I have never played a straight fighter and hope to play one in a campaign soon.
With all these books coming out and all the new feats being introduced into every book, how does one create a fighter that can be a true MASTER of ARMS.
By this i mean that i picture a fighter as one who can pick up any weapon and do almost anything described as a feat, but it seems that all these new feats are just making a fighter into more and more of a super specialised one weapon sort.
I can call this feat bloat as that is essentially what this is.
There are now so many feats that if a fighter wants to be amazing with any weapon, it does not seem possible.
These newer feats are great for all the other classes in that it gives them a lot more options to play with and certain specialised feats seem to make sense, but pretty much every class besides the fighter is defined in other ways that are fairly independent of feats.
How do fighters deal with feat bloat?
Re: Feat bloat - using a resource like d20pfsrd.com helps a ton. You can see (typically) all the combat feats on a single large page, and you can browse through them, noting requirements and marking down the ones you might be interesting.
Re: "Master Of Arms" - Unfortunately, there's not really a whole lot of options here. Most fighter options - especially most GOOD fighter options, as well as the fighter class itself, focus more on specialization. That has nothing at all to do with feat bloat - in fact, because there are so many feats, there are more "generalist" feats available to choose from than if you're using just the CRB or something. Honestly, the best I can say would be to just do your best to pick broad groups for your Weapon Training and roll with that. You can pick up what generalist feats are available, but most feats are inherantly specializing - if not into a weapon, then into a combat maneuver or a combat style, such as two-weapon-fighting or shield use.
Another way to do a master-of-every-weapon would be to use a Barbarian or Paladin (or to a lesser extent, alchemist, ranger or battle oracle). Their combat bonuses will apply to any weapon they pick up, allowing them to fight close to maximum capacity regardless of what they're holding.
"Another way to do a master-of-every-weapon would be to use a Barbarian or Paladin (or to a lesser extent, alchemist, ranger or battle oracle). Their combat bonuses will apply to any weapon they pick up, allowing them to fight close to maximum capacity regardless of what they're holding."
I think this is exactly the kind of thing i am talking about though. Paladins and barbarians have more skills and other abilities to compensate for their lack of focusing purely on feats.
The fighter has the least amount of extra abilities/skills and has to specialize instead of being a true master of arms. This is a bit disconcerting because the fighter does almost nothing else but fight yet is the worst at it unless he is specialized?
I do not understand this type of logic.
So, how does one compensate?
Are we treading on the houserule forums now? or can this be done using the current feats?
|
Actually, most characters will be bad at things they don't specialize in. That's what makes the party dynamic work so well. Each character specializes in something, and you fill in your teammates' gaps.
Why does your fighter need to be perfect with every single weapon anyway? If you want him to focus on polearms, he'll end up with weapon training in those, and then he'll pick his favourite polearm and be the best of the best with that one. He'll be pretty good with other polearms as well. When he picks up his second weapon training, he can be pretty good with bows, or with close-range weapons if you like.
The differences in fighting styles as represented by feats are what makes one fighter different than the others. Even in real life people specialize in their chosen skills. If you are a programmer you are going to focus on computer and mathematics rather than salesmanship.
That being said there are ways to be equally good with any weapon. Most feats can be used with a variety of weapons. Sunder for example can be performed with any weapon. Simply chose more general feats instead of those concentrating on a single weapon. Admittedly this will end up slightly less powerful of a character, but will have a little more in versatility.
For example take Power Attack, Improved Sunder and Furious Focus. Pick up any weapon from a dagger to a great axe and you can attempt to destroy your opponents weapon and ignore the penalty for the first swing. True the two handed weapons are going to have a better chance due to the extra damage, but you can attempt it with any weapon.
|
|
The differences in fighting styles as represented by feats are what makes one fighter different than the others. Even in real life people specialize in their chosen skills. If you are a programmer you are going to focus on computer and mathematics rather than salesmanship.
That being said there are ways to be equally good with any weapon. Most feats can be used with a variety of weapons. Sunder for example can be performed with any weapon. Simply chose more general feats instead of those concentrating on a single weapon. Admittedly this will end up slightly less powerful of a character, but will have a little more in versatility.
For example take Power Attack, Improved Sunder and Furious Focus. Pick up any weapon from a dagger to a great axe and you can attempt to destroy your opponents weapon and ignore the penalty for the first swing. True the two handed weapons are going to have a better chance due to the extra damage, but you can attempt it with any weapon.
Actually, Furious Focus wouldn't work with the dagger, but your message is still a good one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very simple houserule to fix this: Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization (and the Improved versions of both) apply to Weapon Groups instead of individual weapons. Not only does it make sense, but now your fighter can be just as skilled with that Flambard as you are with a Bastard Sword (because really, it's the same weapon, but the feats only apply to one...)
[edit - Or Improved Crit or any feats, really, that specifically apply to a single weapon should instead apply to their respective "weapon group."]
|
|
Actually, most characters will be bad at things they don't specialize in.
i disagree. I can make an alchemist, magus, bard, inquisitor, or wizard who are great at things they dont specialize in
i currently have a Chirgeon Alchemist, spec'd as an "artificer", who's the groups "secondary" skill monkey and ranged attacker (next to a bard and ranger). I do at least as well as them (often better) but my feats are for crafting. Its built as a "generalist" and he rocks at most things. secializing would only grant a point or 2 more of whatever i spec'd to while losing out at least as much on multiple other things.
tho one could argure i specialized generalization
that said some classes do need to specialize to do their full potential.
most ranged or twf characters need to pick up every feat they can for their builds to work up to par with a two-handed weapon user just using power attack.
a fighter with no archetypes could work as a generalist, never taking a weapon specific feat, but it feels kinda like a waste IMHO
I have never played a straight fighter and hope to play one in a campaign soon.
With all these books coming out and all the new feats being introduced into every book, how does one create a fighter that can be a true MASTER of ARMS.
By this i mean that i picture a fighter as one who can pick up any weapon and do almost anything described as a feat, but it seems that all these new feats are just making a fighter into more and more of a super specialised one weapon sort.
Well historically, warriors are generally only proficient with the weapons of their culture. Usually from three to five weapons are what they would be good with, and perhaps one of those they excel with. If you want to use many different weapons, you are not going to be as good as a specialist, end of. That said, I think you CAN do this without super-specialising in one sort of weapon, but you have to play it clever.
Pick a means of fighting that is not dependent on one weapon - combat maneuvers spring to mind right away. Now focus on the weapons that best enhance these maneuvers, so you are carrying a trip weapon, a disarming weapon, a sundering weapon, etc. and focus not on dishing damage so much as discommoding the foe. These techniques can work whatever weapon you hold (but some are better than others) so that you never are without your favourite toys.
The number of feats means that we have choices, a variety, not a standard cookie-cutter build.
Is that actually true though? Both Archery and TWF both eat up a ton of feats. Combine that with the fact that not all weapons are created equal and you end up with much less true variety.
|
|
Actually, most characters will be bad at things they don't specialize in.i disagree. I can make an alchemist, magus, bard, inquisitor, or wizard who are great at things they dont specialize in
i currently have a Chirgeon Alchemist, spec'd as an "artificer", who's the groups "secondary" skill monkey and ranged attacker (next to a bard and ranger). I do at least as well as them (often better) but my feats are for crafting. Its built as a "generalist" and he rocks at most things. secializing would only grant a point or 2 more of whatever i spec'd to while losing out at least as much on multiple other things.
tho one could argure i specialized generalization
that said some classes do need to specialize to do their full potential.
most ranged or twf characters need to pick up every feat they can for their builds to work up to par with a two-handed weapon user just using power attack.
a fighter with no archetypes could work as a generalist, never taking a weapon specific feat, but it feels kinda like a waste IMHO
Well yes, a spellcaster who doesn't specialize is much better than a fighter who chooses to not specialize. That's something that spellcasters definitely have over martials.
You wouldn't, however, try to make a fast bomb thrower without investing the feats; it's not feasible, and the damage is disappointing compared with a player who has invested Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting. If you choose to not specialize, you're actively choosing to not be excellent at a task. Make sure that people don't expect you to be excellent at it.
I think there are a few more points to make. I don't want a fighter to have weapon specialization in all weapons or anything like that, i just want a fighter to be good at fighting.
"Is that actually true though? Both Archery and TWF both eat up a ton of feats. Combine that with the fact that not all weapons are created equal and you end up with much less true variety"
This point, to me, strikes home a bit better.
I look at it from the perspective that a Ranger's favored enemy bonus doesn't work with only his combat style, a barbarian's rage powers do not only work with 1 weapon, just as a paladin's smite evil does not work with only his diety's favored weapon.
That said, why does a fighter need to be ultra specialized in a weapon to know all it's tricks?
To me, the fighter is the wizard of all things martial. He should be able to do more than any other martial class. He has the potential to do more, but only with one weapon.
I can also see some of the flip side of this in that i am a black belt in the Kajukembo style of martial arts.
When i practice, it takes me 4 hours every day to cover everything i know.
This includes Escrima/Kali/Armis (machete/stick fighting) all katas, knife and gun defenses and a lot more stuff.
This does not include a lot as well. Mostly eye gouges, striking vital points and jujitsu.These things need a partner, for the most part.
Also though, this is a game with people who can bend reality to their will, or leave this dimension altogether.
So, why is the best martial type unable to pick up any weapon and be amazing at it?
Why sould a fighter be able to be good with all kinds of weapons?
It would be just silly - specializations is what any realylife fighter would chose as well in order to be effective. And the way weapon training already gives you versatility (Group of weapons, secondery choices...)
Thats what makes a fighter a fighter.
The sources of power of other classes are just different from that and still plausibel - because they dont get their power by a lot of practicing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can go all 20 levels and not pick up any feats that tie you down to one specific weapon or style, if you really wanted. You could take (not in any particular order) dodge, mobility, step up, power attack, combat expertise, improved initiative, toughness, diehard, critical focus, quick draw, iron will, flanking foil, gang up, lunge, opening volley, disruptive, improved critical, spellbreaker, combat reflexes, stand still, spring attack, strike back, following step, step up and strike, vital strike, whirlwind attack, and/or cleave, and very few of those would limit your choices in combat. (I'd also recommend point-blank and precise shot at some point to open up ranged combat options)
You would also have a bunch of different options on what to do each round. Most of those are pretty decent feats, too.
The issue is that you're a generalist fighter now, good at working with a bunch of different weapons and adapting your style to a particular situation. You will perform decently in every situation. However, you'll never be as good at dealing damage as the fighter who has spent his entire career perfecting his mastery of his chosen ridiculously large two handed sword and has spent all of his feats to do more damage with it. You won't have the AC of a shield specialist. You won't shut down encounters like a polearm wielding trip-master.
On the plus side, the trip-master is useless against incorporeal creatures, oozes, giant centipedes, flying creatures, snakes...
Just my thoughts on the subject.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.I look at it from the perspective that a Ranger's favored enemy bonus doesn't work with only his combat style, a barbarian's rage powers do not only work with 1 weapon, just as a paladin's smite evil does not work with only his diety's favored weapon.
That said, why does a fighter need to be ultra specialized in a weapon to know all it's tricks?To me, the fighter is the wizard of all things martial. He should be able to do more than any other martial class. He has the potential to do more, but only with one weapon.
It's called "weapon training". That's an incredibly powerful ability that doesn't get nearly as much love as it deserves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, why does a fighter need to be ultra specialized in a weapon to know all it's tricks?
He doesn't, but it helps. If any fighter picks up a lucern hammer, for example, he can hit with it, trip with it, and all that jazz.
So, why is the best martial type unable to pick up any weapon and be amazing at it?
Define amazing, first. Do you mean 'better than any other full BAB class'? If so, then provided the fighter has Weapon Training in the class of weapon he picks up, he WILL be better than a paladin or ranger or barbarian with that weapon without having invested any feats at all.
If you mean 'as good as the most brilliant user of the weapon in question ever was' then forget it. As long as there are other fighters out there that want to dedicate themselves to being the best {insert weapon here}-wielder ever, they will always be better. And why shouldn't they? Part of the fighter's design is to enable fighters to become the best swordsman ever, or the best axe-wielder on the planet, whatever, and a fighter who dedicates himself purely to doing so should be better with that particular weapon than the one that doesn't.
"Why sould a fighter be able to be good with all kinds of weapons?"
Because that's what a fighter does... he fights.
On that same method of thinking, why should a spell caster be good at casting spells?
Should all spell casters be forced to specialize to gain higher level spells?
Thank you Castarr4. This is what i am referring to.
Again, i don't want to play a fighter that has perfect mastery of all weapons.
I do still wonder why a class completely dedicated to fighting must basically must become specialized in one weapon to be as good as the other martial classes can be in multiple weapons.
"It's called "weapon training". That's an incredibly powerful ability that doesn't get nearly as much love as it deserves."
Yet that "weapon training" is just as effective as a barbarian's rage except for the fact that a barbarian's rage also increases his constitution and his will saves while still working just as well with his 2-handed sword as it does with a chair leg or shield.
"If you mean 'as good as the most brilliant user of the weapon in question ever was' then forget it. As long as there are other fighters out there that want to dedicate themselves to being the best {insert weapon here}-wielder ever, they will always be better. And why shouldn't they? Part of the fighter's design is to enable fighters to become the best swordsman ever, or the best axe-wielder on the planet, whatever, and a fighter who dedicates himself purely to doing so should be better with that particular weapon than the one that doesn't."
I agree that a person who dedicates him/her self to becoming the best should be allowed to do so.
I guess it is just me that sees something wrong with a guy who rages or hunts for a living being just as good with a weapon as the guy who dedicates his whole life toward the mastery of weapons and nothing else.
Why do you think someone who fights a lot called fighter has to ba able to do what he is best at with several different weapons?
That just does not make sense. Just because you are a wizard you dont have to know all spells in game as well. And just because you are Ranger you dont have to be able to fight in every single terrain better then others. or whatever - I just dont see why being able to fight good means being able to fight good with a doorknob as well...
|
|
"Why sould a fighter be able to be good with all kinds of weapons?"
Because that's what a fighter does... he fights.
On that same method of thinking, why should a spell caster be good at casting spells?
Should all spell casters be forced to specialize to gain higher level spells?
Not to wreck your analogy, but the best wizards are specialists. Specializing makes you better at the things in which you picked to specialize.
I would also say that all sorcerers are by definition, specialists of a sort. They have too few spells known to be able to pick up the short sword, rapier, longsword, kukri, guisarme, greatsword, greataxe, and falchion. They have too few feats to pick up Spell Focus with every school.
"Why do you think someone who fights a lot called fighter has to ba able to do what he is best at with several different weapons?
That just does not make sense. Just because you are a wizard you dont have to know all spells in game as well. And just because you are Ranger you dont have to be able to fight in every single terrain better then others. or whatever - I just dont see why being able to fight good means being able to fight good with a doorknob as well..."
Yet if a Wizard chooses to learn a spell, he can apply any metamagic feats as he desires. Also, just as a Ranger gains a bomus to any and all weapons versus his favored enemies.
It's like me saying that because i know martial arts, i can only use my fists to fight someone.
It's true, that's called boxing, and this is an example of an archetype and a true form of specialization.
It's also worth noting that my instructor stated that he would not ever want to box a Golden Gloves boxer because he will get hurt badly, yet if he could just fight the guy, he knew he would probably win in a fight due to wrapping him up or using jujitsu on him.
My question is still valid in that i am asking why a fighter with no archetype is limited in his capabilities due to feat bloat and more feats being required to do more things with the same weapon.
Also, knowing how to beat someone with a doorknob in a sock or something is probably a lot like fighting someone with a ball and chain.
Not too versed in those forms of combat, so i cannot speak from experience.
Just saw this post, so i am going to respond to it as well.
"Not to wreck your analogy, but the best wizards are specialists. Specializing makes you better at the things in which you picked to specialize."
So, does a wizard need to purchase meta-magic feats for every school of spell he learns? Necromancy, Evocation etc.
I understand spell focus and some of the other feats must work with a spell chosen at the time of feat purchase. This, to me, is the same as picking weapon focus and specialization, therefore i see no difficulties with that at all.
|
|
So, does a wizard need to purchase meta-magic feats for every school of spell he learns? Necromancy, Evocation etc.
I understand spell focus and some of the other feats must work with a spell chosen at the time of feat purchase. This, to me, is the same as picking weapon focus and specialization, therefore i see no difficulties with that at all.
This analogy is a little bit flawed. The fighter doesn't have to put on a new shield when he changes to a different weapon either.
So if your argument isn't with Weapon Focus and Specialization, what is your argument? Is it about Weapon Training? You realize that covers an entire group of weapons, which I would definitely attribute to something like knowing several different martial arts (the monk weapon group), being good with a big sword (the heavy blade group), or knowing your way around a polearm (the polearm group).
What exactly is your issue, if not with Weapon Focus?
Is a wizard able to cast all spells? Even a non spezialized one cant do that.
Every single character in that game has to be specialized in some way. Bards wont be good at all performances even though its their feature to be good at that kind of stuff.
Your analogies are just lacking.
And just to make you know I've been doing some martial arts as well - at least I reached 4th Kyu. And I still dont agree at all. If you aim for effectivity you are spezializing your skills.
oh - and try that "reply" butten next to posts in order to quote them - your method is a little bit.. meh:S
The number of feats means that we have choices, a variety, not a standard cookie-cutter build.Is that actually true though? Both Archery and TWF both eat up a ton of feats. Combine that with the fact that not all weapons are created equal and you end up with much less true variety.
I suppose this just sums up a lot of what i am trying to ask about.
This also applies to sword and board fighting.I picture a fighter who can pick up a shield/sword, a big 2-hander, a ranged weapon like a bow, or anything he desires and be the undisputed master of any form of combat that is possible with that weapon.
As it currently stand, a fighter is not such a beast and takes a second place to the barbarian or anything that has a bonus that applies to a base ability score or type of enemy. Only, the fighter is penalized further by having less skills and class abilities than these other classes.
My initial questions were aimed at how a person could build a master of all weapons or how people houseruled fighters to allow them to be combat masters.
I -do- think that a "master of all the weapons" fighter would be interesting as an archetype. To me, the trick to making it really sing would be to somehow reward actually using several different weapons. The basic mechanics of the game - for ANY class, even before you consider feats like weapon focus - push towards using a single weapon, because that way you only have to buy a single weapon. The image of a guy with eight different weapons strapped to him is a pretty cool one, but the game pushes really powerfully away from that.
Is a wizard able to cast all spells? Even a non spezialized one cant do that.
Every single character in that game has to be specialized in some way. Bards wont be good at all performances even though its their feature to be good at that kind of stuff.
Your analogies are just lacking.
And just to make you know I've been doing some martial arts as well - at least I reached 4th Kyu. And I still dont agree at all. If you aim for effectivity you are spezializing your skills.
oh - and try that "reply" butten next to posts in order to quote them - your method is a little bit.. meh:S
Hah, I apologize if my method of response bothers you... LOL, how can i live with myself?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with your assertion.
Jack (of all trades)
Human fighter 10
Str 18, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
1 Power Attack, Cleave, Quick-Draw
2 Point-Blank Shot
3 Precise Shot
4 Rapid Shot, trade Cleave for Deadly Aim
5 Weapon Focus: Longsword
6 Vital Strike
7 Manyshot
8 Greater Weapon Focus: Longsword
9 Critical Focus
10 Weapon Specialization: Longsword
Here we have a fighter who can do quite a bit of damage two-handing his longsword. If he needs a bit more defence, he pulls on his Quick-Draw shield and fights defensively, using his three points in Acrobatics to gain +3 to his AC on top of the shield's AC bonus. At range he's more than competent, now that he has weapon training in both heavy blades and bows. He can fire 4 arrows per round as a full attack, or attack twice with his longsword (two-handed usually for the most damage), or vital strike with either if mobility is needed more.
Of course he wears full plate and takes full advantage of his dexterity bonus thanks to armour training. As a human with 12 intellect, he pulls off a cool 4 skills per level, which is more than enough to give him everything he needs to platform and fight. Critical Focus can be replaced with Iron Will if you desire a better will save for Jack.
But even if you had an archetype like that - It would have to have some drawbacks compared to spezialized fighter and therefore 95% of the people would still play a spezialized one because its simply better than being able to do good with flails, polearms and daggers at the same time.
But to be honest something like what you mentioned is possible.
First WT-group: heavy blades
second one: Bows
Pick up Bastard sword and a shield and you kinda have what you want? You still may pick the feats you desire and can be sword'n'board'ler, THW'ler or archer and probably even kinda good (even though archery wouldnt be comparable to a spezialist - but if you invest 2 or 3 feats it would be pretty slid.
Now tell me what is your problem with such a build? that it is less powerful than a spezialized one?
Mergy, seriously, stop that!:(
I -do- think that a "master of all the weapons" fighter would be interesting as an archetype. To me, the trick to making it really sing would be to somehow reward actually using several different weapons. The basic mechanics of the game - for ANY class, even before you consider feats like weapon focus - push towards using a single weapon, because that way you only have to buy a single weapon. The image of a guy with eight different weapons strapped to him is a pretty cool one, but the game pushes really powerfully away from that.
I picture a guy with a gun/hand crossbow, a bolo, a long sword, a short sword, a shield ring and a dagger who can disarm an enemy, take his weapon and show him a trick or two that he has never thought about.
The same guy still can be a bit like some comic book characters such as Deadpool or Riddick who are deadly enough to kill a man with a toothpick or, lol, a teacup.
When i picture a true fighter with almost no class skills, i picture the meanest most badass guy who can cut through armies like butter.
The true super soldier who is amazing with anything he can get his hands on, even his hands... Can i detatch my hand and use them like weapons?
I mean, why not. A man can stop time or wish a person to never have been born, why not make a guy who is dedicated to combat be the most amazing combatant ever?
Also, I find it a bit absurd that we compare a soldier/martial artist in real life to a man that can fart fireballs while flying his pet dragon to another plane or some such nonsense.
I disagree with your assertion.
Jack (of all trades)
Human fighter 10Str 18, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
1 Power Attack, Cleave, Quick-Draw
2 Point-Blank Shot
3 Precise Shot
4 Rapid Shot, trade Cleave for Deadly Aim
5 Weapon Focus: Longsword
6 Vital Strike
7 Manyshot
8 Greater Weapon Focus: Longsword
9 Critical Focus
10 Weapon Specialization: LongswordHere we have a fighter who can do quite a bit of damage two-handing his longsword. If he needs a bit more defence, he pulls on his Quick-Draw shield and fights defensively, using his three points in Acrobatics to gain +3 to his AC on top of the shield's AC bonus. At range he's more than competent, now that he has weapon training in both heavy blades and bows. He can fire 4 arrows per round as a full attack, or attack twice with his longsword (two-handed usually for the most damage), or vital strike with either if mobility is needed more.
Of course he wears full plate and takes full advantage of his dexterity bonus thanks to armour training. As a human with 12 intellect, he pulls off a cool 4 skills per level, which is more than enough to give him everything he needs to platform and fight. Critical Focus can be replaced with Iron Will if you desire a better will save for Jack.
Thank you Mergy.
This is good to know and i appreciate it.|
|
So you're thinking of the Catch Off-Guard feat? Don't worry, fighters are allowed to take that.
Guess what, the guy who is dedicated to magic still has to pick what spells he gets to use. I don't know what you want from the fighter, but if it is to be able to use absolutely every weapon better than anyone else, you're out of luck.
Question: "Why can't the fighter use every weapon better than any other class all at once?"
Answer: "Because this isn't a single-player game."
|
|
I disagree with your assertion.
Jack (of all trades)
Human fighter 10Str 18, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
1 Power Attack, Cleave, Quick-Draw
2 Point-Blank Shot
3 Precise Shot
4 Rapid Shot, trade Cleave for Deadly Aim
5 Weapon Focus: Longsword
6 Vital Strike
7 Manyshot
8 Greater Weapon Focus: Longsword
9 Critical Focus
10 Weapon Specialization: LongswordHere we have a fighter who can do quite a bit of damage two-handing his longsword. If he needs a bit more defence, he pulls on his Quick-Draw shield and fights defensively, using his three points in Acrobatics to gain +3 to his AC on top of the shield's AC bonus. At range he's more than competent, now that he has weapon training in both heavy blades and bows. He can fire 4 arrows per round as a full attack, or attack twice with his longsword (two-handed usually for the most damage), or vital strike with either if mobility is needed more.
Of course he wears full plate and takes full advantage of his dexterity bonus thanks to armour training. As a human with 12 intellect, he pulls off a cool 4 skills per level, which is more than enough to give him everything he needs to platform and fight. Critical Focus can be replaced with Iron Will if you desire a better will save for Jack.
Thank you Mergy.
This is good to know and i appreciate it.
No problem. Keep in mind this guy will not ever outdamage someone who dedicates themselves to one combat style. How would it be fair to the dedicated fighter if the jack-of-all-trades fighter could pick up every weapon and match the dedication of the first?
If not being tied down to a specific weapon is what you want, go with the free-hand fighter archetype (all 1 handed weapons), two-handed fighter (all 2 handed weapons), armor master archetype (no weapon dependency), mobile fighter archetype (ditto), or unbreakable archetype (ditto again).
No, you won't have quite as high bonuses with any weapon as a specialized fighter does with their focus, but that's what specializing does for you. It's not like the paladin, ranger, or barbarian don't have their own 'specializations' - evil enemies limited times per day, specific types of enemies, and rounds of rage per day, respectively.
If you don't want feats that tie you to a specific weapon, then choose from the lovely list Castarr4 provided, and a variety of other options that (as you say) increase with every splatbook.
You could take (not in any particular order) dodge, mobility, step up, power attack, combat expertise, improved initiative, toughness, diehard, critical focus, quick draw, iron will, flanking foil, gang up, lunge, opening volley, disruptive, improved critical, spellbreaker, combat reflexes, stand still, spring attack, strike back, following step, step up and strike, vital strike, whirlwind attack, and/or cleave, and very few of those would limit your choices in combat. (I'd also recommend point-blank and precise shot at some point to open up ranged combat options)
I picture a guy with a gun/hand crossbow, a bolo, a long sword, a short sword, a shield ring and a dagger who can disarm an enemy, take his weapon and show him a trick or two that he has never thought about.
Well, if he's specialized in that weapon, you won't be able to show him new tricks with it unless you're higher level than he is, because while you farted around learning bolo and hand crossbow, he spent that time getting better and better and better with what he's already good at.
Comic book characters don't have to worry about game balance. If you want to detach your hand and use it as a weapon, then use your imagination and write up some house rules. That's what they're there for.
So you're thinking of the Catch Off-Guard feat? Don't worry, fighters are allowed to take that.
Guess what, the guy who is dedicated to magic still has to pick what spells he gets to use. I don't know what you want from the fighter, but if it is to be able to use absolutely every weapon better than anyone else, you're out of luck.
Question: "Why can't the fighter use every weapon better than any other class all at once?"
Answer: "Because this isn't a single-player game."
So, in response to that, you are saying fighters should be able rage, have favored enemies and smite evil,but not as well as rangers, barbarians and paladins?
"Comic book characters don't have to worry about game balance. If you want to detach your hand and use it as a weapon, then use your imagination and write up some house rules. That's what they're there for."
Sry, that was a joke. Talk about a handyman... I will even boo and hiss at these 1/2 jokes. What are the other halves? Not funny hehe
That sounds like you want to play a computer game:P
Thats were its common to have these kind of characters that are just so badass they save the world on their own. But that just doesnt fit into a p'n'p game at all.
I mean why should anyone play a Barbarian? or a Chava? or a monk?(ok, bad example here) Just for 2 more skillpoints?
Oops, armor master archetype has a number of shield-focused bonuses, so you'd be kinda limited to using 1-handers.
That sounds like you want to play a computer game:P
Thats were its common to have these kind of characters that are just so badass they save the world on their own. But that just doesnt fit into a p'n'p game at all.
I mean why should anyone play a Barbarian? or a Chava? or a monk?(ok, bad example here) Just for 2 more skillpoints?
It's very easy to flip that around and ask why would anyone want to play a fighter when instead of an archer fighter, i can play a zen archer who has more skills, better AC, more maneuverability and better saves?
Why play a 2-handed fighter when i can play a better version in Barbarian form?I could go on, but redundancy for the sake of redundancy is redundant.
So, why play a fighter if he is not the master of many weapons, but simply a specialized weapon master that can be created with other martial classes?
That sounds like you want to play a computer game:P
Thats were its common to have these kind of characters that are just so badass they save the world on their own. But that just doesnt fit into a p'n'p game at all.
I mean why should anyone play a Barbarian? or a Chava? or a monk?(ok, bad example here) Just for 2 more skillpoints?
It's very easy to flip that around and ask why would anyone want to play a fighter when instead of an archer fighter, i can play a zen archer who has more skills, better AC, more maneuverability and better saves?
Why play a 2-handed fighter when i can play a better version in Barbarian form?I could go on, but redundancy for the sake of redundancy is redundant.
So, why play a fighter if he is not the master of many weapons, but simply a specialized weapon master that can be created with other martial classes?
The follow-up was the intial stuff i was asking.
What do people do to balance these things in the fighter class?I will expound upon this.
I saw it mentioned that a DM gives all non-archetype fighters all exotic weapon proficiencies.
Should the fighter class have power attack, point-blank shot, weapon focus and specialization built in?
Should the weapon specialization feats apply to every weapon in that category?
Do Aliens really exist? Read the book. Time Life magazine... wait, tangent..
Is It right that, now mind you, this is for a barbarian archetype, so it's even questionable to me, but ok, let's throw this out there, a Barbarian archetype has the below while a fighter does not?
Resilience of Steel (Ex)
At 3rd level, an armored hulk is able to use her armor to help avoid deadly hits. While wearing heavy armor, she gains a +1 bonus to AC that applies only on critical hit confirmation rolls. This bonus increases by +1 every 3 levels beyond 3rd (maximum +6 at 18th level).
This ability replaces trap sense.
yep lots of solutions.
as a fighter you get the best BAB, and start off proficient in everything that isn't exotic. That's a darn fine start.
For a generalist start with improved unarmed strike and improved Disarm. (You'll need to pay the feat tax of combat Expertise and have a 13 Int) But you can do that as a human fighter at first level.
Boom! just start takin' all your opponents stuff and using it against them.
Get Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot fairly early on and you've got a ton of versatility.
And don't underestimate the value of your armor training. At third level you can move your full movement in Medium armor, and Heavy armor at 7th. That class feature combined with Fleet a couple more movement feats. And you start to be where ever you need to be.
And DON'T MISS Vital Strike (and it's relatives)
And if your party doesn't appreciate you, just fail a will save to some kind of dominate effect. Just once is all it will take.
I need to run to an appointment, so i will be back later... thank you for the candid discussion. i do appreciate your time and patience.
While i know what i want to state, i have trouble putting these thoughts on paper.
I am one of those math people who thinks it's fun doing quadratic equations, or figuring compound interest in my head, yet has trouble composing essays.
Yet that "weapon training" is just as effective as a barbarian's rage except for the fact that a barbarian's rage also increases his constitution and his will saves while still working just as well with his 2-handed sword as it does with a chair leg or shield.
The fighter gets not just weapon training, though. He also gets armour training and access to many more feats. I had to run some numbers between the barbarian and the fighter once, and the barbarian barely managed to keep up.
If your fighter chooses not to take the Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation feats, then he keeps pace with the barbarian for hitting and damage output when the barbarian is raging. He's well ahead when the barbarian isn't raging.
He also has better AC, through wearing better armour and having armour training. So while he is not as tough as the barbarian, he is harder to hurt.
Then he gets whatever he DID spend those feats on. And he has a LOT of feats! This means a flat fight between the two could lead to the fighter winning through sheer tactical acumen. It isn't all about hitting and damaging.
I agree that a person who dedicates him/her self to becoming the best should be allowed to do so.
Just so, and the system represents this.
I guess it is just me that sees something wrong with a guy who rages or hunts for a living being just as good with a weapon as the guy who dedicates his whole life toward the mastery of weapons and nothing else.
The barbarian is not 'as good with a weapon' as the fighter. He has to use his rage to make up the difference, after all. He is a tribal warrior, trained in his own way. He hunts for a living, which means he has to be effective at hitting his target, or go hungry. He has to defend his tribe from threats and dangers. He's good at fighting, but he is not as sophisticated as the fighter - he just rages and charges, and yes he is good at it. But when he rushes a skilled fighter, said fighter sets a weapon to receive the charge, or performs a trip with a long weapon before the barbarian gets to hit.
You have to take that huge list of combat feats, and ask yourself which gives you the best advantage. You will end up with way more options than the barbarian, and that means more chances of a winning tactic.
I think you're still not seeing the point in what people are saying. I'm unsure at this point if you're a troll, but I'll assume you're not for the sake of reasonable discussion.
The point of a feat is to do one or more of the following:
- Specialize in an action (Improved Trip or Extra Rogue Trick(for rogues))
- Gain more options (ranging from actions, such as Cleave, to more access to something, such as Exotic Weapon Proficiency
- Gain a bonus when doing something (such as Skill Focus(acrobatics) or Weapon Focus (longsword)
Now then. You ask why a single character can't be "the best." The answer is because Pathfinder is based around having a party of adventurers who work off of each others' strengths to overcome challenges. You should never have a character who is simply better at everything than everyone else.
On the other hand, if you want a character who is the best at a particular thing, then you can take feats and gain abilities that help you do that thing as you level. You will then be better at doing that thing than people who did not take those feats and who do not have those abilities.
Lastly, if you want a character who doesn't specialize in any one particular thing, you don't have to. That's what my original post was saying. You can take a bunch of feats that help you in combat, and you'll be good at doing lots of different things. When you think about it though, every feat you take specializes you. The key to being a generalist is that you are scattering your feats around so that you're not limited in your combat choices to one thing that you're really good at (because you can do lots of things well as a generalist!)
And since you mentioned it, if you want to use as many weapons as you possibly can, then grab the Quick Learner trait and the Improvised Weapon Mastery feat. You can now use a bunch of different weapons decently well, even treating things that aren't weapons as weapons. Ta-da!
But even if you had an archetype like that - It would have to have some drawbacks compared to spezialized fighter and therefore 95% of the people would still play a spezialized one because its simply better than being able to do good with flails, polearms and daggers at the same time.
IMO if 95% of people would pick one archetype over another then either the archetype is unappealing in concept or not properly balanced. I don't think the "Master of Arms" archetype is unappealing, which means that I think there is a balancing point where people would take it over specialization.
Suppose the jack of all arms can wield any weapon at 95% the ability of a specialist with their chosen weapon. Do you think 95% of people would still pick the specialist over the jack of all arms?
It's very easy to flip that around and ask why would anyone want to play a fighter when instead of an archer fighter, i can play a zen archer who has more skills, better AC, more maneuverability and better saves?
The same could be said of any two archetypes that overlap. I think most of the time the archetypes are balanced closely enough that the flavor of the archetype drives my decision.
For example, I would play an archer fighter over a zen archer when I want someone who is more of a mercenary or soldier rather than a monk who uses archery as a form of mediation.
I'm pretty sure that Mr. Pizza didn't want the master-of-arms to be as good as a specialist with all weapons. He would be somewhat better than that specialist at the weapons the specialist didn't specialize in, and he'd be able to use more types of weapon than any specialized fighter.
Basically, this guy, only tack a crossbow, mace, flindbar, dwarven urgrosh, axe musket, and maybe a mancatcher or something onto it.
I like the idea. It's the perfect archetype for the master-of-arms characters one finds in training academies and noble houses throughout fantasy--able to wield anything, but outshone by the capable student who puts diligent study into a particular area. I've already brainstormed a stab at a homebrew version; I'll test it a bit and post it in the appropriate forum some time when I'm not on a deadline.