Core Fighter vs. APG Fighter: An Analysis and Discussion on Balance


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A long time ago I made a high level two-weapon fighter ("A").

A not so long time ago the APG was released and I redesigned the same fighter ("B") to make good use of the Two-weapon fighter archetype...

...And I must say, I think "B" is rather lacking compared to the original. I would have expected the archetype to be slightly more powerful numerically speaking, with the core version being more versatile.

I don't think that's what happened at all. In fact, even with appropriate ability score/equipment changes (meant to better suit the archetype), the archetype seems inferior in far too many ways. It has a few nice tricks like attacking with both weapons on an attack of opportunity or as a standard action, but overall has lower attack, AC, speed, and skills.

I am posting both characters here in the form of downloadable PDF character sheets. I would appreciate it if you would look them over, correct any mistakes I might have made, and discuss whether or not they are balanced (compared to one another). I want to make sure I'm not overreacting or focusing on the wrong areas in my analysis.

Thanks.

Esmeralda ("A") - 18th-level human dervish - CORE
Esmeralda ("B") - 18th-level human dervish - APG

Please discuss.


The TWF archetype isn't very good. The best ones are Mobile Fighter and THF. Weapon Master is decent if you were going to specialize anyway.


On a side related comment.

Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.

The advantage of the alternate classes is not "more power" but more flavor and options based upon your character concept. They can do things that normal fighter or other characters cannot.

You gave the example of using both weapons on an AoO. That is great and has good flavor. With the archer version, they are not specifically better then the core fighter with a bow, but they can do some things that no other archer or character can do with a bow such as see things really far away and fire at them before anyone else can.

So not better or more powerful, just an alternate flavor and other options while keeping both models viable and distinct.


Thazar wrote:
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be

Big +1. Power creep was one of the biggest complaints about 3.5. Pathfinder to date has kept a stable power/balance level while still providing cool and interesting options.

To me that seems right.


I concur that archetypes shouldn't be mechanically superior to the generic version of the class but should instead be more specialized and focused on a set of thematics.

In some cases the abilities offered to an archetype tend to result in a higher degree of mechanical ability. In some cases this is due to the alternate abilities allowing for greater mechanical specialization (THF archetype for instance) and sometimes because the archetype offers options previously denied to the base class (such as the Mobile Fighter).

In these cases it's okay for the archetype to be situationally better than the generic class as long as there are circumstances in which the archetype is inferior. The THF archetype is generally going to be inferior to the baseline fighter in terms of AC and mobility (Bigger Armor Check penalty) as well as being inferior when forced to rely on ranged or thrown weaponry. The mobile fighter is sitationally good because he gains a pounce like effect but it comes by sacrificing his highest BAB attack and making him less effective in non-mobile fights.

In both cases these options fill a void that some people feel that the baseline fighter doesn't have. In the case of other archetypes the mechanical void that they fill is less noticeable or is even more situational and as a result the cost/benefit ratio for taking the archetype is more limited.

Personally I feel that while some archetypes will rarely be taken for PCs I can see the utility in using them on NPCs to enhance flavor and provide a tactically interesting game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Preaching to the choir. :P

I'm well aware of the possibility of power creep. My problem isn't that the archetypes aren't more powerful, it's that many of them (such as the TWF archetype above) don't come close to balancing with the standard class doing the same thing. Take the free hand fighter, for instance. It's terrible even when compared to a standard fighter wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand.


This is true of some of the other class options in the APG. The barbarian one only has a couple worth taking. And nine times out of ten the Invulnerable Rager is the one they are using in a build.

When people use the APG fighter options they never seem to use Crossbowman, Free Hand Fighter, Phalanx Soldier, Roughrider, Savage Warrior, or Shielded Fighter. At least I don't think I've ever seen anyone use them a build on these boards.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Preaching to the choir. :P

I'm well aware of the possibility of power creep. My problem isn't that the archetypes aren't more powerful, it's that many of them (such as the TWF archetype above) don't come close to balancing with the standard class doing the same thing. Take the free hand fighter, for instance. It's terrible even when compared to a standard fighter wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand.

Dunno, Free Hand Fighter makes a nice combo with Rogue and/or Duelist. Also, Singleton got errated, something you could miss.


Ravingdork wrote:
My problem isn't that the archetypes aren't more powerful, it's that many of them (such as the TWF archetype above) don't come close to balancing with the standard class doing the same thing. Take the free hand fighter, for instance. It's terrible even when compared to a standard fighter wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand.

I agree. It's annoying that an alternate class based on using a particular style is sometimes worse at their chosen style than another fighter.

I think part of the problem is that the APG fighters have all of their abilities replaced, rather than just the relevant ones. Losing both Weapon Training and Armor Training to use your weapons differently is a bit much.


hmmm. first there's something wonky with the skills. why is the climb so much lower for apg version?

second, d6+8 damage for core fighter? that seems impossibly low


I disagree with the sentiment that most of the Archetypes are so bad.

To your example (2WF), I think the 2WF is very competitive with the Mobile Fighter, if you want to 2WF in the first place (with it`s costs/trade-offs). Mobile Fighter`s Rapid Attack is essentially 2nd tier attacks, while 2WF makes 2 1st tier attacks (and the 2WF penalty is progressively negated), so I`m guessing 2WF has much more chance to Crit than Mobile Fighter. Plus 2 attacks on AoO`s (which you can optimize your chances of drawing), twice the chance to crit, and chance to apply 2 Weapon Rend on all these, and eventually get free Disarm/Sunder/Trip on Standard/Full/AoO attacks. And eventually when they Full Attack, ANY attack against them provokes a (2WF) AoO, just like the awesome APG Barbarian Power. AoO`s can be a huge part of damage output, in the DPR olympics my highest DPR build had around 70-80 dpr but each additional hit (AoO) offered about 40 dpr... And 2WF AoO`s with Rend probably look pretty good on that count too.

Mobile Fighter IS absolutely great, enough that ANY style of fighter could be helped by it, including Ranged (though this could be Errata`d). `Moving at least 5` feet` (i.e. 5` steps count) to gain max Weapon Training (effectively) on ALL attacks just isn`t much of a limitation, esp. considering they have a bonus to any movement impeding effects. I think Mobile Fighter is very ironic though, because what does it give up? Armor Training, i.e. Tumbling in Armor, i.e. MOBILITY. This Archetype is so strong, and so versatile, that I don`t think it`s a good reference for the other variants.

2 Handed Fighter clearly does it`s job well, very well. Weapon Master likewise.
Archer seems VERY nice, I don`t know why any munchkin would turn down not-provoking-in-melee and getting another Feat (Snatch Arrows) for free, on top of other nice stuff.

I think Phalanx Fighter has some good stuff going for it (Immediate Action Attacks? One-handed Pole-Arm use?) even if it might not look good if you`re comparing DPR to Weapon Training (but since ONLY Fighters have Weapon Training in the first place, and you can still go with the Grt Wpn Focus/Spec, you should still do OK IMHO)... It clearly seems focused around different type of Fighter play than simple DPR comparisons can gage.

I think there`s good chances the Shield Fighter will be Errata`d so it doesn`t need to meet 2WF Pre-Reqs, which would make it actually accomplish it`s niche well. (I know I saw a Paizo post on this, along the lines of `hm, we could look into this´ when it was pointed out that the Variant simultaneously seemed to make Shield Bashing viable WITHOUT 2WF, while 2WF is still a pre-req for Shield Slam/Shield Master)

Pole-Arm Fighter is very interesting... namely doubling up on Weapon Training (effectively) for Pole-Arm AoO`s, flexible flanking, not to mention the rest of their abilities, which amount to a couple free Feats.

Sure, I`d say the Crossbowman, Freehand Fighter, and Roughrider aren`t much more than `meh`, and Savage Warrior is more of a definite `yuck`. Probably it would have been better to just not cover all those archetypes and do them more justice in another product. But oh well, everybody can take Mobile Fighter if they want, and do well by it, or just go with Vanilla Fighter... I think it would be bad design if nobody wanted to play Vanilla Fighter anymore, and it should still be attractive even if you see yourself specializing in these areas (since people were spec`ing in these areas before the variants were released).

I think part of the problem here is that maybe we don`t really need Fighter variants who ROCK OUT at one specific Fighting Style... Most Fighters already specialize to some extent in one style, so making them +20% better would just throw off game balance. I think Fighter variants should have been used more for stuff that Fighters weren`t good AT ALL at, or were barely able to accomplish. From that angle, we could have had a Rough Rider who actually gained an Animal Companion. And a Fighter variant who actually had a good WilL Save. Not just free Feats and bonuses to stuff they already did. I don`t know why they didn`t include a sexed-up `Educated Fighter` variant (with 4 skill ranks/level), for example.


I believe the problem isn't that "the two weapon fighter isn't more powerful than the core fighter, Jip!" its that "the two weapon fighter doesn't two weapon fight as well as the core fighter" which is certainly legitimate.

There's no increase in power by increasing a sub optimal choice back up to the power level of the base choice. For example, if a god wizard is 10 and weapon finessing barbarian is a 1, a regular fighter comes in around a 6. A regular fighter trying to use a crossbow drops down to a 4. The crossbow archer SHOULD , in theory, bring the crossbow fighter back up to the 6. It does not. It is either a 4, or you could make arguments that it is a 3... WORSE at crossbow fighting than a regular fighter.

The same with a two weapon fighter. I don't know what went into the theorycraft of 2 weapon fighting, but in every table i've been at full attacks are rare. This means having to spend feats to get UP TO the level of someone with a two handed weapon IF AND ONLY IF you manage to make a full attack is a triple penalty: you loose out on the feats, you loose out when you don't full attack, and you loose out on the abilities that you could have been taking with two weapon fighting. So if two weapon fighting blows chunks, the two weapon fighting archtype SHOULD be able to change that. Since the TWF archtype is no better at two weapon fighting than the regular fighter it fails to do that.


I don´t understand that argument... 2WF variant DOES do 2WF better than a Vanilla Fighter can.
Your main issue with 2WF, only applying on Full Attacks, is largely what the variant addresses:
Getting 2 (main + offhand) attacks as Standard Action, and as AoO´s.
Not to mention getting (2WF) AoO´s if attacked after Full Attacking with 2WF,
or the attack penalties disappearing completely, or getting max attack bonus w/ different main/offhand weapons. (i.e. 1Handed+Light)

Am I missing something?
I mean, Bravery, Armor Training and Armor Mastery (DR5/-) are nice, but hardly central to 2WF as a style.

Incidentally, the 2WF variant really seems to get the most out of my preferred 2WF build, namely taking Imp 2WF as late as possible (only to get 2WpnRend around CL11... or when your DEX qualifies), and NEVER taking Grt 2WF... Instead maximizing STR in place of DEX and saving Feats for other uses. 2WF Variant´s special abilities only utilize the 1st off-hand attack, and 2WF Rend (if it triggers), so forgoing/delaying the other stuff doesn´t affect it´s class abilities at all.

...In any case, I still think a different approach to FIghter variants would have been more interesting, rather than make specialists 20% better in their schtick (or removing the negatives of their style) by giving up off-style/2nd Tier Weapon Training and Armor Training (mobility/tumbling), there could have been some more lateral moves, like High WilL Save Fighters, High Skill variants to name some low hanging fruit. Oh well, maybe that will see their Combat Splatbook.

Dark Archive

Gilfalas wrote:
Thazar wrote:
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be

Big +1. Power creep was one of the biggest complaints about 3.5. Pathfinder to date has kept a stable power/balance level while still providing cool and interesting options.

To me that seems right.

Big +2. Let's have flavor/interest, not RIFTS.


joela wrote:
Big +2. Let's have flavor/interest, not RIFTS.

Hey! Rifts has flavor! Kind of overdone, always cheesy and occasionally crunchy but flavor all the same!

(I'm just messing around -- I like Rifts, but for completely different reasons than I like pathfinder)

Dark Archive

Abraham spalding wrote:
joela wrote:
Big +2. Let's have flavor/interest, not RIFTS.

Hey! Rifts has flavor! Kind of overdone, always cheesy and occasionally crunchy but flavor all the same!

(I'm just messing around -- I like Rifts, but for completely different reasons than I like pathfinder)

RIFTS was a power-gamers' nerdgasm ;-)


joela wrote:
RIFTS was a power-gamers' nerdgasm ;-)

Only if you liked big numbers that did nothing when you came done to it -- but yeah it's definitely and acquired taste!


Quandary wrote:

I don´t understand that argument... 2WF variant DOES do 2WF better than a Vanilla Fighter can.

Your main issue with 2WF, only applying on Full Attacks, is largely what the variant addresses:
Getting 2 (main + offhand) attacks as Standard Action, and as AoO´s.
Not to mention getting (2WF) AoO´s if attacked after Full Attacking with 2WF,
or the attack penalties disappearing completely, or getting max attack bonus w/ different main/offhand weapons. (i.e. 1Handed+Light)

Am I missing something?
I mean, Bravery, Armor Training and Armor Mastery (DR5/-) are nice, but hardly central to 2WF as a style.

Incidentally, the 2WF variant really seems to get the most out of my preferred 2WF build, namely taking Imp 2WF as late as possible (only to get 2WpnRend around CL11... or when your DEX qualifies), and NEVER taking Grt 2WF... Instead maximizing STR in place of DEX and saving Feats for other uses. 2WF Variant´s special abilities only utilize the 1st off-hand attack, and 2WF Rend (if it triggers), so forgoing/delaying the other stuff doesn´t affect it´s class abilities at all.

...In any case, I still think a different approach to FIghter variants would have been more interesting, rather than make specialists 20% better in their schtick (or removing the negatives of their style) by giving up off-style/2nd Tier Weapon Training and Armor Training (mobility/tumbling), there could have been some more lateral moves, like High WilL Save Fighters, High Skill variants to name some low hanging fruit. Oh well, maybe that will see their Combat Splatbook.

I like the fact that I can use two medium sized weapons without taking Oversized Two-Weapon Fight(3.5 feat).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
angryscrub wrote:

hmmm. first there's something wonky with the skills. why is the climb so much lower for apg version?

second, d6+8 damage for core fighter? that seems impossibly low

The APG variant doesn't have gloves of swimming and climbing for starters. What's more, I think the skill ranks are more spread out as she has one more skill listed than the core version does (but should have the same number of ranks).

Also...

+5 strength mod
+2 weapon specialization
+1 magical enhancement
--------------------------------
+8 damage

...hardly impossible at any level.

Why do you think two-handing is so popular?

Liberty's Edge

Gilfalas wrote:
Thazar wrote:
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be

Big +1. Power creep was one of the biggest complaints about 3.5. Pathfinder to date has kept a stable power/balance level while still providing cool and interesting options.

To me that seems right.

+ 1 Billion. Please don't make new options unquestionably better than old ones. There is plenty of room for flavor, core should be either the best choice or at least competitive.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
angryscrub wrote:

hmmm. first there's something wonky with the skills. why is the climb so much lower for apg version?

second, d6+8 damage for core fighter? that seems impossibly low

The APG variant doesn't have gloves of swimming and climbing for starters. What's more, I think the skill ranks are more spread out as she has one more skill listed than the core version does (but should have the same number of ranks).

Also...

+5 strength mod
+2 weapon specialization
+1 magical enhancement
--------------------------------
+8 damage

...hardly impossible at any level.

Why do you think two-handing is so popular?

It is impossibly low. You should have another +4 from weapon training for both attack and damage and another +2 from Greater weapon specialization at 12th. Not to mention power attack would be -5 + 5 for two handed.

That is just off the top of my head.

Plus for a TWF build of any kind I would get a high crit weapon with improved crit so you are doing crit damage on a 15. For a dervish either scimitar or kukri.

My wife has a twf ranger with rend and a ridiculous number of attacks which basically crit 25% of the time. (confirmation with here base attack bonus and bonuses is almost a formality.)

That is why you go TWF, more chances to crit.


A friend has been using a high level "Two-Weapon Warrior", nothing wrong with it, it deals insane ammounts of damage under any circumstance, he just lacks hps and AC, he defines himself as an one-shot rocket.

Comparing both characters I see similar damage/attack outputs and similar defenses. The ability to move and perform two attacks with a single standard action is very handy.

_____

Speaking about Power Creep, I would like introduce APG "Gloves of Dueling":
+4 CMD against disarm and sunder.
(unless it is an error) If you are a Fighter with "weapon training" (5th level fighter or more): +2 to attack, damage and again +2 to CMD vs disarm and sunder.
Price: 15000 (extremely cheap for high level Fighters with weapons worth 50000 to 250000 gps)


meatrace wrote:
The TWF archetype isn't very good. The best ones are Mobile Fighter and THF.

From 11-19 nothing else in the fighter archetypes gets remotely close to the mobile fighter as far as on foot melee is concerned (mounted archer and charger compete, but for on foot melee there is nothing).

Which is not to say TWF isn't good, the mobile fighter is just better at it than the TWF archetype. TWF is the only way to fight at higher levels ... crit rider feats, double slice and shield bash (a fighter might also consider shield master for TWF without penalties). More attacks, more damage, more status effects. At low level furious focus still pulls two handed ahead, but at high level no longer.


I have also redone my old TWF into the new archetype.

Yes AC is lower but the TWWarrior can TWF as a standard action and TWF on AOO's.

It's not a matter of the full attack numbers increasing, they're roughly the same.

TW Warriors are not hurt by moving anywhere near as much as a Vanilla Fighter.

Take more feats to create AOO's for yourself!
My new TWW has stepup and strike (twf) and Spellbreaker (TWF) and when he qualifies he'll take Teleport Tactician.

He used to trip but that got retrained out.

The number of full attacks is the same, but he gets more DPR from creating AOO's for himself.


I think another feature to consider is going with 2 light weapons without penalties. Say, 2 kukris. Get rid of the -2 with all those attacks can be nice.

And as ardenup said, get ways to trigger AOOs. A greater trip means exchange 1 attack for 2, and continue the full attack with a +4 to all the rolls.

Of course, should be pointed out that since the build is feat intensive, is hard to put the hands to every combo - but that's a problem of TWF in general :)


Ravingdork wrote:

I would have expected the archetype to be slightly more powerful numerically speaking, with the core version being more versatile.

Many of the archetypes for a good number of the classes just aren't all that good.

They're not the specialists that they should be.

Not everything can be done wonderfully. You filter through and find the ones that work for you and you use them, discarding the rest.

-James


and after crunching some numbers it appears that the apg version does higher average DPR on standard, full, and attacks of opportunity by sacrificing some AC and ranged attack. seems reasonable.


Pinky's Brain wrote:
TWF is the only way to fight at higher levels ...

Sorry this line set off my inaccuracy detector -- TWF, Archery, and THF are the best ways to fight at higher levels -- but they are not the only ones.


Why does everyone say TWF is such a feat drain? I count 3: 2-Weapon Fighting, Improved 2WF, and Greater 2WF. 4 if you include Double Slice like I like to do.

Compare Archery, which has (let's count 'em): Point-Blank Shot (even if it's just a pre-req), Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot. That's 4, which increases to 5-6 if you include Precise Shot and Improved PS. Yet no-one complains about the number of feats for Archery from what I've seen.

What exactly am I missing?


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Why does everyone say TWF is such a feat drain? I count 3: 2-Weapon Fighting, Improved 2WF, and Greater 2WF. 4 if you include Double Slice like I like to do.

Compare Archery, which has (let's count 'em): Point-Blank Shot (even if it's just a pre-req), Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot. That's 4, which increases to 5-6 if you include Precise Shot and Improved PS. Yet no-one complains about the number of feats for Archery from what I've seen.

What exactly am I missing?

The skewed thing about your count is that in the former case you're just counting "the feats you need to take your normal attacks" and in the latter case you're counting "basically all the archery feats."

If we're going to count Deadly Aim for archery, it's only fair to count Power Attack for melee, for example. Or stuff like Two-Weapon Defense or Two-Weapon Rend if we're counting Manyshot.

The other thing you have to factor in is: there are a lot of feats which are useful (if perhaps not all optimal) to any melee character, such as Combat Reflexes, Step Up, Power Attack, Lunge, etc. Your archery fighter doesn't want any of those feats. Your two-handed-weapon fighter does want those feats. Your two-weapon fighter also wants those feats, and also really needs all those two-weapon-fighting feats.

Does that make sense?


The problem with the TWF chain is not just that it requires several feats to get the basic benefits but that those feats have high pre-requisites.

In comparison to a THF the TWF has a lower strength resulting in a lower to hit and damage modifier. The to-hit modifier can can reduced with weapon finesse (which should be a weapon trait not a feat but oh well) but almost invariably the TWF will lag behind the THF in terms of DPR.

Factor in the need to boost 3 physical stats instead of just 2 and the need to purchase more than one melee weapon and you can understand why people tend to gravitate to the THF school of fighting. TWF is simply more resource intensive where resources = feats, money, ability scores, etc.

Once the critical feats begin showing up and you can start stunning or similar with a critical the enhanced number of attacks (and enhanced number of chances to roll a critical) the equation begins to shift towards the TWF but it's very situational.

Personally the efficiency of THF vs the various other fighter options (not counting archery which rocks) is one of my frustrations with the game as I grew up in an era where sword & board was definitely the prefered model.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Why does everyone say TWF is such a feat drain? I count 3: 2-Weapon Fighting, Improved 2WF, and Greater 2WF. 4 if you include Double Slice like I like to do.

Compare Archery, which has (let's count 'em): Point-Blank Shot (even if it's just a pre-req), Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Manyshot. That's 4, which increases to 5-6 if you include Precise Shot and Improved PS. Yet no-one complains about the number of feats for Archery from what I've seen.

What exactly am I missing?

That point blank and precise shot allow you to make full attacks virtually every combat round, while twf only lets you make more attacks if you full attack, or gives you one extra attack after level 9.


Quote:
Personally the efficiency of THF vs the various other fighter options (not counting archery which rocks) is one of my frustrations with the game as I grew up in an era where sword & board was definitely the prefered model.

When was that? In 2e the preferred model was 18(00) strength, and a longsword/shortsword combo that let you hit with your full strength on each one.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Personally the efficiency of THF vs the various other fighter options (not counting archery which rocks) is one of my frustrations with the game as I grew up in an era where sword & board was definitely the prefered model.
When was that? In 2e the preferred model was 18(00) strength, and a longsword/shortsword combo that let you hit with your full strength on each one.

1e man, back with the Paladin in Hell. The mechanical advantages of TWF was more of a 2e invention largely in response to the popularity of Driz'zt.

Now git off ma lawn ;)


@IkeDoe: But those Gloves of Dueling aren´t usable by any of the Fighter Variants that sub-out Weapon Training, are they?
Honestly, this seems very wierd since that means 2 Handed Fighter can use them, but no other Variants.
I don´t know if 2Hand Variant should be Errata´d (to not have Wpn Training per se, but it´s own unique version) in light of this... ???

Anyways, funny thread, 2WF is either crap or uber-juice depending who´s counting. :-)
I think it should be noted that the 2WF Variant´s free Immediate Action Disarm/Sunder/Trip when both weapons strike (which can be on Standards/AoO´s/FullAttacks) can itself trigger another AoO if you have Greater Trip, upping their DPR further, along with status effects.

Personally, I disagree that 2WF is the only way to go at high levels. Sure, more attacks = more opportunities to Crit for status effects (though if status effects are your goal, you might as well use Stunning Assault, etc from APG), along with lesser vulnerability /swinginess when dealing with Miss Chance%. Unfortunately, that doesn´t do much vs. Crit Immune targets or when Fortification works, much less that big DR disproportionately affects many weaker attacks (also Archery). (Again, this is why I´m not a fan of Greater 2WF, better to use Feats/Stat Investment elsewhere than throw all your eggs in one basket)

But there´s a specific status effect that 2 Handers happen to be GREAT at inflicting: Massive Damage Save vs. DEATH. :-)


Quandary wrote:


But there´s a specific status effect that 2 Handers happen to be GREAT at inflicting: Massive Damage Save vs. DEATH. :-)

Did death by massive damage even get transferred over to Pathfinder? Even then the standard model is non scaling so by the time you hit the threshholds off a single attack (even with Vital Strike) your fort save should be relatively decent.

Or am I mistaking your comment to mean something it wasn't intended ;)

Liberty's Edge

vuron wrote:
Quandary wrote:


But there´s a specific status effect that 2 Handers happen to be GREAT at inflicting: Massive Damage Save vs. DEATH. :-)

Did death by massive damage even get transferred over to Pathfinder? Even then the standard model is non scaling so by the time you hit the threshholds off a single attack (even with Vital Strike) your fort save should be relatively decent.

Or am I mistaking your comment to mean something it wasn't intended ;)

It did with some modifications as an optional rule.

"Massive Damage (Optional Rule)

If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn't kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply."


Also, the 2WF Variant´s Standard Action 2WF attack is ´it´s own Standard Action´,
so no Vital Strike, and you can´t Cleave while doing this, both of which are great options for 2Handers.


Thazar wrote:

Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.

The advantage of the alternate classes is not "more power" but more flavor and options based upon your character concept. They can do things that normal fighter or other characters cannot.

+3. Funny this should come up, one of my players wanted to build a fighter who used a ranseur and another player suggested she check out the APG for the Polearm Fighter archetype. She did so and seemed disappointed. "It's not really very powerful," she said. "I could build a better one using the rules in the core book and just taking weapon specialization."

And I think that's as it should be... the archetypes pigeon-hole characters into a very tiny box, and that kind of restriction promotes min-maxing. I'm so glad that the APG archetypes take something away for everything they add. In previous editions, the various archetypes or "kits" added bonuses for choosing a specific theme or concept but didn't offer an equalizing penalty for the bonuses. This eventually led to power-creep, and usually the newer the book, the more potent the bonuses awarded. The APG archetypes should only be used for PCs with a very specific theme, and usually limit the character to that concept in order to reap any benefit as well. This ensures that the archetypes will never outshine the Core Class as written in the core rulebook. Which is as it should be.


I don´t really understand that sentiment...
Any Fighter (incl. Variants) can take Weapon Spec, so what does that have to do with anything? How is the Core Figher ´more powerful´ / better?

Polearm Variant effectively has Max Weapon Training on ALL Polearms (allowing high Crit weapons most of the time, high base damage vs. Crit Immunity, and special Maneuver weapons to all gain max. benefit), AND effectively DOUBLES that value on Readies/AoO´s. That on top of Flexible Flanking, Step Aside, and using your Polearm at close range.

Not to mention Mobile / 2Handed Variants work great with Polearms also...

The only benefits of going with a Vanilla Fighter are 2nd Tier Weapon Training (i.e. bonuses to 2ndary styles/weapons), Tumbling/Armor Training, and the Gloves of Dueling item (though 2Handed Fighters also gain full benefits of that). Maybe it´s just me, but simply throwing bigger numbers around isn´t as interesting/impressive as actually unique abilities which can´t otherwise be gained... So to me, Armor Training (for Tumbling in heavier armors) is THE only signifigant reason to go Vanilla Fighter. Mobile Fighter (it´s bonuses apply when you 5´ step, which means ALMOST ALWAYS to ALL weapons) can apply to ANY style of Fighter you want (OK, maybe not Stalward Defender PrC)


vuron wrote:
Personally the efficiency of THF vs the various other fighter options (not counting archery which rocks) is one of my frustrations with the game as I grew up in an era where sword & board was definitely the prefered model.

I actually kinda like that. I dislike that THF is so superior to many other types, to the point that pretty much all 3.5 fighters I saw used it, but it makes sense historically. The only "sword and board" combo I can think of with historical staying power is sword and buckler. Mostly, when plate came along, two handed weapons took over, so I guess that makes sense for D&D/Pathfinder too.


Thazar wrote:
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.

Another +1


Gauthok wrote:


I actually kinda like that. I dislike that THF is so superior to many other types, to the point that pretty much all 3.5 fighters I saw used it, but it makes sense historically. The only "sword and board" combo I can think of with historical staying power is sword and buckler. Mostly, when plate came along, two handed weapons took over, so I guess that makes sense for D&D/Pathfinder too.

Actually, there was a pretty large swath in history where the most serious and optimal fighting was done in shield walls, with shield and either axe or sword. And truly, that remained the case even after plate for some time because only the richest even had access to it.


Quandary wrote:

@IkeDoe: But those Gloves of Dueling aren´t usable by any of the Fighter Variants that sub-out Weapon Training, are they?

Honestly, this seems very wierd since that means 2 Handed Fighter can use them, but no other Variants.
I don´t know if 2Hand Variant should be Errata´d (to not have Wpn Training per se, but it´s own unique version) in light of this... ???

I doubt it, unless the variant gets a single spare level of "Weapon Training".

In any case, it IS an example of Power Creeping for the Core Fighter; the high level Fighter uses the APG to get +2 attack/damage with a cheap item, the Core Fighter without the APG doesn't: Power Creep.

But I agree, why the Core Fighter can use it and most Variants can't? Why the fighter gets that kind of item and other melee classes that do need love don't get it? (Btw: I'm pretty sure that Gloves of Dueling were meant to raise your bonus against Sunder and Disarm only)


Come on, it's a + 2 to hit and damage. I can see avoid power creep, but less than this magic item would be so pointless that would be useless have them in a book.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Come on, it's a + 2 to hit and damage. I can see avoid power creep, but less than this magic item would be so pointless that would be useless have them in a book.

A new magic item doesn't have to be unbalanced in order to be useful in a book, at least if you want to avoid power creep, furthermore I wouldn't say that an item "useful" only for Core Fighters and a Fighter Variant is worth 1/4 of a page.

Whether the bonuses granted are pointless or not is subjective, in any case the big problem of the item is who can get the benefits and how those benefits work.


Two questions:

1) What is unbalanced in the gloves?

2) No items related to class features then? So no more metamagic rods, or channel energy items?

I admit that could have been better say "weapon training or similar class features", 'tough.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

Two questions:

1) What is unbalanced in the gloves?

2) No items related to class features then? So no more metamagic rods, or channel energy items?

I admit that could have been better say "weapon training or similar class features", 'tough.

1) Given an ammount of money I can use the gloves to make a character with better abilities (unless it is a 10th- level characters, when the price of the gloves is in line with other magic items), since the Core Rulebook magic items are the reference, the only problem here are the gloves.

2) I don't see the problem with properly designed items that are related to class features, specially when the core rules expect you to have them.
I see the problem with items that shouldn't be related to class features or don't need to be related to class features, I.e. Why is an item that enhances mele characters available only to core fighters?


Gilfalas wrote:
Thazar wrote:
Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be

Big +1. Power creep was one of the biggest complaints about 3.5. Pathfinder to date has kept a stable power/balance level while still providing cool and interesting options.

To me that seems right.

Team Work Rage HUGE POWER LIGHT SPEED JUMP not Creep form the ORC Book -1


There are few abilities that come close to matching the awesomeness that is armor training and weapon training for multiple weapons. The only archetypes I'd consider are the Archer, Mobile Fighter, Phalanx Fighter and Two Handed Fighter. They offer some interesting options not available to the core fighter.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Core Fighter vs. APG Fighter: An Analysis and Discussion on Balance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.