The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,901 to 1,950 of 3,805 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Fast Healing makes them less of a resource sponge and it is delayed 1 minute that overlaps so they are able to heal like paladins/rangers/barbarians. They don't have a limit to how much this is used but don't heal fast or in combat so it balances for Paizo to not overpower and for players that want them to equal other martial which they are closer to (again save magus because they can be ridiculous good).

Again, has nothing to do with what's wrong with them, and does nothing to fix what is. Also doesn't give them buffs, which are much more important resources. In combat healing is usually a bad thing, and out of combat healing is easily solved by wands of cure light wounds/infernal healing.

Shadow Lodge

Fighter purpose is supposed to be martial that is always on. Not martial that buffs and is inconsistent and needs to rest for abilities other than not being fatigued. I get that you don't mean that fighters drain healing , MrSin, My last post was about no longer being as resource draining because their depletable resource (HP) now restores faster. giving fighters buffs makes barbarians without DR or Rage powers. If your fighter needs buffs let him buy them and earn the money for potions. That solves the "Main Problem with Fighters", at least as far as I see it, fairly well. If you (speaking generally to all) want fighters with buffs than play barbarian and stick with less AC. Or play a Diminished spellcasting Magus archetype and prepare all buffs. I'm not trying to build new classes, just improve on old ones. If you want fighters that can bend the cosmos then good luck with that.


It doesn't solve anything about their out of combat problems, and it doesn't make them any more interesting in combat. I didn't say I want fighters that bend the cosmos or cast spells. Have you been reading anyone's post? Or just making things up as you go along?


Rageling wrote:

When I read the OP say: "Fighters either need a boost to their dps so they are the king of their specialization or..."

My stomach immediately went sour. Immeadiately.

What I say to my players: "DPS is an MMO term. If you're looking for that, find someone to run a 4th Edition game for you.
If you can't learn to break that mental association, you are not welcome in my games. End of discussion."

(takes a few antacid - seriously)

DPS= DPR/6

I am a definitely not a MMO player but mainly because I like focused plots and have found most MMO lacking (I am intentionally avoiding WOW). Breaking the association between my mostly D&D based CPG games and Pathfinder is hard given they run on the same rules and tend to share variations of the same setting.

But the main point was the fighters needed a gimmick other than fighting because everyone else can fight and quite a few of the classes can do it some better than the fighter. This goes as far as the conceptual level a ranger, paladin, barbarian, rogue and even a monk could be called a fighter. Fighters have nothing that really makes them special nothing unique and identifying which is why they need a gimmick something they can only do.

Another problem is what the fighters class statistics say about the fighter, they say fighters are low skilled (+2 skills), unperceptive (no perception skill), weak-willed (low will) and not at all nimble (low reflex).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, yet another elitist troll who assumes we're all MMO players and that all MMOs are nothing more than button mash... tsc, tsc... I haven't played a MMO in 10 years (nothing wrong with the genre, I just don't have much patience for it), but I know a lot about them because many of my friends play them. Play any decent MMO for 10min and you'll realize that standing still mashing buttons won't help unless you're fighting mooks.

The irony, of course... Is that "obssessing with DPR" and "mashing buttons until you win" is all a Fighter does... except he's spamming the sentence "I full attack" over and over again instead of mashing a button.


i think we need a better outline of what makes a fighter obsolete, more then "they are weaker then X"

me personally i think they have great customization with so many feats available to them. but while feats are nice, they are not especially interesting in combat.

how do you make them interesting in combat? I still say a limited resource similar to arcane pool for magus or ki for monk or tricks.

call it guts, skill, anything.

make it regen after a full days rest and regen 1 per critical/kill. with a fighters abiltiies this shouldnt be difficult to regenerate.

for how many points to give them i dont know, my first inclination is to give them 3+a attribute bonus.

and what would he be able to do?

well...what are the problems they have? from what ive seen on this thread its

defenses

dealing with magic

Defenses could be increasing AC (like monks) using perception roll to AC (like snake style) use your corrosponding saving throw bonus as your spell resist or DR for that round, etc

for dealing with spells, people brought up they have nothing against something like a wall of force...

Spell Sunder-thru experience you know where the weakpoints on defensive spells are. lets you get up to a certain amount of your max damage thru on successful hit.

just saying the idea of a limited renewable resource like ki/arcane pool/tricks seems like it would be right up the fighters alley and is a flexible enough system to address a slew of there issues without overpowering them.


1- Fighters should have more stuff to do out of combat. This is extremely necessary. As they are now, they're either fighting or sucking their thumbs... I'm not asking them to be wizards, but they should be as least as skilled and versatile as Barbarians. Fighters don't do any better than a commoner at dealing with any problem that doesn't involve full attacking something until it stops moving. Want to gather information? Too bad, you suck at that. Want to scout ahead? Too bad, you suck at that. Want to negotiate with your rivals? Too bad, you suck at that. Want to infiltrate the BBEG's lair? Too bad, you suck at that. Want to do something useful? Too bad, you really suck at that.

2- Fighters... Nay, martials, should have much better mobility. All of them. Moving 10ft shouldn't mean you lose 90% of your effectiveness!

3- All front-liners should have a good chance to resist compulsion. Spells are not an unusual ability that you only see at high levels. No, they common from the very start, and become increasingly dangerous as levels go up. If can't resist magic, you fail. If you're a front-liner and has terrible saves, you fail. If you want to be a tank, but has no defenses against anything that doesn't target AC, you fail.

4- Feats should scale with level/BAB/HD/whatever-is-appropriate and give you options. Fighters suck because feats suck. Should feats be improved, Fighters wouldn't be so problematic... They'd still suck at mobility, of course, but as I said, that's an universal problem with martial classes.


Is there a reason this game has its system for full/standard attacks? what if you move while attacking you recieve a -2 to hit instead?

and for spells being common, i guess youd have to ask a pathfinder creator on that. as ive played everything form high to low magic.

you also shouldnt autoresist magic, it has to remain deadly. I really liked the idea of 2 good saves of the fighters choice or based off the fighters stats or something. most classes sept i think monks get 2 good saves.

I think feats scaling with elvel is cool, but would require MASSIVE overhaul of the games balancing, suddenly things that require 2-4 feats of investment your getting with 1 feat on a timetable. feats might not be superpowerful but that does stand a chance of being gamebreaking.

as for doing things out of combat, i can see a small class based bonus to perception, better intimidation.

acrobatics is dependant on the fighter, as is many other things, so maybe carry the feat idea of open ended to skills as well? you get a certain number of skills to be your bonus skills, this would make the fighter class better reflect the wide array of fighters in the world, all that can fight in wildly different ways.

So the image of a fighter im trying to adopt from what a fighter would develop skillwise as a fighter.

so, when they walk into a room they can "scan" it getting a +2 (possibly scaling with level?) perception check to notice fine details. and they should get a higher perception bonus in regards to surprise rounds and in fights/battles.

there saves are dependant on how they have trained to be a fighter, reflex=high mobility/agility, FORT=hardy, strong, constitution, WILL=strong self discipline.

those changes i think can make a fighter class become "your" fighter class.

Shadow Lodge

Also buffs seem to be a problem when four feats are fighter buff

Power Attack

Combat Expertise

Crane Style

Weapon Focus

Yes these give you penalties on attack rolls but they buff and if you are effective at DPR then you already have a good attack roll, and Weapon Focus only applies to one weapon, then have back-ups for doing other damage (in the case of DR/type) and have feats like improved crit with weapon you like. As for saving throws

Lightning Reflexes

Iron Will

Great Fortititude

These feats are for if poor saves are a major problem with your class (A.K.A. Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian.) What makes fighters better with these feats? They can spend feats on these feats. Now, not all fighters need these feasts, but these are the "buffs" fighters have. Limited resources that make them more effective isn't what makes fighters usefull, its being always on. Yes Fighters are bad at skills but fighters are supposed to be simple soldiers that are better at martial combat than other martials. to do that you give up skills. Its just like clerics are supposed to be better at healing than other mid-rankers (AKA Rogues and Bards and non-squishy summoners) so they give up skills and have better healing magic. Clerics are simple casters and fighters are simple soldiers. People complain more about fighters because their buffs (to fighting and skills) are non-magical and optional. I think Petty Alchemist's fast healing feature works just fine with balance because they now can heal like every other class and can have buff feats to buff like every other class


@ArmouredMonk13

your opening a can of worms trying to label fighter, ive seen probably 15 different interpretations of fighter in this thread. and people arguing over it.

gaurantee your gonna get a few people trying to jump on your for stating they are a simple fighter.

they will tell you there are a elite combatant, granted...it says that in the class description.

which is why i try to compare there skills to modern day elite combatants like army soldiers.

they are trained to take a vast amount of visual data in a very short amount of time, doing a once over in a room and recalling nearly or all of what was in it, and where it was placed.

this is why i think perception should be a main thing for fighters. to the point where i think they should have there own bonuses to it like i described earlier.

beyond that, i think the bonus skill/feat/saving throw system is in order.


Jess Door wrote:

I prefer healing too. Dranei resto shammy.

Space goat!

topic? Oh! Um...

My favorite archetype is the intelligent mage/fighter. My perfect class would be the arcane equivalent of a Paladin. Mostly fighter, a little magic, to help with the fighting. Fighters, as is? I dont' know if I could ever bring myself to play one, because the class is so painful. I made a good fighter mage in a Kirthfinder game. I would be willing to play a fighter in a heavily house ruled game like that, I think. But that's about it.

Sad, really. I like smashing things. Or pretending to smash things.

I'll agree that we've got a heinous lacking of 1/2 arcane caster. A friend of mine was putting together a very nice arcane paladin of sorts a while back. I might see if he would be nice enough to share it with the boards. :)


Ashiel wrote:
Jess Door wrote:

I prefer healing too. Dranei resto shammy.

Space goat!

topic? Oh! Um...

My favorite archetype is the intelligent mage/fighter. My perfect class would be the arcane equivalent of a Paladin. Mostly fighter, a little magic, to help with the fighting. Fighters, as is? I dont' know if I could ever bring myself to play one, because the class is so painful. I made a good fighter mage in a Kirthfinder game. I would be willing to play a fighter in a heavily house ruled game like that, I think. But that's about it.

Sad, really. I like smashing things. Or pretending to smash things.

I'll agree that we've got a heinous lacking of 1/2 arcane caster. A friend of mine was putting together a very nice arcane paladin of sorts a while back. I might see if he would be nice enough to share it with the boards. :)

This may be a plug, but have you tried playing an Archon? Or a Vanguard?


ok i want to put this in order for ease of reading so sorry for a sorta double post.

Saving Throw Change-Fighter Saving Throws-Choose two Saving throws, these are your main saving throws and get strong progression----I like this change, and it means for whatever fighter you make, you can take the corrosponding feats for the one feat you have worse progression with which will help.

Skill Change-A fighters class skills are determined by your choices, minus perception which is always a class skill. This right here i can see giving 4+INT modifier. fits with the fighters feat theme, customization. You could further it by making the number of class skills they can choose from also be 4+INT modifier, so a base INT fighter has 4 class skills+perception.

feat changes-when you level you can choose a previous feat and exchange it for a new one you qualify for, even if it was a feat that was required for a more advanced feat. this action does NOT make you unable to use those advanced feats, but you do lose any bonuses to it that the feat you replaced granted.------this could be broken at higher levels, but i like the idea

Battle Awareness-Your perception while in a battlefield is higher then others due to your experience. bonus of +2 at 1st+2 for every 5 levels (+8 or 10 at 20 i believe) half of this can be applied to out of combat perception rolls when you first enter a room/area.


Lemmy wrote:

Ah, yet another elitist troll who assumes we're all MMO players and that all MMOs are nothing more than button mash... tsc, tsc... I haven't played a MMO in 10 years (nothing wrong with the genre, I just don't have much patience for it), but I know a lot about them because many of my friends play them. Play any decent MMO for 10min and you'll realize that standing still mashing buttons won't help unless you're fighting mooks.

The irony, of course... Is that "obssessing with DPR" and "mashing buttons until you win" is all a Fighter does... except he's spamming the sentence "I full attack" over and over again instead of mashing a button.

Humorously neither my brother nor I obsess over DPR on our server and we tend to win most of the PvP encounters that are anywhere near fair (and a few that aren't :P). While I see everyone else focusing on tons of damage, my brother and I usually outlast them and take them apart. We use a combination of control and focused aim to take opponents apart. My favorite spells are Dispel Magic (can remove up to 2 buffs or debuffs) and Mass Dispel (an AoE dispel on crack). I play hard to get and specialized in mana regeneration as much as possible.

My brother plays a protection warrior. He's mobile and has a ton of crowd-control (he has at least 5 different ways to stun, daze, or disable you, which he usually uses to keep my cloth-wearing but out of the graveyard, and I return the favor by dispelling his debuffs and ensuring his HP is best measured with a mobius strip :P).

We generally thrash teams of DPS monkeys. Retribution Paladins and Death Knights fall one after another. Works pretty well both in PvP and in dungeons. Recently we ended up in a dungeon with some poor shadow priest who had been pushing damage as hard as she could and it actually made her DPS drop because she had no longevity. She'd throw out a few exceptionally powerful attacks but generally would run out of steam early during major fights.


w01fe01 wrote:

ok i want to put this in order for ease of reading so sorry for a sorta double post.

Saving Throw Change-Fighter Saving Throws-Choose two Saving throws, these are your main saving throws and get strong progression----I like this change, and it means for whatever fighter you make, you can take the corrosponding feats for the one feat you have worse progression with which will help.

Skill Change-A fighters class skills are determined by your choices, minus perception which is always a class skill. This right here i can see giving 4+INT modifier. fits with the fighters feat theme, customization. You could further it by making the number of class skills they can choose from also be 4+INT modifier, so a base INT fighter has 4 class skills+perception.

feat changes-when you level you can choose a previous feat and exchange it for a new one you qualify for, even if it was a feat that was required for a more advanced feat. this action does NOT make you unable to use those advanced feats, but you do lose any bonuses to it that the feat you replaced granted.------this could be broken at higher levels, but i like the idea

Battle Awareness-Your perception while in a battlefield is higher then others due to your experience. bonus of +2 at 1st+2 for every 5 levels (+8 or 10 at 20 i believe) half of this can be applied to out of combat perception rolls when you first enter a room/area.

These are good ideas. . ..


EVERY feat you list isn't fighter only. PA is taken by 90-99% of martial classes. Combat expertise sucks except for a few builds because smart enemies ignore turtles. Crane wing isn't good the next 2 on the list are and they're 3 feats deep 1 of them (improved unarmed combat.) Also sucks and dodge is at best men. Weapon focus is absolutely useless except as a preq. On primary attacks it doesn't matter(mechanically no different than a masterwork weapon except it locks you into one weapon and costs a feat instead of 300 extra gold. I know which one I have more access to when playing.) The bonus to will saves feats are only needed by fighters/cavaliers. The other martials have bonus to saves(paladin/barbarian) have class features that favor a high wisdom(rangers/gunslingers). Also fighters aren't simple soldiers they're champions of combat. Simple soldiers Aren't fighters they're warriors now they haven't been simple soldiers since 2nd edition.


I don't think that Fighters need a resource like ki or rages per day. I think that it can solve the problem but at the expense of the fighter being less mundane which is it's appeal.

If I were to attempt to 'fix' the fighter I would want to counter it's vulnerability to too many things and give it an ability to do a bit more in dire circumstances without giving him too much versatility. Here's what I think should happen.

I'd like some opinions about this because I do want to use them as house rule patches.

1) I think they should have good will saves. As a fighting man reflex makes more sense but two things make me feel like will should be the second good save. a) A fighter evokes the flavor of the badass normal, the hero and underdog, in the face of a world of magic he's the guy pulling his weight around through sheer spunk. I think a good will save helps. b) he already has bravery which seems to support point a. I argue that Monks should have full BAB partially because they have at least two abilities that treat their level as their BAB anyways so it's one third BAB is just injecting more math. I put that to Fighters as well. Bravery is one of the more forgettable abilities that even I forget that I have half the time and even then I don't know all the spells so I have to bring the game to a halt to ask whoever to look up their spell to see if it's a fear affect or not when I do remember to use it. Instead of injecting situational math into the his will saves why not just let him have good will saves.

2) I think the fighter should have combat style feats similar to the Ranger. It bothers me that he's the feat man and doesn't get better access to feats just more feats. I wouldn't mind him having him having something like a monk's style feats for him for each weapon class but I think just copy pasting a ranger's combat style feats in place of some of his feats would be good enough of a patch for houserules as opposed to making new material for the game. If I were reworking the thing from the ground up I'd fix overtaxed feats and give fighters some extra fighter only feats.

3)I think he should have 4+Int skills per level. I don't know why he has below average skills. I don't even care about what are class skills, I just want more than 2. It makes sense I guess that a wizard doesn't get skills because he has Int as his main stat and he spends time hitting the books than going out and doing stuff (not to mention that he has all knowledges as class skills) But this guy needs more skill ranks if the Cavalier gets to have 4. At the very least he'd have some ranks to throw into craft and make his own magic weapons.

I think after those three additions a fighter has a better chance at not being able to do something other than just hit things without getting supernatural. Prereq free feats allow him to build multiple combat gimmicks without making himself MAD and allow him to blow some feats on covering other bases, good will saves make him less vulnerable to a lot more things that can come at him and more skills allow him to have at least some out of combat utility.


Humorously, I also dislike glass cannons in D&D. Fighter suffers a big problem here. It's all damage but it's not doing DPS when it's crowd-controlled due to bad saves or poor mobility (a fun fact is that a huge number of spells can simply remove a martial character from the battle without a save purely due to mobility problems; such as spike growth).

I also don't have much appreciation for most DPR builds. Honestly the DPR Olympics are nice but I don't pay much attention to them. Better to optimize defense to get to high levels and doubly so at high levels (where you have to survive horrible, horrible things, often grossly outnumbered with action economy that has you nearly bankrupt).


Malwing wrote:

I don't think that Fighters need a resource like ki or rages per day. I think that it can solve the problem but at the expense of the fighter being less mundane which is it's appeal.

If I were to attempt to 'fix' the fighter I would want to counter it's vulnerability to too many things and give it an ability to do a bit more in dire circumstances without giving him too much versatility. Here's what I think should happen.

I'd like some opinions about this because I do want to use them as house rule patches.

1) I think they should have good will saves. As a fighting man reflex makes more sense but two things make me feel like will should be the second good save. a) A fighter evokes the flavor of the badass normal, the hero and underdog, in the face of a world of magic he's the guy pulling his weight around through sheer spunk. I think a good will save helps. b) he already has bravery which seems to support point a. I argue that Monks should have full BAB partially because they have at least two abilities that treat their level as their BAB anyways so it's one third BAB is just injecting more math. I put that to Fighters as well. Bravery is one of the more forgettable abilities that even I forget that I have half the time and even then I don't know all the spells so I have to bring the game to a halt to ask whoever to look up their spell to see if it's a fear affect or not when I do remember to use it. Instead of injecting situational math into the his will saves why not just let him have good will saves.

I think this should be available as a Feat; Some Fighters have strong will, and some are simply fighting men who are as changeable as anyone. . . .

[quote/]
2) I think the fighter should have combat style feats similar to the Ranger. It bothers me that he's the feat man and doesn't get better access to feats just more feats. I wouldn't mind him having him having something like a monk's style feats for him for each weapon class but I think just copy pasting a ranger's combat style feats in place of some of his feats would be good enough of a patch for houserules as opposed to making new material for the game. If I were reworking the thing from the...

Agreed, they need style feats from all the listed styles of fighting, to personalize the Fighter. You've got some good ideas!!


does a fighter really need even more feats? (directed at the combat feats idea)

at most id say replace thappropriate bonus feat with said combat feat so you dont give them even more feats.

ESPECIALLY with the idea of scaling feats.


w01fe01 wrote:

how do you make them interesting in combat? I still say a limited resource similar to arcane pool for magus or ki for monk or tricks.

call it guts, skill, anything.

I personaly would not like a solution like that. There is already that kind of mechanic for a lot of classes, fighter are diferent, it is good to have diferent mechacnis for diference classes.


Nicos wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:

how do you make them interesting in combat? I still say a limited resource similar to arcane pool for magus or ki for monk or tricks.

call it guts, skill, anything.

I personaly would not like a solution like that. There is already that kind of mechanic for a lot of classes, fighter are diferent, it is good to have diferent mechacnis for diference classes.

and fighters are considered weaker for a reason, and less fun for a reason.

what would your suggestions be? raising the baseline works for balance purposes, but wont make them more fun.

to be fun you have to be able to do cool things, swinging a sword isnt cutting it anymore apparently.

but doing cool things, is often powerful things, which needs limits, they cant be "always on".

so i see no other way honestly.


w01fe01 wrote:

does a fighter really need even more feats? (directed at the combat feats idea)

at most id say replace thappropriate bonus feat with said combat feat so you dont give them even more feats.

ESPECIALLY with the idea of scaling feats.

I must have mistyped, I was thinking of replacing the bonus feats that a fighter gets with combat style feats that bypass prereqs. I don't want to add more feats because for new players and even experienced players feat selection can take hours of planning, I don't want to compound that problem.

Caligastia wrote:

I think this should be available as a Feat; Some Fighters have strong will, and some are simply fighting men who are as changeable as anyone. . . .[quote/]

True, as far as I know Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes and Great Fortitude are the only feats that straight improve a save and they're not much of a bonus. But I'd rather not make new feats in this situation, I'd rather just put a house rule patch for simplicity's sake. I do like the idea higher up where the fighter chooses two good saves. As the most customizable class (aside from monk) I think he should get those options considering that a nimble duelist, determined underdog and tough brute are all logical for a fighter to be.


w01fe01 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:

how do you make them interesting in combat? I still say a limited resource similar to arcane pool for magus or ki for monk or tricks.

call it guts, skill, anything.

I personaly would not like a solution like that. There is already that kind of mechanic for a lot of classes, fighter are diferent, it is good to have diferent mechacnis for diference classes.

and fighters are considered weaker for a reason, and less fun for a reason.

what would your suggestions be? raising the baseline works for balance purposes, but wont make them more fun.

to be fun you have to be able to do cool things, swinging a sword isnt cutting it anymore apparently.

but doing cool things, is often powerful things, which needs limits, they cant be "always on".

so i see no other way honestly.

You can make a poit about fighter being weaker but the argument "fighters considered less fun for a reason" is nosense.

who considere that? the poeple on the forum? what about the other pepople in the thread that considers fighter just fine and fun.

I play fighter and enjoy my always on abilties. Rangers could be better balanced but I find that class incredibly boring.

=================================

Now, I agree that It would be great to have more options that just "i full attack", feats shoudl be for that. My recomendations are

1) First and foremost eliminate absurd feat tax, being the most obnoxious and absurd, combat expertise is on top of my list.

2) Make more feats like hamatula strike and feling smash. Fighter can have really high CMB, is there is not faet taxes then they can affor to invest in DPR and a couple of maneuvers.

3) Make current suoptimal options at least decent enough. For example there will be a feat that let you ready action as full round actions, the benefits is that you gain a +2 to hit.

This is the description of the feats

"Your training under the Master of Swords has taught you that a well-timed strike is worth waiting for and that patience will serve you well in the long run."

But mechanically the feat is awful, a really wasted oportunity. I say make feat like that viable.


your asking to redesign feats, which im ok with, but thats more of a help everyone then a help fighter case.

either way i think its simply unreasonable, not that i dislike it, but that is a MASSIVE undertaking in comparison to simply affecting a single class. nice, but simply unfeasable for hte most part.


w01fe01 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:

how do you make them interesting in combat? I still say a limited resource similar to arcane pool for magus or ki for monk or tricks.

call it guts, skill, anything.

I personaly would not like a solution like that. There is already that kind of mechanic for a lot of classes, fighter are diferent, it is good to have diferent mechacnis for diference classes.

and fighters are considered weaker for a reason, and less fun for a reason.

what would your suggestions be? raising the baseline works for balance purposes, but wont make them more fun.

to be fun you have to be able to do cool things, swinging a sword isnt cutting it anymore apparently.

but doing cool things, is often powerful things, which needs limits, they cant be "always on".

so i see no other way honestly.

What about weapon 'trick' feats. I saw Trick Feats in the Adventurers Armory and thought they would be nice as a Fighter only (since he has weapon training) thing if it were expanded for more cool things, like when he crits he can make an intimidate check against nearby enemies, or chuck an ax with a chain attached, or be able to latch onto the backs of enemies that are bigger than you by stabbing your weapons in it's back and it has to make checks to throw you off or it won't be able to attack anyone else.

Or something like a Monk's style feats only for a fighter's weapon groups where he can do a neat trick under circumstances or spending his swift actions, representing a stype of using his weapons.


essentially tricks was what i was going with ya, a simple resource letting you do things you normally wouldnt be able to do.

Shadow Lodge

OK sorry about the simple soldier remark. Your idea about comparing them to modern-day elite combatants has only one flaw, magic. I think if the human race pursued the arcane and found true magic, then it would be used in war and guns would be less frequent. This means that you would have a Pathfinder world and in Pathfinder then maybe its simply 2013 but magic not science. Then fighters should have bonuses to saves vs. spells that scales because I can easily see the military enlisting a Mage or two to make elite soldiers better with saves. Also fighters should have bonuses to saves vs. arcane spells they have Identified through knowledge arcana and should have a bonus to Knowledge arcana equal to 1/2 level gained at a certain level and can use untrained. I think that this would be a bit overpowered and maybe replaces the bonus feat at 1st level. Also instead of bravery I think Petty Alchemist's fast healing idea is reasonable because it would represent fighters getting used to scars in battle and their bodies becoming more responsive. Also I think combat style feats is not a great idea because the advantage to feat every level is that you can pursue many different feat trees at once. Instead of limiting that, I think that their should be different fighter level 1 pre-req feats that lets them instead forfeit a feat or three they know to gain a temp. combat style feat tree. I agree with malwings trick feat idea because they are still able to be more versatile


lol i just made the comment about fighter identity to justify my thought process on my ideas, not to go all in for it.

and fine, give them good will saves, then what will be there bad save?

i will forever and more vehemently disagree with the idea of all 3 strong saves. and i thought hte idea of pick your two strong saves to be good for fighters as it ran with the idea of fighters being very varied and different across nations.

honestly i think the pick your two saves idea s best, if you really feel sore about that last weak save, you have about 1.5-twice as many feats as anyone, pick the iron will/lighting reflexes/great fortitude up.

Shadow Lodge

I still think that fighters should have bonuses vs. magic because of military training them to resist magic. Maybe an archetype replacing armor training or weapon training


how do you know the fighter is military trained?

this is why i say fighters are so poorly labeled, they are ANYONE with martial prowess that dont fit into a different class it seems.

not every fighter is military trained, so you cant put something into the base class that not all fighters would posess. at least thats how im interpretating things from what people have been discussing.

but an archetype makes perfect sense.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I still think that fighters should have bonuses vs. magic because of military training them to resist magic. Maybe an archetype replacing armor training or weapon training

The thing about archetypes is that they can take away class features to give you things you probably should've had in the first place. This is why I'm not fond of the Beast Rider or Beastmaster archetypes, nor people using monk archetypes as an excuse for the core monk problems to never be fixed. Archetypes can do cool things, but they don't fix problems with the core class.


What do you guys think of Fighters being able to choose paths? Like how a Ranger can choose Archery, Two-Weapon Fighting, Crossbows, etc.? Of course, you can choose a "General" path if you don't like the usual choices. . .

Shadow Lodge

I think these modifications are more making an alternate class for fighter than rewriting it because we are changing the skills, saves, and feats. I think that an alternate class would be just right because you still have the more basic fighter for if you ever need it and you can customize even more varied fighters because if this is an alternate then you have things like the 200000 damage scythe fighter and the combat expertise disarm and take your weapon fighter and so much more depending on what you prefer. Also Nico, do you have a problem with higher AC tanks through combat expertise and defensive fighting? You can make them hit just as often with the improved crit feat on an 18-20 weapon. If i am misunderstanding your feat tax post please explain it. Also, fighters pursuing feat paths should be done with normal fighters because then you can pursue multipule and be more versatile.


w01fe01 wrote:

how do you know the fighter is military trained?

this is why i say fighters are so poorly labeled, they are ANYONE with martial prowess that dont fit into a different class it seems.

not every fighter is military trained, so you cant put something into the base class that not all fighters would posess. at least thats how im interpretating things from what people have been discussing.

Indeed. A Fighter is someone whose profession is fighting; For people who must fight out of neccessity or from being chosen by a ruler to fight ( aka soldiers ), there's the Warrior class. Since it's a class that person *must* take, they don't get all the advantages one whose vocation is fighting ( aka Fighter ) gets. . .


I just wanted to throw this out there, but trained soldiers come off as skirmisher rangers to me.


MrSin wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I still think that fighters should have bonuses vs. magic because of military training them to resist magic. Maybe an archetype replacing armor training or weapon training
The thing about archetypes is that they can take away class features to give you things you probably should've had in the first place. This is why I'm not fond of the Beast Rider or Beastmaster archetypes, nor people using monk archetypes as an excuse for the core monk problems to never be fixed. Archetypes can do cool things, but they don't fix problems with the core class.

Which is why I wouldn't really mind a Pathfinder 1.5. For example; Why the hell isn't style feats the status quo for for Monk? If they are functionally the martial artist class wouldn't they pick a martial arts style?

I think things like Style feats, archetypes and stuff like that bring a lot to the table but it feels like patches that would have been better if the game was built to support it in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do-de-do....

Fighter
Alignment: Any
Hit Die: d10
Skill Points: 4 + Int mod

Class Skills
Fighter class skills plus Bluff, Perception, and Sense Motive.

Progression
BAB = 1/1
Fort = Good
Ref = Good
Will = Good

Weapon and Armor Proficiencies
Unchanged

First Combat Style
At 1st level the Fighter chooses a combat style as a Ranger of his level. At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th he gains another feat from the chosen combat style. He does not need to meet the prerequisites for these feats.

Second Combat Style
At 2nd level the Fighter chooses a combat style as a Ranger of his level-1. At 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th he gains another feat from the chosen combat style. He does not need to meet the prerequisites for these feats.

Third Combat Style
At 3rd level the Fighter chooses a combat style as a Ranger of his level-2. At 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th he gains another feat from the chosen combat style. He does not need to meet the prerequisites for these feats.

Fourth Combat Style
At 4th level the Fighter chooses a combat style as a Ranger of his level-3. At 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th he gains another feat from the chosen combat style. He does not need to meet the prerequisites for these feats.

Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah but we would need a very large player group to fuel 1.5 because that costs a lot of money. Maybe we should make a thread for ideas for 1.5. until they make 1.5 though, we are stuck with playing archetypes that are cheap, easy fixes to problems till they make 1.5. Like duct tape to repair glasses till you can afford new ones. Still, I don't know how to make a thread, I'm fairly new to the forums, so if anyone makes one I will join with some of my, eh, creative new ideas.
Also Alchemist grows third arm and gives three thumbs up to Ashiel's multi-combat style idea. keeps versatility and gains better feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm.

I have decided that there is no problem with fighters that can't be solved with gratuitous amounts of cash.

Unfortunately my GM's campaigns never go long enough to create an open enough world where I can game the system and bling myself out, BUT still reaches a threshold where wizards can learn any spell they want.


That's a cool idea... Though I'd change the class skills to

Fighter skills + Heal + Perception + 2 skills of the player's choice.

And maybe let them take EWP or IUS instead of Tower Shield proficiency.

The best thing about this idea is that devs would come up with more combat styles, so both Fighters and Ranger would be more customizable.

I'd maybe remove one of the styles and add Weapon and/or Armor Training in its place, though.

Personaly, I still prefer Fighters with bad will saves but a sizable bonus against compulsion effects, but that's me. I don't think Fighters with all good saves would be too bad, considering they'd still have no means to deal with magic threats.


Well I was thinking about it. Fighters are supposed to be master of many combat forms. They have no magical abilities, and everyone wants them to have no resource and be newbie friendly. You literally cannot get any more newbie friendly than this. It has no class features except good saves, decent skill points, and lots of combat feats that are all good feats and ignore prerequisites (so **** your ability scores, you're a fighter damnit). Suddenly it's not a trap-filled nightmare. It literally gets a feat every level but each feat is on a nice path, and you can use your other feats for whatever you want.

I'd consider playing this. It has enough tricks to play around with that I could swap my combat style frequently enough during combat to not feel so anchored to the same pace constantly.

Personally I'd prefer a resource driven fighter (I'm putting together something that actually works in reverse, more like the WoW warrior in that you actually generate a resource over time instead of running out, so fighting generates a combat high that in turn allows you to do more incredible acts of daring and gory glory), but I think this actually fills out the problems that most people are complaining about while keeping it darn close to the original in form and function.


Malwing wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:

how do you make them interesting in combat? I still say a limited resource similar to arcane pool for magus or ki for monk or tricks.

call it guts, skill, anything.

I personaly would not like a solution like that. There is already that kind of mechanic for a lot of classes, fighter are diferent, it is good to have diferent mechacnis for diference classes.

and fighters are considered weaker for a reason, and less fun for a reason.

what would your suggestions be? raising the baseline works for balance purposes, but wont make them more fun.

to be fun you have to be able to do cool things, swinging a sword isnt cutting it anymore apparently.

but doing cool things, is often powerful things, which needs limits, they cant be "always on".

so i see no other way honestly.

What about weapon 'trick' feats. I saw Trick Feats in the Adventurers Armory and thought they would be nice as a Fighter only (since he has weapon training) thing if it were expanded for more cool things, like when he crits he can make an intimidate check against nearby enemies, or chuck an ax with a chain attached, or be able to latch onto the backs of enemies that are bigger than you by stabbing your weapons in it's back and it has to make checks to throw you off or it won't be able to attack anyone else.

Or something like a Monk's style feats only for a fighter's weapon groups where he can do a neat trick under circumstances or spending his swift actions, representing a stype of using his weapons.

That would be great, feats like that (like cornugon smash) are my favs. They are cool and useful, but IMHO an esential feature for those tricks is that they should not be restricted by grit/ki mechanics, they shoudl be always avaliable or at least have reasonable triggers.

For example to try a trip attempt afther a sucesfull bull rush.


Lemmy wrote:

That's a cool idea... Though I'd change the class skills to

Fighter skills + Heal + Perception + 2 skills of the player's choice.

And maybe let them take EWP or IUS instead of Tower Shield proficiency.

The best thing about this idea is that devs would come up with more combat styles, so both Fighters and Ranger would be more customizable.

I'd maybe remove one of the styles and add Weapon and/or Armor Training in its place, though.

Make a weaponmaster and armor master style. Problem solved.

And yeah, this was a burst of inspiration. Personally I'd add those and probably up the skills to 6 + Int modifier (because you're a mundane master here).

You could probably get all manner of cute tricks if you just kept expanding styles. For example, an assassination style might instead opt to give you sneak attack +1d6 at those levels, while a divine knight style could give you smite-heretic at those levels, or you could create a casting version that gave +1 spell level access at those levels (so up to 5th level spells if you replaced your primary style), or give them a rage style that gives you barbarian rage and a rage power when you get that style feat.

It is now the ultimate customizable class. Just add more styles.


There should be a "General" style for people who don't want to design their fighter along one theme. . .

Would if you had a choice between a style feat and another option ( Bravery )?

Shadow Lodge

I'd say keep Tower Shield Proficiency because if you take defense based styles then scimitar with improved crit for better damage and Silly high defense. Still, we need to be careful to not make this to easy to Break and be doing way to much. Still three thumbs up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
If imbalance is a flaw, and Pathfinder inherited it from D&D, it's a flaw the game has had since 1974. The Magic User was always, in the end, the most powerful class prior to 3.x. Nothing has changed there.

(Note what I'm about to say isn't directed at you, but simply in response to your correct point).

This observation is true, but it's never been a good aspect of the game. It's been a negative aspect of the game.

I've played since 1980, and I generally prefer casters, and of casters I generally prefer wizardly-casters. But the whole design-and-mindset theme that "fighters need to hold the wizard's hand for the first 3 levels, so they can hold his coat for the next 17 (or 33, or whatever)" mentality has always rubbed me the wrong way. Obviously not enough to stop enjoying the game; just because one facet of a game is irksome, it doesn't mean the whole sucks. Far from it.

It's something that should have been fixed, or at least addressed as best as possible. But instead during each edition, especially as it went on, tended to heighten/exacerbate it (the same designers who might say "what disparity between classes problem?" then publish tons of things that make casters more powerful - increasingly broken spells, feats, and alternative class abilities [archetypes in PF], and give, comparatively, crumbs to, *particularly* fighters - some other non-caster/martial classes might get some few cool, imaginative new features in an accessory/splatbook, but the fighter. .. not so much; what they got tended to be bland and often *obviously* inferior not just to what casters were given in similar splatbooks, but even to the feats/features given to fighters in the core. In other words, entirely ignorable. And I'm not at all a pro optimizer, so I know that if *I* can see this, well, obvious drawback is obvious).

The point of the thread is that this is a problem; it's a bug, not a feature. Fighters don't even get the same attention as other martials.

You see, even as someone who likes casters, I understand its in my interest to have partners who are competent outside of just hitting things (oddly, one of the people who complained most loudly that RPGs are about more than just hitting things didn't take the time to notice that much of the thread has been about how relatively useless the typical fighter is outside of just hitting things). It's funner all around, and not just on those occasions when I want to play a fighter, but when someone else has a fighter at the table, and also not just because of wanting to avoid draining my own resources holding his hand, but because when the game is fun for all the players, it's funner for everyone and campaigns last longer.


Caligastia wrote:

There should be a "General" style for people who don't want to design their fighter along one theme. . .

Would if you had a choice between a style feat and another option ( Bravery )?

A general style would be simple. Just allow them to choose "general style" but make them qualify for prerequisites for that style. So once every 4 levels you get any feat at all you meet the prerequisites for, rather than being able to ignore the prerequisites. This includes non-combat feats such as Toughness, Iron Will, Skill Focus, etc.

If you wanted Bravery (bleh), then you could add it as an optional perk in a style. In fact, most of the existing fire archetypes could be cannibalized and turned into styles instead of archetypes, making the Fighter the most modular class in the game, easy for newbies, not filled with traps, where you can put most any flavor on it, etc.


True, but only fighters can grab an eclectic mix of class features based on whatever strikes their fancy and only end up slightly worse than an optimized fighter. Depending on the situation, the grab feats at random can even be better than WF tree ftw fighter or Mc-Rage Bard the intimidation check of destiny fighter.


Ashiel wrote:
Caligastia wrote:

There should be a "General" style for people who don't want to design their fighter along one theme. . .

Would if you had a choice between a style feat and another option ( Bravery )?

A general style would be simple. Just allow them to choose "general style" but make them qualify for prerequisites for that style. So once every 4 levels you get any feat at all you meet the prerequisites for, rather than being able to ignore the prerequisites. This includes non-combat feats such as Toughness, Iron Will, Skill Focus, etc.

If you wanted Bravery (bleh), then you could add it as an optional perk in a style. In fact, most of the existing fire archetypes could be cannibalized and turned into styles instead of archetypes, making the Fighter the most modular class in the game, easy for newbies, not filled with traps, where you can put most any flavor on it, etc.

Fire archetypes?

1,901 to 1,950 of 3,805 << first < prev | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards