A fighter and his bonus feats: What's so bad about them?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me say I actually LIKE Fighters. That is... I like their idea. The concept of the class! But I find its mechanics to be underwhelming.

I'll start by saying I don't think there should be any Fighter exclusive feats at all. IMHO, it'd be much more interesting if all feats received some buff and started scaling with level, like Power Attack does.

e.g: The combat Maneuver feats: Why exactly must someone be incredibly smart just to properly trip people? Isn't it fun how Dr. Stephen Hawking could grab Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, but Chuck Norris probably not?
I like the maneuver feats because they give me a nice numerical bonus AND expand my options! That's awesome! If they didn't have such non-sensical and restrictive pre-requisites, I'd surely take them much more often!

If instead, each "Improved/Greater Combat Maneuver feat were a single feat that scaled with level an didn't have an Int pre-requisite, many character would suddenly have more cool things to do in combat! And they wouldn't have to take the completelly useless Combat Expertise!
Same for TWF! Why is that 4 feats instead of one or two that scale with level?

I think DnD and by PF created these extremely long feat chains filled with weak and useless feats to justify the fact that Fighters only get is extra feats, but all that actually does is punish every character in the game, especially fighters!

If there were no weak/useless feat prerequisites and no extremelly long feat chains that add little to nothing to the character, all classes would be a lot funnier to play, and Fighters would be a lot more awesome!
Sure, Paladins would be able to get both Improved/Greater Trip and Disarm... But Fighters would be able to get Improved/Greater Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, whatever they want! And do so while fighting with 2 weapons and being masters of archery!

Hell, nearly every feat with a Improved/Greater version could be a single scaling feat! And to add insult to the injury most caster feats have little or no prerequisites at all! Even the all-powerful Quicken Spell and Persistent Spell have no prerequisite!

tl;dr: The problem with Fighters is that "Martials can't have nice things", and Fighters are the most martial of classes!


I wouldn't mind, say, a seven feat chain, with other appropriate prerequisites, if the final feat were equivalent to a seventh-level spell in power. As it is, what the fighter can get at level 14 is nowhere near what the cleric or sorcerer can get at level 14.

A 14th-level fighter can get a feat that will deafen a foe. Or, with another feat, exhaust him. Or halve his speed. If they score a critical (30% chance, at best, yes?). A sorcerer or cleric could do this by 6th level, if their foe fails a save (probably better than a 30% change). Now, the fighter can do this all day, which is a point in favor, but is it equivalent to greater teleport? Or symbol of stunning? Or waves of exhaustion (no save!)?


Speaking about balance...
I think that Fighters have the better AC and AB and possibly dmg in the game, if we talk of martial classes.
The weapon trainings along with weapon specialization make their blows stronger of anyother (expect maybe a Ranger with equal strength hitting a favored enemy, maybe), the armor training let them go around with adamantium full platemail without any speed reducing and with almost no check penalties.
They are very good in combat maneuvers (they have high strength, full bab and plenty of feats to take them). Trip is possibly the best combat maneuver, that is why it has a "crazy" prerequisite (which is totally understandable from my point of view). Monks can take that feat ignoring prerequisites, so trip is one of the few things they can do easier than a warrior! I would leave them this advantage in the global picture.

Speaking about extra feats, I think is a very good bonus. I have never had a warrior or another martial class that I did not know where to put an extra feat in use (there are so many feats you will want, but you have to plan carefully which feats you want that are not warrior bonus feats -such as iron will and improved iw- to take them as your character level feats).

I personally find the Fighter a good option and a good dual class option, I see it combining very well with the Rogue class for example, as you can take advantage both of some extra d6 dmg during flanking and of all the class skills (with 3 levels you would get 2d6 SA, many class skill and SP, trap spotter and loose 1 BAB).

I played once a Fighter/Bard in one group, he was average effective into combat (Just enough CHA for spells, better physical stats, Dazzling Display) and Extremely useful in all other situations!

If you don't want your Fighter to be a boring character, don't make it boring!


My trouble with fighters is their specialization. I want them to be like Karl Cullinane from Guardians of the Flame. Other classes can master one weapon, but the fighter should be able to master them all.

Weapon training groups was a step in the right direction, but didn't go far enough. Taking a group should also grant proficiency in all its weapons, and give an appropriate tax feat as a bonus too.
Also, I think i'd be ok with giving up increases to the weapon training bonus, if weapon specific feats for one weapon in a group applied to all of them in that group.

Feats aren't boring, but fighters still just don't get enough of them to make up for their lack of other special abilities. Other than armor training, which is pretty nifty.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cult of Vorg wrote:

My trouble with fighters is their specialization. I want them to be like Karl Cullinane from Guardians of the Flame. Other classes can master one weapon, but the fighter should be able to master them all.

You can have breadth if you don't insist on feat tracking any one of them to death. And Cullinane wasn't Mr. Everything Boy, he had a few basic tricks but one of them was making good strategic use of ALL of his companions. He only failed when he insisted on doing everything himself. Which is pretty much how he ultimately died.

You don't have to take on every single sword feat. You can do a bit of melee feat, a bit of ranged, and a bit of battle field manipulation as well. The problems with fighters are typically the limitations of the players running them.


Cult of Vorg wrote:
My trouble with fighters is their specialization. I want them to be like Karl Cullinane from Guardians of the Flame. Other classes can master one weapon, but the fighter should be able to master them all.

Speaking of, anyone know where I can find these damn books? I picked up the Sleeping Dragon years ago but have never been able to find the rest of them anywhere.


Distant Scholar wrote:

I wouldn't mind, say, a seven feat chain, with other appropriate prerequisites, if the final feat were equivalent to a seventh-level spell in power. As it is, what the fighter can get at level 14 is nowhere near what the cleric or sorcerer can get at level 14.

A 14th-level fighter can get a feat that will deafen a foe. Or, with another feat, exhaust him. Or halve his speed. If they score a critical (30% chance, at best, yes?). A sorcerer or cleric could do this by 6th level, if their foe fails a save (probably better than a 30% change). Now, the fighter can do this all day, which is a point in favor, but is it equivalent to greater teleport? Or symbol of stunning? Or waves of exhaustion (no save!)?

That's pretty much "Fighters can't have nice things" in a nutshell. Now we just have to wait for the people who disagree to show up.

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
Cult of Vorg wrote:
My trouble with fighters is their specialization. I want them to be like Karl Cullinane from Guardians of the Flame. Other classes can master one weapon, but the fighter should be able to master them all.
Speaking of, anyone know where I can find these damn books? I picked up the Sleeping Dragon years ago but have never been able to find the rest of them anywhere.

...the Internet?


Elamdri wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Cult of Vorg wrote:
My trouble with fighters is their specialization. I want them to be like Karl Cullinane from Guardians of the Flame. Other classes can master one weapon, but the fighter should be able to master them all.
Speaking of, anyone know where I can find these damn books? I picked up the Sleeping Dragon years ago but have never been able to find the rest of them anywhere.

...the Internet?

For less than $244

That and they weren't on there last I checked Amazon.

Silver Crusade

Fighters are specialists, that is what they do and that is what they were designed to do.

When has anyone ever truly run into the repeated problem of having the wrong weapon at the wrong time during melee? I'm talking about to the point of being useless. Not being at full optimization for every combat doesn't count, I see that as a common complaint with some people. 'Oh I don't like the fighter because he can't be fully optimized with every weapon in the game."

I can bet you that the ranger has more difficulty not facing his favored enemy than the fighter needing a different weapon.


shallowsoul wrote:

Fighters are specialists, that is what they do and that is what they were designed to do.

When has anyone ever truly run into the repeated problem of having the wrong weapon at the wrong time during melee? I'm talking about to the point of being useless. Not being at full optimization for every combat doesn't count, I see that as a common complaint with some people. 'Oh I don't like the fighter because he can't be fully optimized with every weapon in the game."

I can bet you that the ranger has more difficulty not facing his favored enemy than the fighter needing a different weapon.

The higher level you are, the higher the chance of this happening becomes.

And of course, there are cases like fighting a Remorhaz or a Rust Monster as well.

Silver Crusade

Rynjin wrote:
Elamdri wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Cult of Vorg wrote:
My trouble with fighters is their specialization. I want them to be like Karl Cullinane from Guardians of the Flame. Other classes can master one weapon, but the fighter should be able to master them all.
Speaking of, anyone know where I can find these damn books? I picked up the Sleeping Dragon years ago but have never been able to find the rest of them anywhere.

...the Internet?

For less than $244

That and they weren't on there last I checked Amazon.

Well that's for the omnibus hardcover. The link was merely to prove a point. The internet is your friend.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Fighters are specialists, that is what they do and that is what they were designed to do.

When has anyone ever truly run into the repeated problem of having the wrong weapon at the wrong time during melee? I'm talking about to the point of being useless. Not being at full optimization for every combat doesn't count, I see that as a common complaint with some people. 'Oh I don't like the fighter because he can't be fully optimized with every weapon in the game."

I can bet you that the ranger has more difficulty not facing his favored enemy than the fighter needing a different weapon.

The higher level you are, the higher the chance of this happening becomes.

And of course, there are cases like fighting a Remorhaz or a Rust Monster as well.

Which screws any pc reliant on a weapon.

This is not about the fighter, this all down to players who throw all their eggs in one basket and who aren't prepared. Remember, a fighter focuses on a "group" of weapons while you feat focus on one. Fighters never have trouble hitting so if you ever do need to grab another weapon, and for some reason you don't have the same type as a backup then you go for the next group you semi-specialize in and your to hit and damage will be a little less but who cares.


The only problem I have with this class feature is that it gets often nerfed by HRs giving out free feats to everyone.


shallowsoul wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Fighters are specialists, that is what they do and that is what they were designed to do.

When has anyone ever truly run into the repeated problem of having the wrong weapon at the wrong time during melee? I'm talking about to the point of being useless. Not being at full optimization for every combat doesn't count, I see that as a common complaint with some people. 'Oh I don't like the fighter because he can't be fully optimized with every weapon in the game."

I can bet you that the ranger has more difficulty not facing his favored enemy than the fighter needing a different weapon.

The higher level you are, the higher the chance of this happening becomes.

And of course, there are cases like fighting a Remorhaz or a Rust Monster as well.

Which screws any pc reliant on a weapon.

This is not about the fighter, this all down to players who throw all their eggs in one basket and who aren't prepared. Remember, a fighter focuses on a "group" of weapons while you feat focus on one. Fighters never have trouble hitting so if you ever do need to grab another weapon, and for some reason you don't have the same type as a backup then you go for the next group you semi-specialize in and your to hit and damage will be a little less but who cares.

No class relies more on weapons than a Fighter.

Thus, it's a legitimate problem especially for Fighters.

@Umbranus

What is a HR ?


HR probably means house rules.


I'd say that if someone houserules feats, it's less because people hate Fighters and more because other characters don't get enough of them. Actually, I think there are two problems with feats in general. First being how few a normal character gets, the second being how ineffective most of them are. Third problem but sort of related to the first one is the ridiculous amounts of pre-requisite feats (most of which are terrible) some of the more effective ones require.

Also, why do I need an insane feat tax just to play a kitsune with nine tails? It makes no freaking sense...


Yes, it means house rule

Icyshadow wrote:
I'd say that if someone houserules feats, it's less because people hate Fighters and more because other characters don't get enough of them.

It's not because they hate fighters but because they don't think about the side effects of those houserules.

If all catserclasses would become full casters few people would deny that this is a nerf to the actual full casters.
But if someone gives everyone a full load of feats and thus hands out what makes the fighter special to everyone this is no fighter nerf.


As far as a house rule giving free feats, that doesn't hurt the fighter unless he himself doesn't get them (Troll DM: "No, fighter no get houserule, you get extra feats already trolololo").


So a houserule giving everyone free channel energy ability would not be a cleric nerf in your opinion? Or giving the seak attack ability to everyone a rogue nerf?


Fighters still have their Fighter-only feats, so there's that.


Icyshadow wrote:
Distant Scholar wrote:

I wouldn't mind, say, a seven feat chain, with other appropriate prerequisites, if the final feat were equivalent to a seventh-level spell in power. As it is, what the fighter can get at level 14 is nowhere near what the cleric or sorcerer can get at level 14.

A 14th-level fighter can get a feat that will deafen a foe. Or, with another feat, exhaust him. Or halve his speed. If they score a critical (30% chance, at best, yes?). A sorcerer or cleric could do this by 6th level, if their foe fails a save (probably better than a 30% change). Now, the fighter can do this all day, which is a point in favor, but is it equivalent to greater teleport? Or symbol of stunning? Or waves of exhaustion (no save!)?

That's pretty much "Fighters can't have nice things" in a nutshell. Now we just have to wait for the people who disagree to show up.

Well, that sounds more like a martical Vs caster, i ddoubt any martical have an ability at the level of greater teleport utility.

But just for fun, lets see a 14th fighter with these feats

WF, GWF, Power attack, Furious focus,cornugon smash, intimidating prowess, Improved critical, critical focus, sickening critical, dazing assault, lunge, Iron will, lightig reflexes, Improved initiative, weapon specialization.

a reasonable gear is

+4 falchion, +4 belt of str, gloves of dueling, cracked pale green prism ioun stone.

That would give us +33 to attack.

If the fighter use dazzing asult that would be +28 to attack with a DC 24, ad it becomes DC 26 when using cornugon smash, DC 28 if the fighter lands a critical.

So with dazing asault the fighter will hit a CR 14 (according to the PRD) opponent 95% of times, will daze it 45% ( 55% if crit) if the monster have a good fort saves, and 70%(80% if crit) If the mosnter have a poor save. And it is all day long.


Lemmy wrote:

Let me say I actually LIKE Fighters. That is... I like their idea. The concept of the class! But I find its mechanics to be underwhelming.

I'll start by saying I don't think there should be any Fighter exclusive feats at all. IMHO, it'd be much more interesting if all feats received some buff and started scaling with level, like Power Attack does.

e.g: The combat Maneuver feats: Why exactly must someone be incredibly smart just to properly trip people? Isn't it fun how Dr. Stephen Hawking could grab Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, but Chuck Norris probably not?
I like the maneuver feats because they give me a nice numerical bonus AND expand my options! That's awesome! If they didn't have such non-sensical and restrictive pre-requisites, I'd surely take them much more often!

If instead, each "Improved/Greater Combat Maneuver feat were a single feat that scaled with level an didn't have an Int pre-requisite, many character would suddenly have more cool things to do in combat! And they wouldn't have to take the completelly useless Combat Expertise!
Same for TWF! Why is that 4 feats instead of one or two that scale with level?

I think DnD and by PF created these extremely long feat chains filled with weak and useless feats to justify the fact that Fighters only get is extra feats, but all that actually does is punish every character in the game, especially fighters!

If there were no weak/useless feat prerequisites and no extremelly long feat chains that add little to nothing to the character, all classes would be a lot funnier to play, and Fighters would be a lot more awesome!
Sure, Paladins would be able to get both Improved/Greater Trip and Disarm... But Fighters would be able to get Improved/Greater Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, whatever they want! And do so while fighting with 2 weapons and being masters of archery!

Hell, nearly every feat with a Improved/Greater version could be a single scaling feat! And to add insult to the injury most caster feats have little or no...

You have a real point here, but Paizo is in the business of selling books. They have to put something into new books for crunch, and feats and spells are the big things, along with new base classes, archetypes, and prestige classes.

Look there are hundreds of feats now. Most are never used in any builds. Just as a guess I think I could eyeball things and maybe find 40 or 50 feats that are 90% of what anyone ever takes. And some of those might be just as prereqs to the feat they really wanted to take, and would not be taken otherwise.

I'd also very much like to state that all these Improved/Greater things are nothing more than filler, or a feat tax like concentration was a skill tax in 3.x.


Nicos wrote:
So with dazing asault the fighter will hit a CR 14 (according to the PRD) opponent 95% of times, will daze it 45% ( 55% if crit) if the monster have a good fort saves, and 70%(80% if crit) If the mosnter have a poor save. And it is all day long.

That's pretty neat. No sarcasm here; it really is fairly impressive.

Meanwhile, a 14th-level sorcerer who picks up waves of ecstasy can stun a small cone full of targets for 1 round (as long as dazing assault lasts), and then stagger them for, probably, the rest of their short lives. It is only 3 times a day, though.

Or, if flesh to stone is used, a single target is turned to stone, forever, at medium range. And can be cast at least 8 times a day.

On top of that (and this part is moving the goalposts a bit), this is comparing much of the fighter's Bonus Feats class ability to one (1) spell.

I still think high-level feats need to be beefed up in order to compare with what other classes get.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:

Yes, it means house rule

Icyshadow wrote:
I'd say that if someone houserules feats, it's less because people hate Fighters and more because other characters don't get enough of them.

It's not because they hate fighters but because they don't think about the side effects of those houserules.

If all catserclasses would become full casters few people would deny that this is a nerf to the actual full casters.
But if someone gives everyone a full load of feats and thus hands out what makes the fighter special to everyone this is no fighter nerf.

If the fighter gets those bonus feats as well, then he still comes out ahead feat wise. In fact if a bunch of feats ARE house ruled than the clever fighter may be able to complete more feat chains then he could otherwise.

So that scenario is very situation dependent.


I'll re-join the conversation with a simple example of why bonus feats aren't great: The Rogue.

A rogue gets a rogue talent at even levels. One such rogue talent is 'combat trick'. So the rogue could have just as many feats as the fighter, plus evasion, uncanny dodge, trap sense, 8 skills per level instead of 2, a much wider assortment of class skills, and a sneak attack damage bonus. All for a measly -5 BAB as compared to the fighter at 20th level.

If another class can duplicate almost everything you do, and still gets lots of extra features, then your class has been shortchanged. The fighter-only feats try to make up for it, but for RPing purposes just the 8 skills per level vs. 2 skills per level tips the balance for me.

Every other class gets feats at odd levels, and 'cool class-only features that no one else can duplicate' at even levels. The fighter gets feats at odd levels, and 'more feats, most of which any other class can duplicate' at even levels.

Is the fighter the best at this because of the fighter-only feats? Yes, but only by a wee bit. And the poor saves (as compared to a paladin or ranger), lack of noncombat skills, and lack of flavor (that you don't make up yourself) really doom the class for me.


Distant Scholar wrote:
Nicos wrote:
So with dazing asault the fighter will hit a CR 14 (according to the PRD) opponent 95% of times, will daze it 45% ( 55% if crit) if the monster have a good fort saves, and 70%(80% if crit) If the mosnter have a poor save. And it is all day long.

That's pretty neat. No sarcasm here; it really is fairly impressive.

Meanwhile, a 14th-level sorcerer who picks up waves of ecstasy can stun a small cone full of targets for 1 round (as long as dazing assault lasts), and then stagger them for, probably, the rest of their short lives. It is only 3 times a day, though.

Or, if flesh to stone is used, a single target is turned to stone, forever, at medium range. And can be cast at least 8 times a day.

On top of that (and this part is moving the goalposts a bit), this is comparing much of the fighter's Bonus Feats class ability to one (1) spell.

I still think high-level feats need to be beefed up in order to compare with what other classes get.

Spellcasting is the most powerful option out there. yet I think the disparity is much smaller than people of the forum tend to think.

I do think there should be better fighter only feats, specially at higher levels.


NobodysHome wrote:

I'll re-join the conversation with a simple example of why bonus feats aren't great: The Rogue.

A rogue gets a rogue talent at even levels. One such rogue talent is 'combat trick'. So the rogue could have just as many feats as the fighter, plus evasion, uncanny dodge, trap sense, 8 skills per level instead of 2, a much wider assortment of class skills, and a sneak attack damage bonus. All for a measly -5 BAB as compared to the fighter at 20th level.

You can't take a rogue talent twice. The fact that you would want to is proof that feats are far better than rogue talents.


Atarlost wrote:
You can't take a rogue talent twice. The fact that you would want to is proof that feats are far better than rogue talents.

I stand corrected; just checked the Rules forum and looks like our GM has been house ruling that different feats = different combat tricks.

However, it's not that "<I> would want to" take feats instead of rogue talents; I was just trying to show that I could build a fighter using the rogue tree. Personally, I always take rogue talents in spite of the house rule, as I find them more useful in the long run.

As for my previous post, I was wrong, I freely admit it.

EDIT: And to avoid the huge "House Rules ruin fighters" argument I'm worried I might have created, I'll just point out that of three rogues played by three different players under that rule, not a single one took Combat Trick more than once. That says something right there.


I see a very good option in fighter / rogue multiclass. But if you put together the 5 AB, the weapon training, the weapon focuses and specializations, in the end the difference in numbers is pretty huge, even with an improbable same strength value. Also the rogue will have despite his probably high dex a much less AC, since the armor penalties would kill him (while the fighter can almost sleep in his full admantium platemail).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find all the casters class boring and annoying. There is almost no risk of death or anything being one. Especial if the fighters are doing there job. That is boring, buff, buff, buff, damage spell. They spend the most of their time buffing. I love fighters and rogues. There is risk involved with those classes. They are the ones that save the casters from ever taking damage. They are the ones that can say this

"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!"


sunbeam wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Let me say I actually LIKE Fighters. That is... I like their idea. The concept of the class! But I find its mechanics to be underwhelming.

I'll start by saying I don't think there should be any Fighter exclusive feats at all. IMHO, it'd be much more interesting if all feats received some buff and started scaling with level, like Power Attack does.

e.g: The combat Maneuver feats: Why exactly must someone be incredibly smart just to properly trip people? Isn't it fun how Dr. Stephen Hawking could grab Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, but Chuck Norris probably not?
I like the maneuver feats because they give me a nice numerical bonus AND expand my options! That's awesome! If they didn't have such non-sensical and restrictive pre-requisites, I'd surely take them much more often!

If instead, each "Improved/Greater Combat Maneuver feat were a single feat that scaled with level an didn't have an Int pre-requisite, many character would suddenly have more cool things to do in combat! And they wouldn't have to take the completelly useless Combat Expertise!
Same for TWF! Why is that 4 feats instead of one or two that scale with level?

I think DnD and by PF created these extremely long feat chains filled with weak and useless feats to justify the fact that Fighters only get is extra feats, but all that actually does is punish every character in the game, especially fighters!

If there were no weak/useless feat prerequisites and no extremelly long feat chains that add little to nothing to the character, all classes would be a lot funnier to play, and Fighters would be a lot more awesome!
Sure, Paladins would be able to get both Improved/Greater Trip and Disarm... But Fighters would be able to get Improved/Greater Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Grapple, whatever they want! And do so while fighting with 2 weapons and being masters of archery!

Hell, nearly every feat with a Improved/Greater version could be a single scaling feat! And to add insult to the injury most caster feats...

You have a real point here, but Paizo is in the business of selling books. They have to put something into new books for crunch, and feats and spells are the big things, along with new base classes, archetypes, and prestige classes.

Look there are hundreds of feats now. Most are never used in any builds. Just as a guess I think I could eyeball things and maybe find 40 or 50 feats that are 90% of what anyone ever takes. And some of those might be just as prereqs to the feat they really wanted to take, and would not be taken otherwise.

I'd also very much like to state that all these Improved/Greater things are nothing more than filler, or a feat tax like concentration was a skill tax in 3.x.

I understand that Paizo has to publish more feats/spells in order to sell books, but do they really have to publish feats like Sure Grasp?

I'd much rather have a 100 page book with meaningful options, such as feats/spells that are actually useful than a 300 page book full of things like Water Skinned and Stoic.
I'd still buy UC and UM if they had half the amount of feats, but all (or at least, most) of them were actually useful.


I think if I ever run another Pathfinder game for people I will houserule that Fighters, Rogues, and Monks can take any of the class Archtypes without having to trade away any class features for the benefits. They get the bonus abilities of their chosen archtype for free, basically. Would this help to bring them up from teir 4 to be closer to the other classes?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

No, the whole feat mechanic vis Fighters has to be recalibrated.

Oh, and something needs to be done with Bravery.

For instance, Weapon Spec should simply be rewritten as: Choose a weapon from a weapon group you have Weapon Training in. Your Weapon Training bonus for this weapon is doubled. This bonus supercedes Weapon Focus. REq: Weapon Focus.

Weapon Focus should be: Choose one weapon you are proficient in. You gain a +1 to hit with that weapon.
If you have Weapon Training, you instead gain +1 to hit with one weapon in each weapon group you are trained in.

Weapon Training: At levels 5, 9, 13 and 17, you may pick a Weapon Group. You gain a +1 bonus to hit and damage with all weapons in those groups, at each level you take them. (+1 at 4th, +2 at 9th, etc).

i.e. they'll end up with +4/+4 across 4 groups, not this rapidly shrinking bonus. With Weapon Spec reduced to one feat, they could specialize in multiple weapons if they so wish.

And then make sure all Fighter archetypes keep weapon training.

Most Archetype abilities should be redone as feats. Just key them off fighter abilities to give fighters an advantage.

Bonus feats granted by the fighter class should be exactly like those for the monk and Ranger, and ignore pre-reqs. If they have a bigger pool to pull from, so what?

Oh, btw, Adamantium armor is useless to fighters as a capstone. They get DR 5/-, which is better then adamantium, at level 19.

And the benefits of armor training can be 90% duplicated with a suit of Celestial Mail or Celestial Plate.

Furthermore, the Fighter should be getting DR as he levels, not as a dumb capstone at 19. Seriously, what?

Armor Training should be written as: You gain a +1 Dodge bonus, and DR 1/- while in armor or bearing a shield, per level of armor training, and the ACP of any armor is reduced by one per level of armor training. THis DR stacks with adamantine armor.
Note: You get the dodge bonus in armor or not. You get the DR in armor
Then remove the level 19 capstone and replace it with a +5. You know, the same bonus the gunslinger gets.
THIS creates a true AC advantage for a fighter that is not dependent upon them having high stats. If they have a monster dex, they can get celestial armor like anyone else.

==Aelryinth


I think the point of augmenting all the time the numbers does not make things more balanced. I think numbers are balanced as they are. The risk of augmenting too much numbers on the fighter's side (because they can't cast fly etc) is that the scaling of numbers will lead to a slippery slope where they will be the only one able to fight. It's nice for them to be the best at it but not to be the only ones.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

If you want fighters to excel at more then one fighting style...they need more feats to do so.

If you want fighters to have the feats to spend on non-combat feats...they are going to need to spend fewer feats on combat stuff, or have better defensive feats.

The numbers I gave above don't actually change all that much. A +4/+4 to Weapon Spec is of nominal value at level 20 vs +2/+4...and is actually slightly less powerful before level 13. It just takes one feat, instead of 4.

Here's another variant:

Improved Critical: If you have weapon focus in a weapon, the threat range doubles. This does not stack with keen.
If you have Weapon Training, all the weapons in a group have doubled threat range if you have Weapon Focus in one of those weapons.
Weapon Specialization: You receive +4 to Critical Confirmation rolls with SPecialized weapons.

Does this really change the numbers? No, it just expands them to include other weapons, without having to pay a monstrous cost.

Iron Will: You recieve +2 To Will Saves.
If you have Bravery, you additionally add your Bravery to all Will Saves.

Improved Iron Will: You may reroll a Will save, et al.
If you have Bravery, your Will Save progression for Fighter levels becomes Good.

etc.

Change the feat paradigm. Make it work for fighters, instead of against them.

==Aelryinth

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
If you want fighters to excel at more then one fighting style...they need more feats to do so.

No you don't. You can easily have a fighter who's main fighting style is melee while still able to be decent in archery. Will you be better than the ranger who chose the archery route? Oh course not, but you can still contribute when you need to. The fighter doesn't need to be fully optimized in both melee and archery.

If you want to excel at two then choose "bows" as your next Weapon Training choice.


I totally agree with Shallowsoul


Umbranus wrote:
So a houserule giving everyone free channel energy ability would not be a cleric nerf in your opinion? Or giving the seak attack ability to everyone a rogue nerf?

Not if the class that had it originally also got the enhanced benefit; if everyone got the ability to channel energy, but this stacked with what the cleric already had giving him double uses or a double strength channel, then no it wouldn't nerf him. I also don't see any class with sneak attack being hurt by having a max sneak attack of 20d6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if all classes received five hundred uses of Channel Energy per day, and clerics received 503+CHA? Would that also not be a nerf to clerics?

The difference between 0 and 10 uses per day is far greater than the difference between 10 and 20, which in turn is still not so small as the difference between 500 and 510. Usefulness is not a strictly linear function, and diminishing returns is a thing.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It's been repeatedly shown that trying to be really good at two fighting styles either takes a phenomanally long time, or shortcuts one of the styles.

Trying to be a great swordsman who is also a great archer is nearly impossible to do effectively. The Weapon Training for your second group is at level 9. Are you really going to invest in the spec tree for a bow? Likely not.

It's going to be hard enough taking Precise Shot, Rapid Fire, and Manyshot, not to mention deadly aim. You MIGHT have Weapon Focus/Bow, so at level 10 you're +2/+1 with your bow, vs +4/+4 with your blade, and you're likely putting points into str instead of the sword.

Meanwhile, the ranger at 10 is +6 against his best FE with any weapon he lays his hands on, and +2 against all his other FE's.

You don't have enough feats to be any kind of a great archer, especially if you want to be good in melee. Start conserving feats, and consolidating them, and yeah, maybe you could be a specialist in the longbow, and the blade.

==Aelryinth


shallowsoul wrote:

While in another thread I came across a few posts talking about the fighter's bonus feats and how it's sucks as a class feature because everyone get's feats but I see it's not true because while everyone does get feats, the fighter gets the most therefore he is able to posses multiple feat trees that other classes just cannot take.

Why do some people feel like this isn't a good enough class feature for the class?

My issue is that(excluding prereqs), people pick feats from best to worst.

This results in a high level fighter generally picking feats that are less desirable than the lower level ones. I find this is especially true if you pick a feat like build like 2 handed weapons.

There are also issues with ability score prereqs on many of the good feats(meaning you are locked out of many of your classes core features depending on your ability scores) and with many bad feats that are required for good feats.


Rynjin wrote:
Lemmy wrote:


So... Numbers?

I think you missed my point.

A 30th level commoner whose all attribute scores are 50 still can't:

- fly
- detect evil
- cast spells
- wildshape
- become invisible
- have an animal companion
- channel energy
- rage
- disarm magic traps

But he can do anything a fighter can do.

Because all fighters get are numbers. And feats that increase said numbers.

Yes, NUMBERS. The 30th level Fighter with 50 in every Attribute score is still going to have better NUMBERS than the theoretical commoner.

What's wrong with numbers?

A Barbarian is all about NUMBERS. Those numbers usually being how much HP he's got and the NUMBERS of times he can rage per day that allows him to raise his OTHER NUMBERS even higher. Martial classes are all about f!$+ing NUMBERS. That's the point of them!

You are playing a barbarian wrong if all you focus on is numbers. Rage powers can be used to do a lot of cool things that a commoner or fighter couldn't.


Elamdri wrote:
I think fighters would be more interesting if more feats were "Fighter Restricted" like Weapon Specialization. That way it's not just "Oh fighters get more feats" but "Oh, fights get elite feats that other classes can't have"

I think making weapon specialization fighter only is the wrong way to go. All it does is add to the fighters chance to hit over other classes, which isn't something fighters need.

I would focus on feats that can do cool things in combat. For instance, fighters could focus on finding cool ways to use their weapons.


I find it weird how many people are counting feat taxes as something that hurts fighters. They really force some grueling specialization if you want to play any other given class and go that route, but for a fighter, it's pretty trivial.

On top of that, there is a lot of overlap in those tax feats. Is it annoying that you have to take combat expertise to get improved trip? Sure. But once you've taken that whole chain of trip feats, oh hey, you've already paid the tax for... really, half the feats out there you might be inclined to take. You can snatch one up every level past there. At any given level you should have two or three feat chain gimmicks where, say, a Paladin has just the one, or at first level, a start on a gimmick, while anyone else has nothing but worthless tax feats. There is a lot to be said for being able to specialize and generalize at the same time like that.

Most of the rest of this argument is just the whole martial vs. caster argument that will never be settled.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Googleshng wrote:
I find it weird how many people are counting feat taxes as something that hurts fighters.

When your main feature is having more of a certain king of thing, you are hurt if each of those things isn't very good, especially when most other classes get an equal number of a different kind of thing that doesn't have that dilution.

For example, feats having many taxes makes barbarians bad with long feat chains. But barbarians get as many rage powers as fighters get feats, and rage powers don't have such heavy taxes - but since fighters are stuck paying taxes, each of their individual feats is weaker than each barbarian rage power, so barbarians get more out of their 10 rage powers than fighters get out of their 11 feats.

Being the only one who can do X isn't a very positive quality if everyone else can do things that are better than X. And feat taxes weakening the average benefit of each feat are part of what make the fighter's own X not very impressive.

Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
I find it weird how many people are counting feat taxes as something that hurts fighters.

When your main feature is having more of a certain king of thing, you are hurt if each of those things isn't very good, especially when most other classes get an equal number of a different kind of thing that doesn't have that dilution.

For example, feats having many taxes makes barbarians bad with long feat chains. But barbarians get as many rage powers as fighters get feats, and rage powers don't have such heavy taxes - but since fighters are stuck paying taxes, each of their individual feats is weaker than each barbarian rage power, so barbarians get more out of their 10 rage powers than fighters get out of their 11 feats.

Being the only one who can do X isn't a very positive quality if everyone else can do things that are better than X. And feat taxes weakening the average benefit of each feat are part of what make the fighter's own X not very impressive.

Subjective.

Plain and simple.


I just have to say, coming from D&D to Pathfinder, I find it amazing to see people say fighters don't get enough feats. And arguing numbers vs abilities is somewhat misleading. Rules are numbers: Your barbarian can fly? he can move a number of squares in a different direction. Your caster unleashes waves of exhaustion? he applies a numerical penalty on his enemies. My fighter has +33 to hit? I can pierce any foes armor with my rapier, I can find your weakness no matter how well hid. (or to reference upcoming movie: My black arrow found the dragon's unprotected belly, maybe a little birdie told me)


Roberta Yang wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
I find it weird how many people are counting feat taxes as something that hurts fighters.

When your main feature is having more of a certain king of thing, you are hurt if each of those things isn't very good, especially when most other classes get an equal number of a different kind of thing that doesn't have that dilution.

For example, feats having many taxes makes barbarians bad with long feat chains. But barbarians get as many rage powers as fighters get feats, and rage powers don't have such heavy taxes - but since fighters are stuck paying taxes, each of their individual feats is weaker than each barbarian rage power, so barbarians get more out of their 10 rage powers than fighters get out of their 11 feats.

Being the only one who can do X isn't a very positive quality if everyone else can do things that are better than X. And feat taxes weakening the average benefit of each feat are part of what make the fighter's own X not very impressive.

I have to agree. I lke the idea of long feat chains but dislike it when there are bad feat in the chain.

Or when feats in a chain do not have anything to be with each other like mobility, spring atack and whirlwind attack. The first tw feats encourage movement and the last and most useful one basically demands the user to not move.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Googleshng wrote:
I find it weird how many people are counting feat taxes as something that hurts fighters. They really force some grueling specialization if you want to play any other given class and go that route, but for a fighter, it's pretty trivial.

I'd rather expand the options of every character (especially Fighters!) than limit them just so Fighters can feel good about themselves while still being even more limited.

I think a game where a Paladin could viably pick Improved/Greater Trip/Disarm and a Fighter could take those two and Improved/Greater Grapple, Sunder, and/or whatever else would be much more interesting than the current situation, where a Fighter must spend 4 points of his precious point-buy in an attribute that adds very little to him and sacrifice one of his only class features in a very useless feat just to finally be able to spend even more of his class features to do what he wants to do, and the Paladin can hardly consider any combat maneuver.

Hell, an Oracle of Battle gains Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved/Greater [Combat Maneuver of her choice], proficiency with heavy armor and all martial weapons... and full casting.

And it's still much less powerful than a Druid.

Why couldn't a Fighter get those things? (minus the casting, obviously)

51 to 100 of 524 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A fighter and his bonus feats: What's so bad about them? All Messageboards