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).
More fun, sure. Better, depends.
The thing is, you cannot take that +1 to hit and damage and not take the rest of the feature away, see? So, it may be traded, sure, but for something that goes up with level.
|
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.
And I'd exchange bonus feats or Training for x/day or x/encounter special whammys.
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.
I would have to agree because this would make Monks like gods and they would never put anything into strength however I think an upper division of this feat would be in order how about some thing like this.
Great Weapon Finesse:
The character can add his dexterity bonus to his CMB score in addition to his strength bonus. This only applies to light weapons or weapons to which the Weapon Finesse feat can be applied.
Too much, been there done that. It's not balanced.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.
Very true. Dex already applies to a save, AC, initiative and a lot of skills. Loading more stuff on it with a feat tax is not balanced.
Int to damage, however, that could work. Emulate the swashbuckler class feature a little, save that it's not a precision bonus.
It could make the Fighter a little MAD, but that's not too bad if you don't have to depend on strength as much. Maybe include a chain of feats for bonus damage/AC when not using a shield? It would make a good pairing for Duelist, I'd imagine.
Too much, been there done that. It's not balanced.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.
Very true. Dex already applies to a save, AC, initiative and a lot of skills. Loading more stuff on it with a feat tax is not balanced.
Int to damage, however, that could work. Emulate the swashbuckler class feature a little, save that it's not a precision bonus.
It could make the Fighter a little MAD, but that's not too bad if you don't have to depend on strength as much. Maybe include a chain of feats for bonus damage/AC when not using a shield? It would make a good pairing for Duelist, I'd imagine.
Int to damage is just as broken, as you have gish. They can already take arcane strike, do you want to have them add more damage?
I am always wary of abilities that add an attribute to something wonky such as to damage, hit, AC, or initiative. Gotta be careful with these.
I am always wary of abilities that add an attribute to something wonky such as to damage, hit, AC, or initiative. Gotta be careful with these.
Especially after that Monk/Paladin/Devoted Defender/Iajitsu Master that you couldn't hit :P
I am always wary of abilities that add an attribute to something wonky such as to damage, hit, AC, or initiative. Gotta be careful with these.Especially after that Monk/Paladin/Devoted Defender/Iajitsu Master that you couldn't hit :P
Hehe. Yeah. Fortunately, he did dick for damage.
Why not be a jerk and lock such a feat to the value of Weapon Training, with an extra special at note that at Weapon Training 4 the bonus is uncapped. Kinda kills dipping right there.
I guess my thoughts are starting to go more towards what Fighter only feats could be done to provide out of combat options that stay true to a fighters non-magical (although possibly Extraodrindary) line. Not skills persay, as at this point I almost hope Paizo reprints the Academy Trained fighter in the APG to get people to shut up about the lack if skill points.
Tossing allies or foes seems like a big one to me.
Why not make the extra skill points a feat for fighters that gives you 4 skill points/level? That way, if you want to have a skill monkey fighter, you can use the feat to do it. No additional rules/class variants needed.
Actually, why not make it stack up to 3 times? You can then have the option to sacrifice 3 feats to be as much of a skill monkey as a rogue. ;) You can also have it say "add 2 additional skills to your class skill list per selection of this feat," too. I think that would solve most of the skill problems, although it might need fine tuning.
Actually I really wanted them to include in Core Pathfinder was the Open Minded (see Psionic 3.5 SRD) feat and redone the way Toughness was. Stacking or no stacking that would have addressed may "I want more skills" needs.
|
|
They cannot print completely new fighter rules, invalidating the existing rulebook a few months after it was printed.
They cannot "patch" in a new subsystem, because then playing a fighter would require the purchase of two books, where the rest of the classes only require one.
So, the only solution open to them if they want to spruce up the fighter is to make new feats that address the fighter's weaknesses a bit. That's all they can do at this point. If there's a 2nd edition Pathfinder down the road, then a complete rewrite of the fighter would be possible. But the APG can't do it.
That's kind of silly. What about the idea to have optional replacements for the Training class features? Weapon Training isn't as good as feats for the most part, except that it applies to multiple weapons. Armor Training has some unique abilities but not ones that every Fighter needs.
Either way there are alternate class features that could replace the Training ones that would satisfy people.
|
As others and myself have said, no need to rewrite the class, just give options for the trainings and allow any fighter to pick 2 trainings, tha{s it.
That way those who want a straight up man at arms pick the classic weapon and armor training, and everyone else can pick other trainings )general, strategist, bodyguard, harraser=, that way everyone wins. Why argue against it?
Weapon Training isn't as good as feats for the most part, except that it applies to multiple weapons.
...So it is as good...?
Weapon Training is the reason Fighters can actually out-damage Barbarians. (Check the DPR thread)
...But it's already confirmed that new material for the Core Classes will in fact show up in the APG, even if it won't be playtested publicly.
If Paizo was happy to introduce Alternate Class Features in the (3.5 rules) Campaign Setting, why would they be averse to it in the PRPG APG?
As others and myself have said, no need to rewrite the class, just give options for the trainings and allow any fighter to pick 2 trainings, tha{s it.
That way those who want a straight up man at arms pick the classic weapon and armor training, and everyone else can pick other trainings )general, strategist, bodyguard, harraser=, that way everyone wins. Why argue against it?
That is what some of us has been saying for a while. Calling for a total rewrite is unproductive as it will not happen. You have the fighter the class will not change. So asking for a rewrite is pointless. However new feats and alt training ability is a very easy thing to do without invaliding the class.
And new feats or alt class ability would be easy to add to statblocks in AP so you have a chance of seeing such things in print besides just sitting in a book only used by your players of if you rewrite something.
...I almost hope Paizo reprints the Academy Trained fighter feat (from the Campaign HC) in the APG to get people to shut up about the lack if skill points.
+1
...I almost hope Paizo reprints the Academy Trained fighter feat (from the Campaign HC) in the APG to get people to shut up about the lack if skill points.+1
Not a help , as far as I can tell the barbarian should have the same amount as the fighter,or less really if ya want to get down to it. But as skill reworking is not something that can really be covered for the APG it's kinda a moot point
|
|
Although I don't particularly enjoy suggesting this idea, if Paizo wanted, they can take a page from video and PC gaming as add new abilities for each class.
The weaker classes can receive better abilities, and the stronger classes can receive lesser abilities.
Ideally speaking, each class should get upgrades that increase the flavor and mechanics associated with that class.
Another idea is for fighters to get better versions of Tactical Feats in 3.5. A feat that provides multiple uses, 2 in combat, 1 out of combat, or whatever combination to be determined.
Just as an example:
Sword Master
Pre-req: Weapon Training slashing swords, bab 11, weapon focus (weapon of the weapon group)
Benefit: You and all your allies within 30 feet get +1 attack, +1 damage when using weapons in that weapon group. You can make Whirlwind Attacks as a standard action using these weapons if you have Whirlwind Attack feat. This feat adds a +2 knowledge bonus to Appraise checks regarding weapons in this weapon group.
I just thought this idea out real fast without any ideas of balance. But I think if Paizo went with these things, feats could still be the answer.
I just thought this idea out real fast without any ideas of balance. But I think if Paizo went with these things, feats could still be the answer.
Agreed, fighter's get 11 more then anyone else, New fighter only feats open up alot of ground.
On the feat, not to bad the standard whirlwind is a bit much, but it needs something, some type of command feat or leadership. Maybe as the new tactile feats both partys much have the feat for it to work, yours could work on any party member that has any tactical feat
anyhow not sure on the balance as ya said it was something fast, but yeah stuff along that line could be easily doable
|
|
Weapon Training isn't as good as feats for the most part, except that it applies to multiple weapons....So it is as good...?
Weapon Training is the reason Fighters can actually out-damage Barbarians. (Check the DPR thread)
It's good but not so good that I would trade it for something interesting. The fighter will not be an interesting class by giving it more DPR with static damage and hit increases. A suite of special attacks that let me pick which style or move or whatever will benefit me and mine opens up tactical decisions with more depth and complexity than "me smash this turn!"
So is weapon training mechanically good? Yes, I suppose. Does it make the class more interesting or tactically diverse than 3.5? Nope, not really.
Ahhh, let's talk fighters. Let's talk about a few things regarding fighters. This is, uh, a long post.
First and foremost, anime/manga isn't a g%~*+#n genre, and if you act like it is, punch yourself until the stupid comes out. If you made a simple sword and board fighter and someone went "Ugh, he's just like one of those LITERATURE fighters," do you really think you could take them seriously? Because that's what you sound like.
Second, let's talk video games. In fact, let's talk MMORPGS. In fact, let's talk about them in a POSITIVE light.
Long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the lands, and the Earth was young, there existed Everquest. Everquest was the first "big" MMORPG, and the first majorly class-built one. It had fighters. And fighters sucked, hard. Then other games came, like DAoC, and, eventually, WoW. And these games did something that made fighters awesome, something Everquest did not: It gave the fighter abilities. You see, standing in place and just holding down the autoattack key isn't fun for anyone.
Likewise, standing in place and full attacking is boring. Having no options sucks. When the DM asks what you do and you just roll the same thing you do every time, it gets stale - fast. The Fighter has long suffered under the yoke of "No abilities allowed." And why?
Well, let's talk about the supernatural. Or rather, let's talk about what is and isn't supernatural, because that's the gist of the fighters' issue with abilities: people scream "No spells!"
The issue is, it's not about "spells" and it's not about what is and is not "supernatural." It's about established tropes, and the fighter languishes under the trope of "Big dumb worthless footsoldier." You already have superhuman strength - literally, strength that normal humans do not naturally attain. You have fighting abilities that ordinary peasants have never even imagined. And yet you cry "no supernatural!" to things? Every D&D class abandons reality rather quickly, but only the fighter is given the edict of punishment. And it's not because the game is based on a realistic portrayal of dark ages Europe, but because fighters were given the tag of "foot soldier" instead of "hero."
Which brings me to the last issue fighters have - cliches. The paladin? Oh, tones of cliches, and great potential stories. Torn between duty and the knowledge of what's right. Forbidden love. Courtly romance and intrigue. The passion of those chosen by the gods, and their feelings about it. What it means to always search for the GOOD way to do things. What about rogues? A conniving cutthroat that cares only about himself and his own profits. A cold blooded assassin who sneaks in plain sight under a disguise, only to kill the lord of the mansion. A long hunted cat burglar who makes the rooftops his second road way, and sneaks into the houses of the wealthy to take their precious jewelry. A charming charlatan who knows a little of this and that in just about everything.
What do these all have in common? They're supported by both the cliches associated with the character and the mechanics. Paladins need charisma, gain knowledge in religious matters, have diplomacy as a class skill, and are bound to the greater good. Rogues have sneak attack, bluff, acrobatics, sneaking, and are built to either snipe unseen at enemies, or take advantage of their confusion in battle, and have massive amounts of skill points.
The fighter? He hits things.
And that, I think, is the biggest issue the fighter has. Not that he's vanilla. Not that he's generic. But he's a bizarrely specialized generic. He's the one specialized generic class in a room full of much more broadly focused characters. The paladin is specialized, the rogue is generic, but the fighter is both, and as such, he doesn't really have a place. Even the barbarian at least has SOME fluff attached.
Now we've established the problems, how do we fix them? I won't go into pure mechanics, as that's bound to anger some of you (Yes, I'm a large Tome of Battle fan). Instead, let's talk broad ideas.
1) Fighters need a place. They need tropes, cliches, stories. The paladin is the holy warrior, the barbarian is the really angry brute, the ranger is the hunter. So what about the fighter? There are a few places to go here. Let's talk base ideas first.
First, the weapon master. The issue with all the weapon specialization feats is that they're boring, and they aren't all that great. Weapon and Armor Training is a great step in the right direction, but they suffer from the same problem - it's all just more math. Instead, how about giving a simple extra "oomph" attached to each weapon group. Weapon training in Hammers or Crossbows? When attacking with one, you can bypass some AC given by armor. Weapon training in Axes? If you beat the enemy's AC by x amount, maybe you do extra damage. You get the idea. It makes weapon choice into something more fun. These are just examples - you get the idea. Potentially even add armor to this! Instead of ALL PLATE, ALL THE TIME, you give a better reason to diversify. Ideally, these aren't MASSIVE bonuses - just stuff that's cool and adds flavor to your character, so a ranger fighting with an axe and a fighter fighting with an axe are actually different.
2) More fighter prerequisite feats that do stuff. Barbarian gets a lot of slack for being the "Rage then attack, do nothing else" class, but that's one more ability then fighters. Again, Pathfinder has already been moving in the right direction with the spellbreaker line. Maybe one feat lets you hamper enemies around you and make them take penalties to things (Trying to be generic here!). Feats that don't just give a +1, but instead give you a reason to do different things in combat. Maybe a fighter feat that lets you use a swift action to rally your allies, giving them a bonus of some sort. More on this in a bit.
3) A choice of a trope at level 1. The academies idea. A small bonus, like gaining Diplomacy or something like that, to show your character starting as a leader of men, for example. And, just like with weapons, give the opportunity to take additional "academy" bonuses later. I'm going to continue using "academy" as the bonus, but keep in mind it's not married to that specific brand of fluff. I'll come back to this, too.
4) 4 skill points rather then 2.
Now let's leave base stuff and go for the higher level advanced stuff.
First off? PrCs OR higher level feats OR higher level abilities that let you specialize. I'm not talking weapon specialization "Oh I get +1 to damage," I mean something cool and exciting. Someone mentioned the classic "kill with one blow" type of character, so a feat or PrC or something that gives a bonus to Vital Strike (A PrC built around using Vital Strike, at least to me, sounds very cool). In 2e, fighters gained a stronghold and became leaders of armies. Take that fighter feat to rally your allies and gain diplomacy (Like, say, from an academy) as the pre-requisites, and increase your rallying abilities. A ranger or rogue multiclass PrC in the same vein as Dread Commando (Thankfully, martial classes multiclass way easier).
Secondly, if you stick to your fighter to hit 20, keep the trope and master-at-arms going. Increased academy bonuses. The guy who gained diplomacy as a class skill now gains a renown for it, and can somehow use it in battle or in a special way. Better fighter feats. And for weapons/armor, another oomph to go with it - maybe this time an ability you can use x/day or as often as you like (though power will have to be adjusted for either). Hammer users can make a stunning attack a'la stunning fist. Axe users can make their enemies take bleed damage every turn. Plate wearers can give themselves/increase their DR momentarily. Chainmail wearers can momentarily become immune to missile weapons. Shield users can, x/day, deflect a ray back at the user.
I want to stress that the goal in all this isn't to make the fighter more powerful - it's to make it more varied and more fun. No doubt some of this stuff IS very strong - hey, I'm no developer, I'm just brainstorming ;). Hopefully, I've helped.
Speaking as a long-time fan of Fighters and other "man/woman of action" classes, I don't think they are particularly underpowered in PF. I thought Andrew Troemner's above observation of them being "conservative but reliable" was fairly astute, even taking anti-magic fields out of the picture.
I do agree with YuenglingDragon's point that Fighters (and other warrior-types, actually) could use more tactical options. There's dozens of viable fighter builds, but each one often boils down to only a couple of "go-to" attack routines. Far from being a 4th edition apologist, I do appreciate the spirit (if not the implementation) of what they tried to do to make the "martial" characters more interesting. It would be nice if warrior-types had a bigger toolbox of stuff to use depending on the given situation.
At first my response was to hope that time and more sourcebooks would change this. If, as someone hoped, Paizo were to do more expanded versions of tactical feats it might be a step in the right direction.
Another possibility is to develop a selection of the combat maneuvers similar to those from Mongoose's D20 Conan RPG. They weren't feats themselves, and though they sometimes were similar to 3.5 skill stunts, they didn't cost anything to "learn". Instead they often had ability scores, skill ranks, and/or feats as a prerequisite to perform them. The effects were sometimes simple, like a riposte or a modified bull rush. Other times they were fairly cinematic or situation-specific, like letting go of your sword so it stays impaled in your enemy, causing bleed damage, or running along a ship's railing as you hack off the grapples of a boarding pirate ship.
It was a really neat idea, but at least from the brief time my group spent with the system, it remained sadly underdeveloped. I'm sure you could look through those rule-books to get some ideas for homebrew rules, and I certainly hope Paizo gives it some thought. While I think that such a system should be accessible to all classes, Fighters would/should benefit the most from it by simply having more feats with which to qualify for maneuvers. Maybe develop some advanced maneuvers that required feats further up a feat tree and/or multiple feats from different trees (or no tree at all.) I think that such a system would give Fighters and other sword-slingers more options without necessarily having to rebuild any existing rules.
While I would personally shy away from Wuxia/Anime-esque special-effects, I agree with ProfessorCirno that this does not preclude Fighters from performing superhuman feats of derring-do. Face it, any character with 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics is putting an Olympic gymnast or long-jumper to shame. (Hell, when was the last time YOU sucked up even two points of dagger damage like it was nothing?) Regardless of what you think of the rest of the movie "Willow", the fight at Tir Asleen is what I always picture it should be like to watch a 15th level Fighter go to town--not supernatural, but certainly superhuman. (Speaking of which, is it just me or was Madmartigan the model for Valeros?) Dovetailing that into the "maneuvers/stunts" concept, as a high level Fighter, you SHOULD be able to launch yourself with a catapult or bronco-ride a dragon while stabbing it, but there's currently not much of a way to do that without taking tremendous amounts of punishment or making an obscenely tough grapple check.
As an aside, yes, having different weapons do special things--especially in the hands of an experienced Fighter--would be nice. It might be the excuse we need to bring back the three dozen or so varieties of pole-arm...
As to the non-combat options (or lack thereof) that Fighters have, I've also always thought that the mechanics failed to support their potential as "leaders of men" (or women/elves/dwarves/halflings/orcs/etc.) as demonstrated by literature and history. What about military officers and warrior-kings? I guess one could assume they took a level or two as Aristocrats in order to pick up some Diplomacy and Know (Nobility), but that never sat right with me. The Academy Trained feat that has been mentioned seems to cover this pretty well, but I'd have to take a closer look at it myself.
One thing I've done that actually meshed with the rules (gasp!) is made style feats.
I know you're groaning right now, "Oh god they tried that in 3.5 and they got like two good ones that everyone took." I'm not talking about stupid two-weapon style feats that daze people on crits, I'm talking about sweet stuff, like being able to grapple someone and throw them at another guy. Happens all the freaking time in the movies and in books. The strong guy picks some guy up over his head and chucks him into some other dude's domepiece. How do I make sure only a strong guy can take it?
I make the prerequisites the following: 17 STR (Meaning the possibility exists of not qualifying for it unaugmented, which is OK), Improved Grapple, Throw Anything
Improved grapple is unfortunate as a prerequisite, but you'll see why it is in a moment.
Minotaur's Might [Maneuver]
Prerequisites: 17 STR, Improved Grapple, Throw Anything, BAB +7
Benefit: If you successfully grapple an enemy, you may attempt to throw them as a standard action. This requires a combat maneuver check against their CMD, using the bonuses for grappling and an additional +5 bonus if you moved with the target last round, but only to throw them in the direction you moved. This check is at a -10 penalty if attempted with one hand.
A successful check throws the target five feet plus five more feet for every 5 by which your maneuver beat their CMD. They take damage as through falling for the distance traveled, plus 1 1/2 times your strength modifier, and they are knocked prone. Their movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and they are treated as flying for the purposes of contact with the ground until they come to a stop.
If you throw the foe into another enemy's square, make a ranged touch attack. If it hits, the target takes half the damage of the thrown enemy, stops the thrown enemy's movement, and is subject to a trip attack from you at a -4 penalty.
That is by far the longest one I've attempted, but I think the benefits for using a turn to grab someone should be this good. The BAB requirement is still under scrutiny. It's fun, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for 5th level.
In addition, this and 18 other feats made it onto the monk's style list at various levels, this one being intermediate. The goal here was to give melee classes of all types (especially the monk) more fun stuff to do in combat. I have more mythological creature maneuvers and styles, I have three-tiered feat trees based on the elements (That are basically monk only), and I also have a gonzo animal spirit guide feat with a big nasty table for random generation if the player doesn't care what animal they get.
One thing I am willing to playtest? Letting players use iterative attacks for combat maneuvers. Makes tripping a decent risk (Since prone targets grant a +4 bonus to hit) at higher level instead of a complete trap, and gives two weapon users something to try at as well.
...I'm talking about sweet stuff, like being able to grapple someone and throw them at another guy. Happens all the freaking time in the movies and in books. The strong guy picks some guy up over his head and chucks him into some other dude's domepiece. How do I make sure only a strong guy can take it?
I make the prerequisites the following: 17 STR (Meaning the possibility exists of not qualifying for it unaugmented, which is OK), Improved Grapple, Throw Anything...
Yeah, this is pretty much along the lines of what I was getting at with the maneuvers idea, but without necessarily needing to spend a feat on it. It's a relatively specialized situation that you aren't going to get to use all the time, but it's nice to have around. With the maneuvers concept, 17 Str + Improved Grapple + Throw anything = "I can throw a dude", rather than "I qualify to buy a feat to throw a dude".
Stuff like that might encourage players to take some of the more "off the beaten path" feats in order to qualify for a wider variety of combat stunts.
Not a help , as far as I can tell the barbarian should have the same amount as the fighter,or less really if ya want to get down to it. But as skill reworking is not something that can really be covered for the APG it's kinda a moot point...I almost hope Paizo reprints the Academy Trained fighter feat (from the Campaign HC) in the APG to get people to shut up about the lack if skill points.+1
But as has been covered already minor variant classes could very well be included. My apologies what I meant was variant class option, not a feat per-say.
Fighters are required to take somewhere between six and ten feats over 20 levels to do level-appropriate damage and not die, depending on fighting style. (WF, WS, GWF, GWS, Iron Will, then your fighting style feats.) At most levels, this means the bulk of, if not the entirety of, your fighter feats are sunk into contributing extra damage to an attack routine.
Nobody else has this problem. Unless you're trying to fit archery into a class other than ranger, you're generally looking about about 2-3 feats tops to get your combat style working. (TWF needs TWF/ITWF/DS, 2h needs PA and not much). So grafting on new abilities via feats not only doesn't power up the fighter, but unless those feats are fighter only they power up other classes even more.
Somethings been nagging at my brain. A fighter gets 10 feats (9 if you go a Thug or Academy variants) over 20 levels as a part of their class specifically to build that combat style. Other classes, save perhaps Rogue and Ranger, must use some their Character Level feats (the 10 you get) to enhance their damage output. Why should it not be unreasonable to expect a Fighter to be required to spend Character feats on options to do "other things" besides combat.
The only rough patch there is that the Core book does not have many options for that, which could very well be something to address in other products, and the APG if not to late.
|
|
A whole bunch of awesome...
Really great post.
I'm a fan of the idea of adding more abilities to weapon training and I think there is a great use for feats to dovetail the idea together. Some thing like:
Master of Smash
Prerequisite: Two levels of weapon training in axes or hammers
When making an attack action with an axe or hammer, if you beat your opponents AC by 5 or more you may add your Con bonus to damage.
Whirling Flail
Prerequisite: Two levels of weapon training in Flail
When making an attack action with a flail, if you beat your opponents AC by 5 or more you may make a free trip attack.
|
|
The one thing fighters do well is damage. PF at least fixed that, and they don't need more of it. Adding +damage to the thing you do already only traps fighters even more inescapably in making full attacks and doing nothing else.
Give fighters more scaling things to do, in and out of combat, instead of buffing the boring thing they do all the time right now.
I don't disagree with you which is why I added Whirling Flail. I'm just spitballing here. Probably the better version of that feat would be one for Hammers that make the opponent Shaken if you beat AC by 5 and one for Axes and Heavy Blades that drops the opponents AC by 2 to the Fighters attacks if you beat the AC by x. Status effects are better than straight damage.
But that's still an automatic occurrence that makes attacking better, to be sure, a bit more interesting, but its only a tactical decision in terms of deciding what weapon group to specialize in to qualify for the feat. It would be nicer to allow some actual tactical decisions in the same way that a Wizard could Haste, Fireball, or Stinking Cloud depending on a given situation and expend identical resources.
Hey folks -- Andrew Troemner here. Got myself a pretty little alias for messageboarding :D
The issue is, it's not about "spells" and it's not about what is and is not "supernatural." It's about established tropes, and the fighter languishes under the trope of "Big dumb worthless footsoldier." You already have superhuman strength - literally, strength that normal humans do not naturally attain. You have fighting abilities that ordinary peasants have never even imagined. And yet you cry "no supernatural!" to things? Every D&D class abandons reality rather quickly, but only the fighter is given the...
Well, about fighter tropes, I can think of many -- pit fighter, weapon master, archer, chivalrous knight, warrior-prince, and so on and so forth. Heck, we don't have to look very far in terms of splatbooks to find dozens of nonmagical fighter variants which stylistically try to hit one particular "sweet spot" of fighter canon.
Fighters represent the pinnacle of extraordinary weapons training, which can be manifested in many different ways. If anything, though, I would complain that fighters are TOO customizable, and many books lay down feats without any kind of advice on builds for how to achieve the desired goal. Feats, as I see them, were a kind of "patch" for fighter abilities that weren't pegged down to any particular class attribute. Consider the PFRPG listing for the fighter class -- it's barely three pages by itself, and a massive amount of the chart is used to detail when a fighter gets his next feat. Where are the bloodline-like customizable packages? Where are the fighter domains? Where are the fighter tricks, the weapon evolutions? We might very well list two dozen new fighter feats in a supplement, but we never spend any page space to discuss how they relate to each other or to established fighter builds. Heck, to get any of the flavor, we turn to PrC's as a sort of patch to give us the extra "oomf" we were waiting for!
Compare this to, say, the rogue, which represents the extraordinary peak of sneaky bastardhood. The rogue gets plenty of additional class abilities, like trapfinding or evasion, which gives it a significantly greater flavor than any other class, as well as giving it quite a few exclusive powers or near-exclusive powers. Comparatively, there are extremely few combat feats (i.e. fighter bonus feats) that can't be taken by others (because they require fighter classes). It just makes the fighter seem like the dumping ground for those who want to hit stuff with big things and make them go dead.
I don't think magic is bad, per se, but I'm of the opinion that you can make an extraordinary character with, uh, only extraordinary abilities. 3.5 rogue certainly did this, and did it well enough for nobody to complain, while the same is not true of the fighter. Is it simply because the fighter's core mechanics are just that big of a holdover from the halcyon days of wargaming?
As an aside, yes, having different weapons do special things--especially in the hands of an experienced Fighter--would be nice. It might be the excuse we need to bring back the three dozen or so varieties of pole-arm...
When I think of a fighter, I typically think of a weaponmaster loaded to the hilt with different weapons. Fighting golems, eh? Well, this maul will certainly give 'em a run for their money. Hunting dire boars? We should probably load up on spears then. Skeletons giving you trouble? Try this mace on for size. Need to ride-by attack half a dozen enemies or so? The warhammer might be just right up your alley, friend. Different weapons were developed historically for different situations, so by golly the mechanics should at least favor people using them for the roles they were intended for!
I love the greatsword mechanic: tightly-packed groups (like in a spear formation) get scattered easily, maybe because greatswords grant free access to the cleave feat (or great cleave, if you already have cleave, etc. etc.)?
I think this system needs to be explored a little more thoroughly. TO THE PLAYTESTERS! *zoom!*
As to the non-combat options (or lack thereof) that Fighters have, I've also always thought that the mechanics failed to support their potential as "leaders of men" (or women/elves/dwarves/halflings/orcs/etc.) as demonstrated by literature and history. What about military officers and warrior-kings? I guess one could assume they took a level or two as Aristocrats in order to pick up some Diplomacy and Know (Nobility), but that never sat right with me. The Academy Trained feat that has been mentioned seems to cover this pretty well, but I'd have to take a closer look at it myself.
I'd be in favor of granting free access to Leadership when a fighter hits 7th level. That seems to envelope the whole "leader of men" trope quite handily.
Fighters represent the pinnacle of extraordinary weapons training, which can be manifested in many different ways. If anything, though, I would complain that fighters are TOO customizable, and many books lay down feats without any kind of advice on builds for how to achieve the desired goal. Feats, as I see them, were a kind of "patch" for fighter abilities that weren't pegged down to any particular class attribute. Consider the PFRPG listing for the fighter class -- it's barely three pages by itself, and a massive amount of the chart is used to detail when a fighter gets his next feat. Where are the bloodline-like customizable packages? Where are the fighter domains? Where are the fighter tricks, the weapon evolutions? We might very well list two dozen new fighter feats in a supplement, but we never spend any page space to discuss how they relate to each other or to established fighter builds. Heck, to get any of the flavor, we turn to PrC's as a sort of patch to give us the extra "oomf" we were waiting for!
Yeah, the issue with the fighter feats is that, other then the weapon specialization line (which is really boring, just bland modifiers), there's what...three other fighter prerequisite feats? Four? Sure, they get a ton of feats - but feats are something that EVERY class gets. Fighters need something that's "fighters only," and it should be something iconic. Paladins have smite and detect evil. Rangers have tracking and animal companion. The various spellcasters have, well, their spells. Bards get bardic lore and performances. Fighters need their own really cool "Fighters only" thing.
I totally agree that I love the idea of a fighter carrying multiple weapons - one for every needed occasion. I think the only issue there is with specialization encouragement - both the weapon specialization line of feats, and the at times push to have only one weapon so it can be enchanted even better. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the latter, though one of my friends once came up with the idea of a sort of psuedo Rod of Lordly Might - a rod that could turn into three or four different weapons, and the rod itself could be enchanted, with that enchantment moving into whatever weapon it became.
As for Leadership, the biggest issue there is simply the whole "Charisma as a dump stat" thing. Fighters don't have a single charisma skill in their class list. One idea would be for one of the academies - the diplomacy one, for example - to maybe give a bonus to charisma checks (including leadership) as you level in the fighter class. Fighters could keep their charisma at a somewhat comfortable 10, and replace the idea of natural talent in leadership with more of a trained eye on how to lead.
Yeah, the issue with the fighter feats is that, other then the weapon specialization line (which is really boring, just bland modifiers), there's what...three other fighter prerequisite feats? Four? Sure, they get a ton of feats - but feats are something that EVERY class gets. Fighters need something that's "fighters only," and it should be something iconic. Paladins have smite and detect evil. Rangers have tracking and animal companion. The various spellcasters have, well, their spells. Bards get bardic lore and performances. Fighters need their own really cool "Fighters only" thing.
The only thing I can imagine is bonded weapons, sort of like the Kensai, but that's already been done with the Paladin... :'(
If anything, I would complain that the fighter gets dumped the most with generalist crap, even more than the Bard. Even the Bard gets supermondocool stuff like Bardic Music or Bardic Knowledge.
I would love, love, LOVE to see a point pool for fighters, sort of like the monk's ki pool or the cleric's channeling pool. Maybe it could allow them to do cool stuff, like completely shrugging off the damage from a giant, or making an absolutely impossible shot (maybe +10 to attack?), or successfully grappling a gigantic creature (anyone ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh, where Gilgamesh wrestles with a forty-foot tall ox -- and WINS?!). Maybe that'd be too unbalancing, so they could only do it once a day or once an encounter. Dunno, it's an IDEA, and at an alpha stage of playtesting (wink wink), there's no good or bad ideas, they're just IDEAS. It's just that that's what I imagine an iconic, badass fighter who's completely maxed out would be able to do. What other class could, idunno, grapple the ancient red dragon solely through personal prowess and strength of resolve and body?
I totally agree that I love the idea of a fighter carrying multiple weapons - one for every needed occasion.
Heck, I imagine them easily being able to switch between accuracy, defense, and damage. Got a big ugly thing that's easy to hit? Power Attack it into a hole. Got a big ugly you're trying to keep away from the spellcaster? use Combat Expertise + Total Defense to bulk up your AC to the desired effect. If anything, the Fighter should be able to freely move around his copious bonuses to where he needs it right then and there.
I think the only issue there is with specialization encouragement - both the weapon specialization line of feats, and the at times push to have only one weapon so it can be enchanted even better. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the latter, though one of my friends once came...
Hrm... maybe a bonded weapon that has secondary effects? For example, maybe a bonded Firebrand also gives a smaller enhancement bonus when the fighter draws a different weapon, giving him greater flexibility with his weapons but still having a "signature" preferred weapon.
One idea would be for one of the academies - the diplomacy one, for example - to maybe give a bonus to charisma checks (including leadership) as you level in the fighter class.
Leader of Men (Ex): Apply your fighter class level as a competence bonus to your leadership score.
One idea would be for one of the academies - the diplomacy one, for example - to maybe give a bonus to charisma checks (including leadership) as you level in the fighter class.Leader of Men (Ex): Apply your fighter class level as a competence bonus to your leadership score.
I like this very much.
Would lifting aspects of Warlord -- if not for main class then for kits -- be appropriate and/or meaningful for the fighter build?
Gross Goethe, I feel like an official WOTC (Edit: PAIZO!) playtester ^_^
I allow fighters to make a will save as a standard action to gain "combat focus," the way psychic warriors could obtain "psionic focus" in 3.5. Then you can give them access to psionic feats from the SRD like Psionic Weapon (not very interesting), Deep Impact (very useful), Mind Over Body, Aligned Attack, Psionic Charge, etc. Just change the names from "Psionic" to "Focused."
Some sort of action point system exclusive to the Fighter might work here. Something to allow the Fighter a better chance to pull off a 1/1,000,000 type of move, without being explicitly magical or supernatural.
That's how I sees it. I'm also hankerin' for a metamagic point pool for wizards, but I'll bide my time till that comes to fruition.
I allow fighters to make a will save as a standard action to gain "combat focus," the way psychic warriors could obtain "psionic focus" in 3.5. Then you can give them access to psionic feats from the SRD like Psionic Weapon (not very interesting), Deep Impact (very useful), Mind Over Body, Aligned Attack, Psionic Charge, etc. Just change the names from "Psionic" to "Focused."
I cringed until I read the last sentence XD
I can totally see an archer-fighter biding his time to concentrate fully on his target, and then make an impossible roll. Maybe the combination of 1 use / encounter plus having to take a full round to access it then another standard action in the next round to make it go off might be a good balance.
"Valros spit a bloody tooth to the ground as he stood up. The mighty red wyrm had knocked him down, but today (and for all the future days he could foresee), he would keep getting up. Sheathing his sword and cracking his knuckles, he locked eyes with the fiercesome beast. 'All right, you want some? Come get it!' As he let out a massive warcry, he leaped into the air and onto the back of the dragon, and with his arms locked into position, the talented young fighter pinned the ancient serpent's wing to its back. 'You won't be getting away from me that easily!' "
Thoughts? Maybe a single mechanic for similar buffs to allies, with a name like Warcry?
Gods, I can't read this whole thing, so forgive me. Nothing seems to stir it up like our beloved man-in-the-trenches, the fighter. So simple, yet oh-so-complex because of it. Looks like a thread from back in the PF beta. Everyone has their opinion about what a fighter should be like, and each has the evidence to back up their point.
I like 'em in PF, 'nuff said about that.
As for "lack of social skills", if your fighter is sitting playing a video game while you are running, that's on YOU the GM. Not the fact he's a fighter with 2 skill points per level. Give him something to do to help the group while the "Face" is talking. BSing and arm wrestling with the off-duty guards while the rest are talking to the King? Drinking contest to keep the henchman busy? Dazzling the harem girls with the collection of scars while the rogue "apprehends" the noble's daughter?
Sorry if I missed the "skills" involved with those examples. And don't tell me "well Old Guy, those are obviously Intimidate, Con, and Bluff checks". The idea is to get that person with the combat machine back to the table and having fun in a non-combat situation.
|
|
I don't know 4e too well, so I can't fully address it. But if people are asking for styles of fighting, kinda like a ranger's choice in TWF or ranged, isn't that going down a 4e path? I don't have a problem with this, but many people would.
The way I see it, instead of feats, the fighter can take 1 of 5 (or whatever would be right) paths of the fighter. He can go weapons master, leader of men, gladiator, etc.. From those paths, the overall class can give different benefits. Many games do this, video games or otherwise.
Or perhaps a fighting style, like heavy infantry, skirmisher, ranged, etc.. I know that was the idea back when 3.0 came out, but instead of using feats, use abilities instead. Players like abilities more, that is clear. Hence the love for prestige classes and/or non-fighters. Abilities are not only more powerful and special, they are more unique to a class. Anybody can get feats, so fighter only feats still give players the feeling of "it's still a feat".
I don't know 4e too well, so I can't fully address it. But if people are asking for styles of fighting, kinda like a ranger's choice in TWF or ranged, isn't that going down a 4e path? I don't have a problem with this, but many people would.
The way I see it, instead of feats, the fighter can take 1 of 5 (or whatever would be right) paths of the fighter. He can go weapons master, leader of men, gladiator, etc.. From those paths, the overall class can give different benefits. Many games do this, video games or otherwise.
Or perhaps a fighting style, like heavy infantry, skirmisher, ranged, etc.. I know that was the idea back when 3.0 came out, but instead of using feats, use abilities instead. Players like abilities more, that is clear. Hence the love for prestige classes and/or non-fighters. Abilities are not only more powerful and special, they are more unique to a class. Anybody can get feats, so fighter only feats still give players the feeling of "it's still a feat".
Well, it depends.
I think there are two groups: one that will decry any changes, ever, at anything, as being "too 4e for them," even if it has nothing to do with 4e. They are similar to the group that claims everything is "magic" if the fighter does anything other then charge and full attack.
The complaint with 4e regarding fighters is rooted less in fighters, and more in the Powers system, wherein ALL classes have a set of at wills, per encounters, and per day powers they can use. The issue people have had there is simply "Wait, why can the fighter only do this once per encounter?"
Really, the per-encounter thing is what I think is the big "Wait what" for people. Daily abilities already existed in the form of barbarian rages or paladin smites, and at-wills are literally just "Whenever you want to" such as, say, trip or bull rush (to use an example). Abilities that can only be once per encounter cause people to pause.
That said, I'm one of those Tome of Battle fans who LIKE abilities that refresh each encounter, so HEYOOOOO.
Gods, I can't read this whole thing, so forgive me. Nothing seems to stir it up like our beloved man-in-the-trenches, the fighter. So simple, yet oh-so-complex because of it. Looks like a thread from back in the PF beta. Everyone has their opinion about what a fighter should be like, and each has the evidence to back up their point.
I like 'em in PF, 'nuff said about that.
As for "lack of social skills", if your fighter is sitting playing a video game while you are running, that's on YOU the GM. Not the fact he's a fighter with 2 skill points per level. Give him something to do to help the group while the "Face" is talking. BSing and arm wrestling with the off-duty guards while the rest are talking to the King? Drinking contest to keep the henchman busy? Dazzling the harem girls with the collection of scars while the rogue "apprehends" the noble's daughter?
Sorry if I missed the "skills" involved with those examples. And don't tell me "well Old Guy, those are obviously Intimidate, Con, and Bluff checks". The idea is to get that person with the combat machine back to the table and having fun in a non-combat situation.
Problem is, your suggestion is more or less "Just make something up to placate the fighter while the others play the game." The fighter is still leaving the game, only now he's writing fanfiction about himself instead of playing video games. That, and the bard can do all of that (except maybe the arm wrestling), only better.
Oh, I suppose you could have him roll for skills, but with 2+int (A stat fighters don't need past 13, if that)? He's not going to be able to do much.
Fighter needs something he can stake as his own, and it needs to be something outside of hitting bad guys with a stick, because EVERY class can hit bad guys with a stick.
Somethings been nagging at my brain. A fighter gets 10 feats (9 if you go a Thug or Academy variants) over 20 levels as a part of their class specifically to build that combat style. Other classes, save perhaps Rogue and Ranger, must use some their Character Level feats (the 10 you get) to enhance their damage output. Why should it not be unreasonable to expect a Fighter to be required to spend Character feats on options to do "other things" besides combat.I was piercing the myth that fighters have lots of feats that they can spend on new combat styles or non-combat business.
Let's take two characters: a TWFing fighter, and a TWFing paladin.
The fighter's required feats to do his job:
1: TWF
2: DS
3: WF
4: WSpec
5: PA
6: ITWF
7: Iron Will
8: GWF
9: Imp. Iron Will
10: (blank combat)
11: TW Rend
12: GWSpec...
MIB, I disagree that either WSpec or Iron will are needed in every fighter build. Get rid of those, and you can go down any 2 other feat chains, something the Paladin can never hope to do. Many feats will grant him better control over the battlefield, rather than just dishing out more damage.
|
|
MIB, I disagree that either WSpec or Iron will are needed in every fighter build. Get rid of those, and you can go down any 2 other feat chains, something the Paladin can never hope to do. Many feats will grant him better control over the battlefield, rather than just dishing out more damage.
[sarcasm]No, you're right, the Fighter should be entirely susceptible to save or sucks. Getting a decent will save is dumb.[/sarcasm]
I'm not terribly impressed with the combat maneuvers. The ones after Power Attack are only so so. Bull Rush is dumb. Overrun is decent but unless you have reliable ways to enlarge yourself you won't be able to run down the big boys. Sunder has decent applications against non-monsters
but you need to plan on sinking the cash into an adamantine weapon.
Improved Trip, Feint, and Disarm all come after Combat Expertise, a nearly impossible feat to get and still be good at fighting.
Improved Grapple would be nice but you need to sink a feat into Improved Unarmed which is borderline useless.
So for a bit of subpar to uninteresting variety you would sacrifice feats that definitely do something all the time?