need to have your weapon out, but is that really a big deal). Nothing you have really said can't be done with the fighter's defining ability: feats, with the exception of cutting a mountain in half. And many of us DON'T want the fighter to be able to do those things, as it is the stuff of bards to embellish. It also wouldn't be to hard a feat to add to allow someone to ignore hardness, perhaps an extension on the Sunder chain.
The fighter isn't broken IMO. As I have said earlier, I would like to see a couple skills added to its list and it 4 skill points, but it in no ways broken. Personally, I think that is all the "fix" fighter needs.
I disagree. I believe the generic class is a good thing. And PRC should be only 5 levels, so as not to loose the base class flexibility and add uniquenes to the character. Options would be even cooler, like 2nd edition Kits, man I loved those.
I tried that in my last campaign.
It was really really hard.
Graduated Abilities
Powerful Abilities
Medium Abilities
Weak/RP Abilities
It almost turns into kind of a point buy system. When this happens, players can stack up on abilities that synergize with each other in MANY ways. Paizo would need a massive effort with more resources than even WotC has to support a system like this and have any hope of it being totally balanced.
This type of system can only work if you and your players have an understanding that you expect them to make more organic characters and not take advantage of synergy too much. Although I DO actually think worrying about twinking takes a back seat to the classes being fun and their actual application to real gaming, this is too much of an extreme in that direction.
Likewise Cleave; it's a reduction of your overall damage and enemies need to be seriously pretty weak for you to one-shot them.
What game is this that you need to one-shot enemies to Cleave?
Speaking as a usual DM, the other problem with that is that it quickly becomes appalling to try to put together NPC antagonists. I mean, with the current system, there's plenty of work, too, but at least you've got a sturdy frame to hang all the details on to spare you at least a bit of the heavy lifting.
When you get into a situation where you have to custom-build every NPC, who's going to live through just one combat, though, it gets absolutely hellish. Just ask people who have been GMs for Star Wars campaigns ....
I hear that. Throughout the campaign, I created advancement tables for the more common NPCs. This was helpful and saved time, but reduced variety. Not to mention, all of my monsters were built using that system too, so every entity was pretty much balanced on the same scale.
|
Aside from that, I do believe more options would be cool, like deflecting fireballs with a shield, ignoring breathweapons while behind it, and stuff like that. And off course some more class skills and skill points wouldn't hurt.
How about deflecting a fireball off your shield, into TIAMAT'S FACE?
Then blaming the villain with the wonky hat?
Yay for Eric the Cavalier!
He was the best one in that cartoon!
He 'got it' right from day one.
I would like to see some shield feats, like deflection arrows{I allow shield users to do this} or adding to touch ac, adding to reflex saves for area attack such as fireballs and breath weapons.
The whole image of a warrior behind he shield walking though the breath-weapon is just classic after all
Plenty of things plus links
Thank you for posting the links to that alternate system. I enjoyed reading through the skeleton and muscles of the system.
I am guessing that any system that included a host of generic options would have to give almost an entire book to NPC builds, or the writers would have to release such content online in some form.
Or Leonidas and the 300 spartans.Leonidas is a loremaster and an inspiring leader of men, and is capable at surviving in harsh conditions. I guess he's multiclassing ranger!
Leonidas to me is pure fighting machine. I even made a character based on Leonidas that was fighter. I did add the Phalanx fighting feat from the Complete warrior to do it though. Took the Leadership feat for followers that allowed me to really make use of the Phalanx fighting feat with the cohort.
|
Yeah, ignoring the entire Combat Expertise feat chain as useless, ignoring the fact that INT is only good for skill points if you aren't an INT based caster, wanting the fighter to have rogue and ranger toys, saying that being 3 points down on a skill because it ain't a class skill (ignoring that you can use a fighter class ability, i.e. tons o' feats, to take Skill Focus and make it back PLUS MORE at 10th level) and saying that fighters are worse at sneaking than everyone (oh those sneaky clerics!) tells me just one thing:
AMIB just doesn't like 3.5/Pathfinder, and nothing Paizo does short of throwing the whole ruleset out the window will placate him. I gotta say, I wish these boards had an ignore function so I don't accidently waste my time reading what ammounts to be a tar-baby trap of ranting and complaining.
Yeah, ignoring the entire Combat Expertise feat chain as useless, ignoring the fact that INT is only good for skill points if you aren't an INT based caster, wanting the fighter to have rogue and ranger toys, saying that being 3 points down on a skill because it ain't a class skill (ignoring that you can use a fighter class ability, i.e. tons o' feats, to take Skill Focus and make it back PLUS MORE at 10th level) and saying that fighters are worse at sneaking than everyone (oh those sneaky clerics!) tells me just one thing:
AMIB just doesn't like 3.5/Pathfinder, and nothing Paizo does short of throwing the whole ruleset out the window will placate him. I gotta say, I wish these boards had an ignore function so I don't accidently waste my time reading what ammounts to be a tar-baby trap of ranting and complaining.
I love how he complains about abilities not existing, and then when its pointed out that it does exist, he says its worthless, when in fact it works quite well and does EXACTLY what he wants. His responce to Dazzing Display is a perfect example of this.
You know even from the original 3.5 the fighter really didn't suck IMO, well except if you just used only the PHB and nothing else. The pathfinder fighter is even better and solves a lot of the little problems of the fighter. The one thing I would agree on is that lacks choices in direction and the same goes for the monk.
Now the following is inspired from Gamers 2 where the girl makes a fighter based on Intelligence and having a high chance for crits. So the fighter is not about brute strength but about knowing where to hit and making it hurt. One of the things that often as a house rule that I have been thinking about is removing the restriction of crit ranges not stacking. Or how about a fighter based on Charisma, instead of strength he wold be based on the ability to bluff his enemies with the power of misdirection of this attacks.
Last month I created a thread for new feat ideas for the fighter. I just posted some new ones here. I feel that the problems with fighter will go away with feats designed to fill in the gaps.
|
I gotta say, I wish these boards had an ignore function so I don't accidently waste my time reading what ammounts to be a tar-baby trap of ranting and complaining.
And I wish this forum had a lock function so that the OP could lock his own thread because I would.
This thread has degenerated into an argument (and ad hominem attacks) about whether the Fighter is a good class or not. I don't care.
The purpose of this thread was to kick around ideas for Fighter only feats or completely optional alternate class features to replace bonus feats or the Training class features with extraordinary but mundane abilities or extraordinary abilities.
If you think the fighter is great the way it is then you're already set. The Fighter exists. Pat yourself on the back but start your own thread about how awesome the Fighter is. If you'd like to take part in a productive discussion about possible feats that fill holes in the Fighters abilities, the Bloodline idea that has been discussed, or something new, please stick around.
|
Well I can see the fighter taking onto a whole new level by developing different trainings,as simple as that.
Giving the fighter actual class abilities that would focus him into different archetypes based on what the player wants. And of course basic armor and weapon training still existing for the classic broader man at arms kind of guy.
There is a massive amount of possibilities, Shield training (evasion when using a shield, returning ray spells), mageslayer training (hightened mental resistance, see through illusions), commandeer training (bonus on charisma checks based on lvl with those who have seen you fight), tactician training (know an oponents feats and weaknesses by making checks that do not involve skills, havea non magical equivalent of scry on enemies)), bodyguard training (take damage for your allies), swashbuckling training (no armor, yay). Just pick two and you´re set.
Well I can see the fighter taking onto a whole new level by developing different trainings,as simple as that.
Giving the fighter actual class abilities that would focus him into different archetypes based on what the player wants. And of course basic armor and weapon training still existing for the classic broader man at arms kind of guy.There is a massive amount of possibilities, Shield training (evasion when using a shield, returning ray spells), mageslayer training (hightened mental resistance, see through illusions), commandeer training (bonus on charisma checks based on lvl with those who have seen you fight), tactician training (know an oponents feats and weaknesses by making checks that do not involve skills, havea non magical equivalent of scry on enemies)), bodyguard training (take damage for your allies), swashbuckling training (no armor, yay). Just pick two and you´re set.
I like these ideas, but still feel that most, if not all, can be done with feats.
|
|
I like these ideas, but still feel that most, if not all, can be done with feats.
The problem with doing everything with feats is that there will be a lot more competition for especially the more extraordinary abilities. Having an increased amount of feats as well as alternate Training class features gives the Fighter more flexibility to become the kind of warrior he wants to be.
I would use something like this, cause I like the idea.
Remove the Armor proficiencies giving a +3 Dodge Bonus to AC. That only aplies without armor. Thi bonus will increase at each level you would otherwise gain Armor training.
A thought on feat balancing:
If one does not replace Weapon or Armor training then you can add penalties to new combat feats that match the bonuses from those abilites.
For example a special blade style feat could apply a -1 or -2 to hit, which for a fighter would be off set by their specilization and training focus.
|
|
A thought on feat balancing:
If one does not replace Weapon or Armor training then you can add penalties to new combat feats that match the bonuses from those abilites.
For example a special blade style feat could apply a -1 or -2 to hit, which for a fighter would be off set by their specilization and training focus.
An interesting idea. This would lower a lot of other requirements for particularly good feats allowing better toys at lower levels.
|
|
The problem with making those into feats is that it would force the fighter to invest his main class feature into getting them, and of course they could not be as strong as class features (since they are available to anyone). And if the idea is to make them fighter only feats, then why not just make them fighter class features? it is simpler and more elegant.
I wnat my fighter to have his power attack, two weapon fighting, vital strike, etc. And also be a Respected general (with mechanics supporting it) without sacrificing his fighting prowess.
And as I said before, it is unnacceptable to me that a wizard (without trying too hard) is a better battle tactician than a fighter, or a bard is a better general and leader of armies.
The problem with making those into feats is that it would force the fighter to invest his main class feature into getting them, and of course they could not be as strong as class features (since they are available to anyone). And if the idea is to make them fighter only feats, then why not just make them fighter class features? it is simpler and more elegant.
I wnat my fighter to have his power attack, two weapon fighting, vital strike, etc. And also be a Respected general (with mechanics supporting it) without sacrificing his fighting prowess.
And as I said before, it is unnacceptable to me that a wizard (without trying too hard) is a better battle tactician than a fighter, or a bard is a better general and leader of armies.
Except that if you replace anything the fighter currently has, you are sacrificing his martial prowess for those abilities, and if you just tack stuff on to an already respectable and ballanced class, it will over power them. I don't think fighters are underpowered. I just think we can't do everything we want to do with them yet.
I would say that even if said "features" come up, if u wanna be a good general u cannot dump Charisma, diminishig his battle prowes, ans if a tactician, you could not dump Inteligence. That's a choice, you could not give it to them simply and ignore said ability scores.
As for new battlefield tactics abilities, we will need to wait for mass combat rules I think. I would definetely like to see those.
|
|
Armor and weapon training only gives you pluses to hit and damage, and that is cool, but their main fighting power doesn´t come from that. Their feats are their main strenght. So sacrificing those takes a bigger chunk out of their fighting ability than sacrificing that *4 *4 at level 20.
Honestly at low to mid levels weapon training will represent only a +2 attack and damage, I would exchange that for the ability to take another feat any day, and of course more so for some cool ability not directly related to adding damage to my attacks (deflecting rays, superioir tactics, leading armies)
Regarding dumping CHA or INT, having a 10 on both of those as a fighter is hard, thou doable if you sacrifice some of your fighting ability, I can live with that. However even through that sacrifice he is still gonna be a worst tactician than a wizard and a worst general than bards (who do not have to sacrifice any of their other abilities to do so), I am not ok with that.
Armor and weapon training only gives you pluses to hit and damage, and that is cool, but their main fighting power doesn´t come from that. Their feats are their main strenght. So sacrificing those takes a bigger chunk out of their fighting ability than sacrificing that *4 *4 at level 20.
Honestly at low to mid levels weapon training will represent only a +2 attack and damage, I would exchange that for the ability to take another feat any day, and of course more so for some cool ability not directly related to adding damage to my attacks (deflecting rays, superioir tactics, leading armies)
This only +x to attack is stronger than any feat. The few feats that are equivalet don't come close to it, and you would lose the Weapon and Armor Mastery, which is pretty damn the most powerful ability a fighter gets.
So, IT IS a big deal, as now, this is the main feature of the fighter.
Greater Weapon Finesse:
Prerequisite: Fighter level 4, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus.Use dexterity modifier for melee damage instead of strength modifier. This only applies to light weapons or weapons to which the Weapon Finesse feat can be applied.
Superior Weapon Finesse:
Prerequisite: Greater Weapon Finesse, Fighter level 8.Apply strength bonus to damage in addition to dexterity modifier.
Too much, been there done that. It's not balanced.
|
|
Hitting harder does not automatically make you stronger or better (or more fun to play for that matter), numerically it might be better but it does not give you versatility, which is the main prblem the fighter has right now.
I would change +1 attack and damage for improved initiative any day, or for Power Attack, or Improved Trip. because not only are those numericaly comparable, but they are more fun to use than just ¨I swing my sword harder than I did before¨.
So something that gives you a chance of downing a flying oponent (let´s call it hunter training) is better than hitting slightly harder (and more fun).