Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Also I am confused with how a class being a professional warrior doesn't fit a wide variety of character concepts. Since when did the wizard's color spray spell affect his personality?Character concept is more than personality. Everyone in the party is a professional warrior; I am incensed that the Fighter class is nothing else. That isn't balanced with the rest of the party (each of whom fights competently and also solves other problems), and it doesn't mirror any other form of fiction, historical or contemporary, western or eastern.
When the fighting man class doesn't include Boromir, Fafhrd, Musashi, Paris, Cu Chulainn, Ogami Itto, Ichigo Kurosaki, Conan, Thorin, Hercules, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Cloud, King Arthur, or Leonidas, I wonder what exactly it is intended to emulate. When the support for making those characters is kludgey or non-existent, I wonder where we lost the thread. When the characters we can make with the class, like Caramon and Gimli, are the comic relief, I know that something has gone wrong.
I keep getting the feeling that you want something like the opening scene to samurai 7 (not 7 samurai, the classic film, but samurai 7, the steam punk anime based off it) where one guy jumps off the nose of an airship onto another one, cutting through some on the way down, then swings his sword and kills dozens of guards in power armor with 1 stroke. Later he is seen reminiscing about how he lost that battle...
That is entirely what I don't want the fighter class to become.
I don't think that's true at all.
If anything, I think the "fighters need more" crowd wants to see fighters have cool options like their closest relatives in the fighting department: barbarians.
Some would think that barbs don't get enough either, but as a minimum, why couldn't the fighter emulate with "grit, will to succeed, veteran savvy, and martial precision" the kinds of things a barbarian can do with "100% concentrated RAGE"!
Honestly, is anything a barbarian does with rage points excessively magical or supernatural or otherwise beyond the rational conception of human capacity? Not really (other than just being REALLY REALLY strong with something like Strength Surge).
So, why shouldn't the fighter be able to perform martial stunts, tricks, exploits, triumphs, or otherwise awesome tricks that are completely possible in the Hollywood sense.
Here's the analogy: People don't want fighters to be the Incredible Hulk. They want fighters to be Jack Bauer.
BTW, the reason fighters DON'T have expendable class resources is a simple one: For PF, Paizo wanted at least one class that would be free of resource management at the table (you could argue rogues go here too). Sure you have to pick your feats, but once you do it's fire and forget, either constant effects or else binary yes/no choices (see Power Attack and Combat Expertise; even those are no longer resource-management judgment calls but simple on/off toggles).
Also I am confused with how a class being a professional warrior doesn't fit a wide variety of character concepts. Since when did the wizard's color spray spell affect his personality?Character concept is more than personality. Everyone in the party is a professional warrior; I am incensed that the Fighter class is nothing else. That isn't balanced with the rest of the party (each of whom fights competently and also solves other problems), and it doesn't mirror any other form of fiction, historical or contemporary, western or eastern.
When the fighting man class doesn't include Boromir, Fafhrd, Musashi, Paris, Cu Chulainn, Ogami Itto, Ichigo Kurosaki, Conan, Thorin, Hercules, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Cloud, King Arthur, or Leonidas, I wonder what exactly it is intended to emulate. When the support for making those characters is kludgey or non-existent, I wonder where we lost the thread. When the characters we can make with the class, like Caramon and Gimli, are the comic relief, I know that something has gone wrong.
Please explain how you can't build several of these fictional characters with the fighter class. I don't know all of them, but I'll comment on the ones I do know:
Boromir - can definitely be built with the fighter
Conan - can definitely be built using fighter, but is more a barbarian/rogue IMO
Thorin - same as Boromir
Hercules - he's a demigod, more of a native outsider really, but he can definitely be made as a high level fighter (with magical items… even hercules had a magical cloak)
Obi Wan - his fighting prowess can be emulated with the fighter class, but not his mental abilities which would translate to magic
King Arthur - again, his fighting skill is definitely emulated by the class, but sure, not his leadership qualities (here is definitely an area where the fighter class should be expanded to include the possibility of being a leader amongst peers)
Leonidas - same as King Arthur
As I stated before, the fighter class can function well as is. He's balanced with regard to other melee classes in combat. I do agree with you however that the fighter can be "boring" in its mechanics which is a symptom of the feat trees. I think you hit the nail on the head when stating that the fighter class is the most open-ended in terms of character concept, but once the concept is formed, the class becomes very limited in scope of what it can actually do. In my experience, over the course of many levels (12+) a typical fighter can do about 2 or 3 things really well. Personal examples from our play:
Fighter 1: can soak amazing HP damage, grapple well and avoid being grappled (by level 16)
Fighter 2: amazing 2-weapon fighter, can streak across the battlefield avoiding AoOs, excellent saves (by level 19)
Fighter 3: Insane AC and defense, great HPs, excellent saves (by level 19)
Fighter 4: amazing amount of damage (by level 12)
Again, these are from my experience. What these guys did they were great at, but that is pretty much all they did. I did have a lot of fun playing them, but at times I did wish they had more shall I say, "mechanically supported options", even if those options were mediocre.
Also I am confused with how a class being a professional warrior doesn't fit a wide variety of character concepts. Since when did the wizard's color spray spell affect his personality?Character concept is more than personality. Everyone in the party is a professional warrior; I am incensed that the Fighter class is nothing else. That isn't balanced with the rest of the party (each of whom fights competently and also solves other problems), and it doesn't mirror any other form of fiction, historical or contemporary, western or eastern.
When the fighting man class doesn't include Boromir, Fafhrd, Musashi, Paris, Cu Chulainn, Ogami Itto, Ichigo Kurosaki, Conan, Thorin, Hercules, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Cloud, King Arthur, or Leonidas, I wonder what exactly it is intended to emulate. When the support for making those characters is kludgey or non-existent, I wonder where we lost the thread. When the characters we can make with the class, like Caramon and Gimli, are the comic relief, I know that something has gone wrong.
What do you want the fighter to do? I mean specifically? What would make the fighter better in you eyes?
Take King Arthur, what would make that concept workable as fighter class? Personally I think the fighter works better for that already. Ride is a class skill, armor training reduces you ACP, there is a bunch of mounted feats you can afford to take better than say a Cavalier. The Leadership feat fits the king part. What else is needed? I can see more class skills and skill points but using the Glorian campaign guide you can use you bonus feat to get 4 skills per level and access to Knowledge nobility as class skills along with a few others. That fits the King Arthur concept well.
Then take Robin Hood which some might say is ranger but I think he is more of fighter. He wasn't a woodsman and tracker with access to devine spells in my opinion. He was an archer and with weapon training and the archery feats the fighter is better than the ranger. Again the skill point help in the concept same as above. Taking leadership fit the merry men.
Leonidas is done by two weapon fighter which shield feats using the added skills and grabbing the Leadership feat.
Gimili I wouldn't classify as comic relief, the movie that but the books was quite different. I actually found that was of the most irritating parts of the movie. It's totally not how I pictured Gimli when reading the book.
The other characters though I don't know so can't say. One character I picture as fighter is that weapons masters from the Wishsong of Shanarra.
Now concept wise these are all possible. That's not the problem with the fighter in my opinion. The problem I have the fighter gets kind of boring after you played them for a while and by the time you get to level 12 it just more of the same. That's me though. I like a bit more utility in my characters and don't mind sacrificing combat effectiveness. Only I can usually do what I want better with another class other than fighter. Take my example of the stealthy fighter. I could do it and it wouldn't be bad but I could do it better with a ranger.
Continuing your train of thought, I keep mentioning Cu Chulainn, who cuts through mountains and grows to twice his size and singlehandedly turns aside stampedes and armies, but I guess Irish myth is too anime.
I personally wouldn't want new abilities that allowed the fighter to cut through mountains, or grow to twice his size. That is already covered in the game, by other classes. It would be cool for the fighter to be able to turn aside stampedes (at high level). They can already singlehandedly defeat armies or turn them aside (in a narrow gap… asking any class to be able to do it on an open battlefield would be a bit much).
Boromir - can definitely be built with the fighterLeaders of men and diplomats (of sorts), plus Leonidas is noted for surviving in the wilderness.
Well survival is fighter class skill so that makes sense there.
Any inspirational leader of men fits with the Leadership feat.
Now I do think when it comes to leadership more could be done beyond just a simple feat. Leadership gets you the cohort and followers but how about something to let those followers do better than they are. That's the inspirational part.
the problem conceptwise is that anyone can come up with any concept for it, however no mechanics support any given concept beyond a guy who hits hard.
Mechanically f I wanted to play a general I would be forced to play a Bard, and that is just not right.
Or you can play a high charisma fighter with a knowledge skill and leadership feat. You don't get to mechanically buff an army, but you can easily do the concept.
|
BTW, the reason fighters DON'T have expendable class resources is a simple one: For PF, Paizo wanted at least one class that would be free of resource management at the table (you could argue rogues go here too). Sure you have to pick your feats, but once you do it's fire and forget, either constant effects or else binary yes/no choices (see Power Attack and Combat Expertise; even those are no longer resource-management judgment calls but simple on/off toggles).
So what, they designed it to be a class for kids who can't handle the book keeping? I occasionally play with a fellow who has Asperger syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder that's generally fairly mild. He plays a Cleric. He isn't a good Cleric because he's also kind of a dick, but he manages his spells sometimes better than I do. I don't see the purpose of a class that has no expendable resources if it also makes a class that's mechanically uninteresting.
Now concept wise these are all possible. That's not the problem with the fighter in my opinion. The problem I have the fighter gets kind of boring after you played them for a while and by the time you get to level 12 it just more of the same. That's me though. I like a bit more utility in my characters and don't mind sacrificing combat effectiveness. Only I can usually do what I want better with another class other than fighter. Take my example of the stealthy fighter. I could do it and it wouldn't be bad but I could do it better with a ranger.
That is entirely the problem. Practically anything you want to do with a Fighter can be done better by another class. Hercules is probably better done by a Cleric with the Strength and Destruction or Battle domains. If you want to rock a 2hander, Paladin is probably a better class since the lack of AC is offset by swift action self healing. TWF is probably better done with a Ranger since their animal companion can flank or grapple opponents helping to offset the penalties for TWF and increase DPR.
The only reason I can think of to play a Fighter is pure flavor. Of the four classes without a spell casting component, Fighter is probably the best in terms of DPR with decent defenses. But its uninteresting. After a few levels a Fighter will start to see every other class pull away from him in terms of contributions to the group because even the classes with worse DPR than the Fighter will have out of combat uses like healing or social skills. The casting types will have buffs and debuffs and crowd control. But you'll just keep plodding along following Raistlin on his next adventure. Wait..I meant the party on their next adventure. Yeah...
Or you can play a high charisma fighter with a knowledge skill and leadership feat. You don't get to mechanically buff an army, but you can easily do the concept.the problem conceptwise is that anyone can come up with any concept for it, however no mechanics support any given concept beyond a guy who hits hard.
Mechanically f I wanted to play a general I would be forced to play a Bard, and that is just not right.
Also, you could go Paladin and grant all sorts of bonuses to those arround you.
Boromir - can definitely be built with the fighterInspirational leader of men
Thorin - same as BoromirInspirational leader of men and loremaster
A fighter can already be an inspirational leader of men equal to Boromir (Leadership, skill focus (diplomacy), don't dump Cha, etc.
Hercules - he's a demigod, more of a native outsider really, but he can definitely be made as a high level fighter (with magical items… even hercules had a magical cloak)
There isn't anything in the labors of Hercules that a PC shouldn't be able to do. It's probably too much for one class, but right now if it doesn't involve killing fighters can't do any of it.
In your opinion of course. Not IMO.
Obi Wan - his fighting prowess can be emulated with the fighter class, but not his mental abilities which would translate to magic.
Another loremaster with a ton of face skills. And why was it that we had a strictly non-magical class in a heroic fantasy game again?
Why must all classes be magical, even in a heroic fantasy game?
King Arthur - again, his fighting skill is definitely emulated by the class, but sure, not his leadership qualities (here is definitely an area where the fighter class should be expanded to include the possibility of being a leader amongst peers)[/qu
Leonidas - same as King ArthurLeaders of men and diplomats (of sorts), plus Leonidas is noted for surviving in the wilderness.
Leadership, put ranks in Diplomacy, Skill Focus Diplomacy, put ranks in Survival, Skill Focus Survival, etc. DC for getting along in the wild is only DC 10.
BTW, you listed four example fighters from your experience, and all of them were varying amounts of "do damage" and "not die."
I've already conceded this point and agree with you. In fact, I listed them to illustrate that I support the same opinion that the class could be improved to encompass more than just this role.
So far, I only see one solid argument you make: that the class is limited in its scope once you choose what that scope is. What are your solutions? What new class features, new feats would you like to see?
Ya know another middle ground I could see if folks are not happy with new feats or training is "talents" which much like rage powers could replace feats at 4th,8th,12th,16th and 20th if you wanted to
1 Talent
2 Combat feat, bravery+1
3 Armor training 1
4 TALENT
5 Weapon Training 1
6 FCombat feat, bravery +2
7 Armor training 2
8 tALENT
9 Weapon Training 2
10 Combat feat
11 Armor training 3
12 TALENT ,bravery +3
13 Weapon Training 3
14 Combat feat
15 Armor training 4
16 TALENT
17 Weapon Training 4
18 Combat feat,bravery +4
19 Armor Mastery
20 Talent/ weapon mastery
this way you may take talents like rage powers or rogue talents but have the option much like a rogue does to take a combat feat. This would not invalidate the current fighter as you could take the feat i place of a talent,but would add the options many folks crave
Ya know another middle ground I could see if folks are not happy with new feats or training is "talents" which much like rage powers could replace feats at 4th,8th,12th,16th and 20th if you wanted to
1 Talent
2 Combat feat, bravery+1
3 Armor training 1
4 TALENT
5 Weapon Training 1
6 FCombat feat, bravery +2
7 Armor training 2
8 tALENT
9 Weapon Training 2
10 Combat feat
11 Armor training 3
12 TALENT ,bravery +3
13 Weapon Training 3
14 Combat feat
15 Armor training 4
16 TALENT
17 Weapon Training 4
18 Combat feat,bravery +4
19 Armor Mastery
20 Talent/ weapon masterythis way you may take talents like rage powers or rogue talents but have the option much like a rogue does to take a combat feat. This would not invalidate the current fighter but would add the options many folks crave
Isn't that pretty much what fighter-only feats are?
pretty much yeah, but folks seem to be having an issue with calling em feats. folks seem to hate saying a feat can only be taken by a fighter, yet have zero issue if it's called a talent or rage power.
Thank you, Fighter Only feats can and in some cases should be equal to a class ability, because they are!
Okay here is a question. How does the fighter compare to the other Melee classes if none if them use their character feats to increase their damage output?
|
So I have to throw my only class feature into being something that toher classes get to be for free. I would have to be a mediocre (at best) warrior in order to be a good leader, or multiclass. That simply shouldn´t be.
Honestly, it feels right now as if the Fighter is a class fature instead of a class itself.
BTW, the reason fighters DON'T have expendable class resources is a simple one: For PF, Paizo wanted at least one class that would be free of resource management at the table (you could argue rogues go here too). Sure you have to pick your feats, but once you do it's fire and forget, either constant effects or else binary yes/no choices (see Power Attack and Combat Expertise; even those are no longer resource-management judgment calls but simple on/off toggles).
I'm on board with you here, Jason. The fighter should remain a simple class to play IMO, which is one of its greatest appeals to many in my experience. I also agree with the sentiment that there is room for expansion to add variety to what the class can actually do (the often house-ruled 4 skill points per level is a perfect example), even if those options are mundane. Any expansion to the class should be simple in its implementation.
Isn't that pretty much what fighter-only feats are?What [Fighter] feats are there, pray tell? Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec/Focus are the only ones that come to mind.
Citical Mastery, Spellbreaker, Greater Shield Focus, Penetrating Strike. Most of those are extra boosts to the top end of a combat line.
|
Citical Mastery, Spellbreaker, Greater Shield Focus, Penetrating Strike. Most of those are extra boosts to the top end of a combat line.
Okay, those are a good start. I'm not enamored of them being at the end of feat chains, because then the fighter has to plan to take all those previous feats before that one.
It would be similar if the wizard had to take three specific spells before getting the one he wanted. Yes the fighter has more feats than other classes, but if he is forced to take three feats he doesn't want for every feat he does, realistically he has less that anyone else.
My solution to this is to drop feat prerequisites to at most one feat. Then have everything keyed off of character level or BAB for fighter only stuff. Fighters get them sooner than lower BAB characters, and you never get an ability before it is appropriate for your level.
I don't want Anime, but I'd like to see high-level fighters at least be able to do things that low-level soldiers and warriors in real life can do. Musashi, by all accounts, had something like the Frightful Presence ability at the very least. Rather than adding that at the end of a Dazzling Display feat chain that chews up half his resources, allowing it as a class feature would make more sense.
As a side note, the only exception I have to the other examples MIB listed is that the barbarian class fits Cu Chulainn better than the fighter, in my opinion -- "warp-spasms" (rage ability), "salmon leap" (isn't there a rage power that gives a hug Jump bonus?), etc.
|
|
So I have to throw my only class feature into being something that toher classes get to be for free. I would have to be a mediocre (at best) warrior in order to be a good leader, or multiclass. That simply shouldn´t be.
You point out exactly the problem with Feats as a class feature for the Fighter.
In your first 15 levels (the duration that probably 70-90% of gamers finish at or around), a Fighter must spend over a third (6/16) of his feats on the must haves. Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Spec, Iron Will, Improved Iron Will. Without Focus and Spec, he'll probably be doing less damage on average than a Paladin. Without Iron Will and it's improved buddy, he's terribly vulnerable to spells. If the Fighter wanted to be safer from Reflex save based spells, he might also consider the Lightning Reflexes tree. If he wants to be decent at out of combat interactions, you'll need to but at least one more feat into it just to match the Paladin, more to get near a Ranger.
Bonus feats are not a real bonus if all they do is bring you up to par with other classes
Isn't that pretty much what fighter-only feats are?What [Fighter] feats are there, pray tell? Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec/Focus are the only ones that come to mind.
There's also:
Critical MasteryDisruptive
Spellbreaker
Greater Shield Focus
Penetrating Strike
Greater Penetrating Strike
Personally, I wouldn't want to see these as class features (except maybe a variation of Critical Mastery), as this would limit them conceptually into a situation where every fighter concept would be about these… and that is not what the design of the class strives to capture.
If the fighter gains new class features, they should be broad in scope and make sense with the majority of warrior concepts, which is hard to do. It works with Weapon Training for instance, because most people will agree that all warriors would excel there. However, it does not work so well with giving the class a class feature that allows them to be leaders, as not all warrior archetypes are leader-like. I think an alternate class feature for the fighter would ideally sort of function like the ranger's combat style… where you get a list of avenues to pursue, rather than be pigeonholed into just one. Also, the "list of avenues" should not be related to combat styles (TWF, 2HF, S&B) as this just encourages more of the "fighter being good at hurting things", but rather something else, like:
-being a leader
-being an anti spell fighter
-being a beast-slayer (able to ward off several things huge and larger, high CR creatures can do)
-being combat maneuver specialist
-being skilled in many areas/problem solver (i.e more skill points)
-being a real defender (not just having a good personal defense)
The Leadership feat doesn't make you an inspirational leader of men. It just gives you a bunch of men to lead. Yes, you can kludge some weak attempts to add other schticks to the fighter class. Again, it's not a fighter schtick if a commoner of the same level does it just as well.
Obi-Wan Kenobi and King Arthur are not mediocre diplomats. Ogami Itto and Miyamoto Musashi should not be capped at giving a bunch of dudes -2 to hit and saves. Boromir should be able to give some benefit to the army at his back. Being just okay at something isn't heroic.
Again opinions. But the point is made. You can make those character concepts. Leadership does make you a leader of men… you do get men and you do lead them. It may not fit your concept of what an inspiring leader is, however. I can see room to give the fighter the option of becoming more "inspiring" as you suggest, but it shouldn't step on the toes of the Bard, which is one of that class's main concepts.
As for mediocre diplomats, what are you wanting anyway? The fighter to be the bard? Would adding Diplomacy as a class skill suffice for you or is that not enough?
That is entirely the problem. Practically anything you want to do with a Fighter can be done better by another class. Hercules is probably better done by a Cleric with the Strength and Destruction or Battle domains.
I think that shows another problem. You're right you could probably do Hercules better with a Cleric. Problem is you're Cleric and Hercules is not a Cleric. It's like I can make the concept easy enough with a cleric but I have these extra power that just don't make sense. Like Channel energy. So what I have is taking a Cleric for the Domain power but not for the spells or channel ability. Wouldn't domain style powers on a martial class with out spells and such be good? I think it might. I might actually try design a base class like that.
|
|
I think that shows another problem. You're right you could probably do Hercules better with a Cleric. Problem is you're Cleric and Hercules is not a Cleric. It's like I can make the concept easy enough with a cleric but I have these extra power that just don't make sense. Like Channel energy. So what I have is taking a Cleric for the Domain power but not for the spells or channel ability. Wouldn't domain style powers on a martial class with out spells and such be good? I think it might. I might actually try design a base class like that.
Well, I guess I just meant a herculean PC. A fellow capable of immense feats of strength. You can do it with a Cleric better than or equal to a Fighter and still keep all those extra goodies.
Because that's what they are. When I'm looking to build a character these days, I take a general idea like superhuman strength or an obsession with blood and see what classes I can make do that. I can do either of those with a Fighter but if I do it with a Cleric I get to do so much more than just hit a guy with a stick. I haven't playtested the Inquisitor or made much of a study of it but I suspect I could also play out those general ideas with that class and exceed the Fighters usefulness.
There is no niche that the Fighter fills except simplicity. Someone way, way back in this thread called the Fighter "conservative and reliable." I don't see how that's particularly true. The Paladin will do nearly as much damage and much, much more against a BBEG. And in terms of reliability, the bonus to saves and ability to heal makes him exceed the Fighter completely.
This is a game of spaceships and the fighter is a Buick, and no, strapping a booster rocket to it doesn't fix that, and you shouldn't let the car enthusiasts stop you from replacing it.
That's maybe a tiny bit harsh. The Fighter is more like a Maserati. Really nice, but still woefully earthbound. =)
Well to offer some ideas:
I can see an Advanced Player's Guide expanding the fighter class with new features. Going slightly against what I recently said, I wouldn't mind if it even made the class a little more complicated to play as it is an "Advanced" guide after all (and as long as the core version remains simple). Some suggested parameters:
1) It could work by allowing the player to take an alternate class feature at any/all odd levels after 1st (with each class feature providing a scaling ability/new ability every 4 levels from the point at which it is picked), just as Weapon and Armor training have been implemented. So in other words, if you picked "leader of men" as your class feature at 13th level, you would only gain its second "boost" at 17th and nothing else (you should have picked it earlier for the additional benefits).
2) Each class feature would provide 2 to 4 abilities as level rises, and in many cases add new skills as class skills, and/or a free feat.
3) The alternate class features would primarily function as rules to help players simulate various warrior archetypes from history.
4) They could be written in similar fashion to Domains for clerics or bloodlines for sorcerers.
Two obvious ones are making the current fighter class features work along these lines: Weapon Training and Armor Training. I won't get into specifics of what each class feature actually does since that isn't my cup of tea.
So for a list of class features:
1. Weapon Master (Weapon Training)
2. Armor Master (Armor Training)
3. Great Leader
4. …
I encourage everyone to add to the list and write what the abilities would be :)
Again opinions. But the point is made. You can make those character concepts. Leadership does make you a leader of men… you do get men and you do lead them. It may not fit your concept of what an inspiring leader is, however. I can see room to give the fighter the option of becoming more "inspiring" as you suggest, but it shouldn't step on the toes of the Bard, which is one of that class's main concepts.
As for mediocre diplomats, what are you wanting anyway? The fighter to be the bard? Would adding Diplomacy as a class skill suffice for you or is that not enough?
You have a terribly limited idea of what a leader of men or a diplomat could be. Can you imagine a class that starts with R. Lee Ermey, levels up into Boromir/Leonidas, then into King Arthur? That's not just the Leadership feat and Diplomacy as a class skill, any more than the Minor and Major Magic talents turn a rogue into a wizard.
Bolting on some weak effects (especially ones that anyone or near-anyone can take) is fundamentally different from making a new class that doesn't have a bankrupt concept. This is a game of spaceships and the fighter is a Buick, and no, strapping a booster rocket to it doesn't fix that, and you shouldn't let the car enthusiasts stop you from replacing it.
No I don't. Its called the Bard or an Enchantment specialist or a Paladin, not the fighter. Obviously, adding Diplomacy is not enough for you. So what would you like to see? Mechanically speaking now, not conceptually. You provide many retorts, but no substantive solutions (that should balance well with other classes without stepping on their things).
Isn't that pretty much what fighter-only feats are?What [Fighter] feats are there, pray tell? Weapon Spec and Greater Weapon Spec/Focus are the only ones that come to mind.There's also:
Critical Mastery
Disruptive
Spellbreaker
Greater Shield Focus
Penetrating Strike
Greater Penetrating StrikePersonally, I wouldn't want to see these as class features (except maybe a variation of Critical Mastery), as this would limit them conceptually into a situation where every fighter concept would be about these… and that is not what the design of the class strives to capture.
If the fighter gains new class features, they should be broad in scope and make sense with the majority of warrior concepts, which is hard to do. It works with Weapon Training for instance, because most people will agree that all warriors would excel there. However, it does not work so well with giving the class a class feature that allows them to be leaders, as not all warrior archetypes are leader-like. I think an alternate class feature for the fighter would ideally sort of function like the ranger's combat style… where you get a list of avenues to pursue, rather than be pigeonholed into just one. Also, the "list of avenues" should not be related to combat styles (TWF, 2HF, S&B) as this just encourages more of the "fighter being good at hurting things", but rather something else, like:
-being a leader
-being an anti spell fighter
-being a beast-slayer (able to ward off several things huge and larger, high CR creatures can do)
-being combat maneuver specialist
-being skilled in many areas/problem solver (i.e more skill points)
-being a real defender (not just having a good personal defense)
There are already feats to cover almost al of those sugestions:
-being a leader -leadership + don't tank cha + points in diplomacy
-being an anti spell fighter -only fighter gets spellbreaker feat - I could see some form of counterspelling feat.
-being a beast-slayer (able to ward off several things huge and larger, high CR creatures can do) -fighters have the highest DPR-This is already the Ranger's niche. -Some feats to apply combat maneuvers to larger creatures would be cool.
-being combat maneuver specialist -did you see my build further up? The fighter gets more bonuses to combat manuevers than anyone else already, and can take the feats for multiple chains effectively.
-being skilled in many areas/problem solver (i.e more skill points)-There is a feat for that, its just core. It was mentioned further up.
-being a real defender (not just having a good personal defense) -I would like to see this added, and many people have mentioned it, so I would not be suprised to see it in the APG as a feat.
You point out exactly the problem with Feats as a class feature for the Fighter.
In your first 15 levels (the duration that probably 70-90% of gamers finish at or around), a Fighter must spend over a third (6/16) of his feats on the must haves. Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Spec, Iron Will, Improved Iron Will. Without Focus and Spec, he'll probably be doing less damage on average than a Paladin. Without Iron Will and it's improved buddy, he's terribly vulnerable to spells. If the Fighter wanted to be safer from Reflex save based spells, he might also consider the Lightning Reflexes tree. If he wants to be decent at out of combat interactions, you'll need to but at least one more feat into it just to match the Paladin, more to get near a Ranger.
Bonus feats are not a real bonus if all they do is bring you up to par with other classes
Fighters don't need to buy those feats. They can get good enough DPR without them and get more utility elsewhere. That you spend 6 feats to get them all the time does not mean they are mandatory for others. Sure, it drops your DPR to about the same as a paladin, but you have more versatility.
|
|
Fighters don't need to buy those feats. They can get good enough DPR without them and get more utility elsewhere. That you spend 6 feats to get them all the time does not mean they are mandatory for others. Sure, it drops your DPR to about the same as a paladin, but you have more versatility.
Probably less DPR than a Paladin taken as an average across a game or two because of Smite and the self buffs available to the Paladin.
You won't really have versatility either. You might have some combat maneuvers as you showed upthread but those are circumstantial benefits. You can have some skill focus feats and such but you have no stat synergy so if you want to support them you're putting stat points (I know you roll but not everyone does) into stats that will take away from your fighting ability.
Compare that to Ranger and Paladin who get to do damage, have worthwhile skills and class features in and out of combat, better saves, and get some generally crappy but occasionally useful spells. Just because you can do a half decent clone of a class with Fighter doesn't make you as useful as a class that does this stuff for real.
anime
anime
anime
Lot of really, really stupid people here.
I already posted that anime isn't a genre, and claiming it as such is the height of idiocy. Why must you then prove me correct? :(
Nobody is asking fighters to be "magical." The problem is, Fighter has been less "master at arms, war hero, leader of men," and more "infantry grunt."
I understand that some people scream in horror at the thought of anyone making the fighter more then just "charge and full attack," or making the fighter, I dunno, worth taking, but get over yourselves. Some of us want fighters to be heroes and legends, not infantry grunts that are just quietly phased out at later levels.
The fighter isn't a simple class. Barbarian is a simple class - "Do I rage or not? If so, RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE! If not, wait." The fighter is a boring class. He's a class that has no options.
Let's look at the Fighter-prerequesite feats. They fall into two catagories.
1) +1 to a modifier!
2) Stand next to a spellcaster!
And that's it. Those are the only two types. Even then, there's only two of the second catagory - pretty much ALL of the Fighter feats are nothing more then taking another +1 on top.
Paladins gain multiple auras and the ability to smite enemies, lay on hands, and spells.
Rangers get animal companions, different fighting styles, and spells.
Rogues get sneak attack to encourage lots of in combat movement, a long list of varied talents, and way more skill points.
Fighter? Fighter gets some more +1 modifiers.
Yep, posting again. To emphasis something.
No matter what changes you make to fighter, someone will be mad. Not because the changes are good or bad, but because they actively hate the idea of fighters doing anything other then hitting the enemy with a stick. The cliche of "infantry grunt" has been implanted in their brain, hard, and that's that. And I really, really hope you like hyperbole.
Look at what ideas came up:
Heroic points that let you do heroic things, like perform great feats of strength, momentarily take on armies, become a beacon of defense, or rally your allies around you.
Look at their immidiate comparison:
Oh you just wanna be one of those ANEEMAY characters who jump a billion feet in the air and destroy a billion men in a single swing and has long floppish hair!
There is one - and only one - thing these two have in common: they change the fighter. And for them, ANY change to the fighter leads to that.
And no, it doesn't matter how many literary characters or historical legends you bring up that could do amazing feats of strength (Heracles), take on armies (Cu Chulainn), or become a sudden beacon of defense (any martial arms hero since forever). Their brain automatically hardwires everything into "But but but but, an infantry grunt can't do that!"
Monks can punch through armor. Rogues can climb up sheer walls. Barbarians can throw themselves into awesome rages of fury that make them machines of death. Rangers can track an enemy for miles, through fantastic and bizarre landscapes. Characters can shoot several arrows off a single bowstring. None of those are magical abilities.
But a fighter? Doing things?
That's just unrealistic.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
BTW, the reason fighters DON'T have expendable class resources is a simple one: For PF, Paizo wanted at least one class that would be free of resource management at the table (you could argue rogues go here too). Sure you have to pick your feats, but once you do it's fire and forget, either constant effects or else binary yes/no choices (see Power Attack and Combat Expertise; even those are no longer resource-management judgment calls but simple on/off toggles).So what, they designed it to be a class for kids who can't handle the book keeping? I occasionally play with a fellow who has Asperger syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder that's generally fairly mild. He plays a Cleric. He isn't a good Cleric because he's also kind of a dick, but he manages his spells sometimes better than I do. I don't see the purpose of a class that has no expendable resources if it also makes a class that's mechanically uninteresting.
"Handling the bookkeeping" doesn't enter the equation. "Enjoying the bookkeeping" (or not) is the key point.
Market research in the gaming biz over the decades has demonstrated that there is a subset of players who *LIKE* to have a simple character option, one that doesn't require a lot of rule-balancing during play. They like playing D&D but don't feel the same joy at spreadsheeting their character's abilities (to wax hyperbolic) that many of us do. Shoot, just look back at the alpha and beta playtest threads and the degree of opposition there was to rage points for barbarians, not because the math was somehow inscrutable, but because of sentiments like, "If I'm playing a barbarian, I don't want to have a bookkeeping kind of mechanic, because I just don't like the feel of it." (though you can argue, of course, that keeping track of ROUNDS of rage vs. POINTS of rage is no different)
These folks aren't the majority, but they aren't a nonexistent group either. When creating a game to appeal to the population of all likely consumers of your RPG product, when you know that a portion of your clientele prefers a particular option for using it (in this case, a mechanically simple class in an RPG), it makes sense to include that as an option.
The people who enjoy bookkeeping and resource management won't like it, because they would rather have a more complex "fighter" character, but guess what, they have 10 other base classes to choose from (9 if you count rogue as "simple").
As a publisher, it's not an indefensible position to include an option that appeals to a minority of your gamers in order to satisfy that minority; the majority already gets the majority of the rules tilted to their tastes. Why choke on the fact that part of the rule set is designed to appeal to a different style of gamer than you? The fighter (and to a lesser extent the rogue) satisfy those players, which is what they are meant to do.
FWIW, I am a big fan of complex classes and have designed any number of fighter variants over the years. I think the triumph points concept is perfectly agreeable and also in keeping with the mechanical tropes of Pathfinder (ki points, rage rounds, bardic performance); I rather like it and might work something like this into a future campaign, though my players vary in their interest in pushing the envelope beyond the core rules.
Now concept wise these are all possible. That's not the problem with the fighter in my opinion. The problem I have the fighter gets kind of boring after you played them for a while and by the time you get to level 12 it just more of the same. That's me though. I like a bit more utility in my characters and don't mind sacrificing combat effectiveness. Only I can usually do what I want better with another class other than fighter. Take my example of the stealthy fighter. I could do it and it wouldn't be bad but I could do it better with a ranger.That is entirely the problem. Practically anything you want to do with a Fighter can be done better by another class.
It's true, certainly from the versatility standpoint.
I already posted that anime isn't a genre,
Well, like I said, if someone looked down on your paladin with disdain and went "Oh, he's one of those LITERARY type characters.," nobody could treat him with any respect, ever. But quite a few people here are doing exactly that.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
pretty much yeah, but folks seem to be having an issue with calling em feats. folks seem to hate saying a feat can only be taken by a fighter, yet have zero issue if it's called a talent or rage power.
The other advantage of calling them "talents/powers" instead of "feats" is that it makes it MUCH easier to scale them by level.
Most of a barbarian's rage powers get better with level, some at 1:1, some at 1:2, 1:4, 1:6, or whatever.
A fighter's feats don't.
Perhaps this is the "magic bullet" solution. If Weapon Specialization were a talent it could give you, for instance, a "+1 bonus to weapon damage, +1 per 4 levels," so your 20th level specialist is getting +6 damage, not still the same pokey +2 he got at 4th level, or +4 after he spent a second feat on it.
Dodge scales with level.
Intimidating or crowd control stuff.
Leadership as a fighter talent is perfect, or perhaps a feat to allow them to boost the number of followers they get so they could forge an actual ARMY.
Shoot, some form of "inspire courage" or "inspire greatness" as fighter talents are not completely unreasonable.
I think all of the "fighter only feats" would make very nice "fighter talents."
animeanimeanimeLot of really, really stupid people here.
I already posted that anime isn't a genre, and claiming it as such is the height of idiocy. Why must you then prove me correct? :(
Thats why I posted a specific anime that came to mind (and intended it jokingly, but it wasn't taken that way)
Nobody is asking fighters to be "magical." The problem is, Fighter has been less "master at arms, war hero, leader of men," and more "infantry grunt."
Except that is all in how you play it, and has very little to do with the abilities. And a number of feat ideas have been recommended to give more versatility in this regard
I understand that some people scream in horror at the thought of anyone making the fighter more then just "charge and full attack," or making the fighter, I dunno, worth taking, but get over yourselves. Some of us want fighters to be heroes and legends, not infantry grunts that are just quietly phased out at later levels.
Did you see my build? It will full attack very rarely and does interesting things in combat.
The fighter isn't a simple class. Barbarian is a simple class - "Do I rage or not? If so, RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE! If not, wait." The fighter is a boring class. He's a class that has no options.
Let's look at the Fighter-prerequesite feats. They fall into two catagories.
1) +1 to a modifier!
2) Stand next to a spellcaster!
And that's it. Those are the only two types. Even then, there's only two of the second catagory - pretty much ALL of the Fighter feats are nothing more then taking another +1 on top.
Paladins gain multiple auras and the ability to smite enemies, lay on hands, and spells.
Rangers get animal companions, different fighting styles, and spells.
Rogues get sneak attack to encourage lots of in combat movement, a long list of varied talents, and way more skill points.
Fighter? Fighter gets some more +1 modifiers.
Interesting. I see the barbarians as having much more to do each round than either the Paladins or Rangers, since controlling rage powers they can get some really cool builds that play more varied than anyone else. Fighters get more combat versatility in my mind. Though they have to specialize in specific things, they can pick more and do them well. Rangers IMO are the worst, locked into 1 of 2 fighting styles and able to do little else. Paladins get a lot of passive buffs, but those either don't come into play or = +hit and damage, just like the fighter.
Interesting. I see the barbarians as having much more to do each round than either the Paladins or Rangers, since controlling rage powers they can get some really cool builds that play more varied than anyone else. Fighters get more combat versatility in my mind. Though they have to specialize in specific things, they can pick more and do them well. Rangers IMO are the worst, locked into 1 of 2 fighting styles and able to do little else. Paladins get a lot of passive buffs, but those either don't come into play or = +hit and damage, just like the fighter.Rangers have a pet and both nature stuff and sneakiness. Paladins have hitting people and removing a fair amount of nastiness from party members, and a (admittedly weak) face skill schtick.
Fighters have...hitting people. Possibly hitting people with a debuff, if you specialize really hard and are a human and sacrifice some damage.
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.
Paladin: I'm good against 1 thing, and only 1 of those things at a time. If its not that thing, I'm only ok. I do give some passive immunities though.
Fighter: I specialize in 2-3 tactics and do them well (DPR is 1 tactic). I can switch hit to do the one most appropriate at the time. I will do conistent damage no matter the foe.
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.