The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,951 to 2,000 of 3,805 << first < prev | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | next > last >>

Marthkus wrote:
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.

Fighter worse than Fighter? What do you mean?

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.


Examples of Alternate "Styles"

Cunning Style
- Select either Poison Use, Sneak Attack +1d6, or a Rogue Talent.
- At 6th level you may select Uncanny Dodge or Evasion.
- At 10th level you may select a single advanced rogue talent.

Arcane Style
- You gain gain the ability to cast arcane spells from the wizard spell list under the following progression (*see chart, where on chart every 4 levels you gain access to +1 spell level, so you get cantrips, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spells if you chose it as your primary style).
- Reduce arcane spellcasting failure by 10% each time you gain a new spell level.

Divine Style
- As arcane style but with cleric spells.
- Gain channel energy +1d6 each time you gain a new spell level.

Hunter Style
- A list of bonus feats or Favored Enemy +2 (or select a new one).
- At 6th level you may select a Hunter's Bond (or select a new one).
- At 10th level you may select Quarry (or use your Quarry an additional time per day).

Etc, etc, etc.


Caligastia wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
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.

Fighter worse than Fighter? What do you mean?

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.

I was referring to how optimizing a fighter aside from picking the right first weapon group as something two-handed yield diminishing returns. Even trying to make the most well rounded fighter ever is hard. You might as well grab feats at random because 90% of what makes you special is your first weapon group and BLING.

Sometimes those random feats pay off. At worse you lose a plus 2 to hit and 4 to damage.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
@Jess Door: look into Magus for arcane paladin. Its as close as you get without obscure prestige classes.

magus is not at all what I want. I want an intelligent fighter that uses magic to fight better. Swift action spells like ranger and paladin spells, not adding elemental damage to attacks. There is no way for me to play my favorite kind of character type in pathfinder. ::shrugs:: it is what it is. Sean has made it clear he hates the character type, so it will never be viable in Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

I agree with Porphyrogenitus's statement that casters are too powerful at high levels, but I don't think thats a bug. I typically compare PF to real-world as if it were an alternate timeline. The comparison of a martial to a fighter is like a guy who is great at shooting a gun vs. a Nuclear Bomber. Bombers hurt more, but have to have more caution so they don't die. Shooter hurts less but only has to manage to not shoot himself. The overpowered wizards should be balanced out in high or epic level campaigns by having 1/3 of the encounters be in an anti-magic field that is really expanded, or items that grant silly high Spell-resistance, but only NPC's can purchase. This makes fighters become effective for a fair portion of the fights and allows wizards to be effective in some encounters to. This solution maximizes the need for player balance because fighters get to revert back to holding the wizard hand vs. tugging on his cape, and lets wizards still receive benefit for having crappy armour/weapons. Sometimes the problem is less average character of x class, and more the problem with average encounter x class enters. This should be a new epic encounter standard if they re-write fighters, because that will probably be in 1.5 anyway.

Shadow Lodge

Never said it was the same Jess Door. Just said it was as close as you get to arcane paladin.


What about another +1d6 available at 10th level to Cunning Fighter? All the same, you could take a level in Rogue and get the +1d6, plus *skills*!!

Same is true of Hunter Style. . .


Jess Door wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
@Jess Door: look into Magus for arcane paladin. Its as close as you get without obscure prestige classes.
magus is not at all what I want. I want an intelligent fighter that uses magic to fight better. Swift action spells like ranger and paladin spells, not adding elemental damage to attacks. There is no way for me to play my favorite kind of character type in pathfinder. ::shrugs:: it is what it is. Sean has made it clear he hates the character type, so it will never be viable in Pathfinder.

Jess, have you looked at any of Super Genius Games' classes? There's an Arcane Fighter known as an Archon in one of them. There's also a class known as the Vanguard which is a lot like that, albeit doesn't have a d10 for HD. . .


Caligastia wrote:

What about another +1d6 available at 10th level to Cunning Fighter? All the same, you could take a level in Rogue and get the +1d6, plus *skills*!!

Same is true of Hunter Style. . .

Well I was giving a dirty shorthand version. You would be able to take a feat, a rogue talent, or +1d6 sneak attack. So hypothetically if you chose Cunnning as your primary combat style (1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th) you could select any combination of specialized feats (such as maybe Skill Focus [Bluff], Rogue Talents, or Sneak Attack). If you pushed Sneak Attack as far as you could go you'd reach +6d6 sneak attack, or you could take some rogue talents instead, etc.

Very modular.


Jess Door wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
@Jess Door: look into Magus for arcane paladin. Its as close as you get without obscure prestige classes.
magus is not at all what I want. I want an intelligent fighter that uses magic to fight better. Swift action spells like ranger and paladin spells, not adding elemental damage to attacks. There is no way for me to play my favorite kind of character type in pathfinder. ::shrugs:: it is what it is. Sean has made it clear he hates the character type, so it will never be viable in Pathfinder.

The closest thing to what you're talking about is the psychic warrior from dreamscarred. While it uses psionics and power points track off wisdom its very much what I wish the magus was: a 3/4 caster class that self buffs and a lot of psionics can be used as swift actions if you have the power points plus psionic feats. While I like the magus class its a little to limited IMO. It even has a knightly path that would feel very paldinesque.(if we were to make up a word.)


Caligastia wrote:
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?

Fighter* archetypes. Sorry, that was a typo.


Porphyrogenitus wrote:
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...

To be honest, I didn't find tge fighters weaker in ADD. Sure, they couldnt cast wish. But:

They had a faster XP table
They had best saves in game (as oposed to now, which they have one of the worst)
Magic resistance was a thing. It wasn't so easy to overcome.
Damage interrupted spells. Go fast in initiative and you have a chance.
Wizards had FAR less spells and did not have craft feats (including scrolls)
Wizards were actially squishy. They had 1d4+2 hp per level and even that eas unlikely.
Related with tge above, they needed protection (as opposed to 3.X and beyond)
Fighters non weapon prof. werent as sucky as 3.X fighter's class skills.
everybody got pounce so mobility in combat was easier. Specially becouse of the 1 minute round, which means huge movement compared to the spells range

So yes, there was a disparity. But fighters weren't tge underdog so much. They were different, not worse.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After poring through pages of discussion, I will first put forth my personal stance on the matter. Fun first, balance second. Regrettably, without a DM and a group with the same mindset and a little skill at planning and game management, those priorities can easily be muddied and mixed. In light of the prevailing opinions, (customizing is fun, but being forced to specialize to compete is not, and defeats the purpose of being easily customizable,) I have a suggestion. Let's call it an archetype for now, and see where the discussion goes, shall we? Without further ado, I give you...

The Man-at-Arms!:

The man-at-arms will saves follow good progression for +12 rather than +6 at lv 20. this replaces the bravery feature.

armor training: Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to move with his armor, rather than against it, increasing its efficiency through his diligent technique, and reducing its strain on him through physical conditioning. The fighter gains an additional +1 armor bonus to AC and DR1/- when wearing that armor type. Both bonuses improve at 7, 11, 15, and 19. The fighter also reduces the armor check penalty for this armor type by -1 at each increment, and can sleep in any armor for which he effectively has 0 armor check penalty without becoming fatigued. Any armor for which he has no armor check penalty also does not reduce his base speed. (note: mithral and ACP reductions can stack with this, allowing him to eventually sleep, and move at full speed, in mithral full plate. Run speed is still reduced; plate mail still weighs something, no matter how comfortable you are with it.) This replaces normal armor training and armor mastery.

Weapon training: Starting at 1st level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.

Every four levels thereafter (5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the fighter can increase the bonuses granted by any of his previously selected weapon groups by +2. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups.

A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with weapons from any of his selected groups. This bonus also applies to the fighter's Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against weapons from any of his selected group. This replaces the bonus feat at 1st level and is otherwise identical to weapon training, but at 1st level.

Weapon Mastery: At 20th level, a fighter chooses one weapon from any group that he has selected with weapon training. Any attacks made with that weapon automatically confirm all critical threats and have their damage multiplier increased by 1 (×2 becomes ×3, for example). In addition, he cannot be disarmed while wielding this type of weapon. this supercedes the normal weapon mastery.

evaluation:
Now, let's have a run down of the effective changes, from an overarching view.

The fighter gains more options for effective weaponry throughout his career due to earlier weapon training, at the expense of that variable 1st level combat feat which he's going to spend on combat ANYWAY. Further, notice he can now CHOOSE which weapon group to improve at each increment, much like the ranger's favored enemies and terrains. Just makes sense to me; Even the most generalist fighter is likely to find a general style of weapon he's talented with early on. It prevents a few 1st level feat mistakes in exchange for something reliably good, and it's still a choice that helps define your fighter's style, which is also good. One might notice that the overall total bonus, spread out over all the progression, is actually less; a net gain of +13 across the groups, as opposed to the +15 it would be with the normal scaling. A slight trade-off for the ability to pick and choose.

Next, armor training changes from something that only major dex builds can take advantage of to something that every fighter can use, regardless of armor style. It does mean that high dex builds are not quite as appealing unless you shy away from heavy armor, but it also means they aren't as necessary to get those phenomenal AC scores. TWF builds are more appropriate for medium or light armor now, since they're all in the +2-4 max dex range before enhancements. Even heavy armor can, of course still go TWF, but you're just going to appreciate that mithral full plate all the more. It may be a slight discouragement for archers who still heavy armor, but then again, that only makes so much sense to begin with, heh. It also means you can finally start sleeping in some armor without burning more feats and traits just for that express purpose. Note that armor mastery goes bye-bye, as it's basically rolled into armor training in smaller increments. Again, just a vote for practicality. Also note that since the new armor training increments a final time at 19, there's no gap in the class features table! Yay!

giving the good will saves was just a practical choice. Bravery is limited by just about everyone's standards from what I've noticed, and especially in light of arguments about the balance of one-good-save classes to the fighter, I decided to throw it in there and see how its received.

Due to the overall increase in the fighter's options and basic functionality, removing the 1st and 20th level feats not only seemed a fair trade, but it cut down on the excessive planning present in some builds, ensured a more consistent power progression regardless of feat choice, and as a tidy little insignificant bonus, ensured that each level only had one feature on the table. Hah. Nice little fringe benefit for the OCD or somesuch, I guess.

Final words: No idea if the archetype name exists somewhere, and it doesn't matter, since this is theoretical and was conjured up within 15-20 minutes; wasn't watching the clock real close. Read, compare, think, and discuss. If you're adventurous, and you should be, since you presumably play pathfinder, feel free to share with your next DM and try it out. Who knows? Maybe it'll "fix" the fighter once and for all, maybe not.


Ashiel wrote:


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

sorry, i know people may hate me for it, but i just cannot back 3 good saves on a fighter. being able to choose which 2 are good fine, but not have all 3.


Quote:


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.

i disagree with always on, they would have to be substantially weaker then, tho, a compromise to specific triggers sounds reasonable.


having a fighter with 6+INT skills would make me probably break my teeth on a mouth guard from frustration simply cuz things like monks would then have less then even fighters, which...thematically, make such little sense to me.

Ive come around to the idea of 4...but just barely, 6 just seems silly when compared to the classes that get less.


i feel like combat feats is too rangerish. why not something more unique.

When you level you can replace a existing feat you have with a new feat, even if that feat is part of a chain. You do not lose the ability to use the other feats in said chain, but you do lose the benefits the feat you had gave you.

Want some feat down a chain but find one or more of its previous feats useless? NO LONGER, and it has the obvious limitation of not working for everything, as some feats that are required for later ones are still needed/used in combination. first one that comes to mind is the crane style path.


Quote:


i disagree with always on, they would have to be substantially weaker then, tho, a compromise to specific triggers sounds reasonable.

This is a big problem to balance foghters. They can't have cool things, because tgey have everything always on. Barbarians can get nice things like spell sunder because you balance it with the fact it's once per rage. I don't see why feats can't be balanced that way too. We already have feats like that. Improved Iron Will, for example, is once per day.

You can't give fighters spammble cool things. It's either spammable bland things or resource based cool things.

Shadow Lodge

Shameless repost:

Skill Ranks Per Level: 4 + Int modifier.

Distinct Drill
At 1st level a fighter chooses two additional skills as class skills. In addition a fighter chooses either Will or Reflex saves. The fighter gains a good save progression for the chosen save type.

Vicissitude
Upon reaching 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter (6th, 9th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new feat in place of a feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for a prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level. (The Bonus Feat entry no longer has the addendum of changing bonus feats)

Capability
Starting at 4th level a fighter can ignore one of the prerequisites for any feat he chooses. Every six levels thereafter he may ignore an additional prerequisite for any feat he chooses. Racial prerequisites may not be ignored by Capability. Note that some feats may be of no use, even though the fighter would be able to choose them.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
So yes, there was a disparity. But fighters weren't tge underdog so much. They were different, not worse.

Its where the mentality started and while in what would be considered "ADD Core" the difference wasn't overwhelming, by the end with all the extra stuff that had come out (especially from FR-related accessories), the gap had widened.

The gap widened again in 2E over time, and in 3E the gap widened to a chasm and people were talking about how it's a "feature of the game" that fighters *should* hold the Wizard's hand for the first 3 levels so they can hold his coat for the next 17, and that this was "balanced over a career" and somehow fun for the whole group.

Um, not really. Like I said, even when I play casters, it's funner when the other players don't feel overshadowed (the "solution" is to tone down one's own play and not play up to the classes potential. But 1) that has nothing to do with the mechanics and 2) people nowdays go on and on about how "metagaming is bad," well, not playing a character up to full potential just so other players can feel like full party members is a form of metagaming: Not that I think it's wrong. I'm not a anti-metagaming fanatic, so I will do this).

Anyhow, I don't mean to contradict you here because you are correct that mechanically in OD&D & 1E AD&D, the gap wasn't *that* big (not compared to what it would later become, at least), especially since in a party that had adventured together throughout their careers, at the same exp total a fighter would have more raw levels (as you said); but the mentality I mentioned was already growing (2E AD&D's "Dragon Kings" is an embodiment of the mentality).

Aside, since some fine folks mentioned fighter-caster types: in AD&D, after spending a bunch of years playing around with multiclass, I discovered just how good the much-maligned Dual Classing could be, with a character that started as Fighter and switched to Wizad and became my favorite character evah; I tend to "test" any new edition by seeing how well I can translate that character into the new version. But I digress again.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest issue is narrative power, not combat. In 1e, my fighter got a noble title and a large army at 9th level as a class feature. It was hard-coded into the rules. While the wizard was just learning to teleport (and was likely to arrive 1,000 ft. above the ocean -- or below the surface!), I could have a system of post-horses across half a nation to ferry messages and people back and forth. Notice that we BOTH could influence the bigger picture, outside of dungeons. How did Robilar get through the Tomb of Horrors? By using his orc hordes as cannon fodder. How did he sack Otiluke's (or whomever's) stronghold? By leading an army in when the master was off adventuring. Why didn't he get arrested and tried (well, until 2nd edition, anyway)? Because he wasn't just Robilar, he was Lord Robilar!

That's the kind of thing fighters need at mid- to upper-level: ways to continue to effectively influence the overall storyline. That's "narrative power," and currently they have little to none.

"What about when wizards learned to stop time!" Remember when 10th to 14th level was considered "high level," and it was sort of expected that most PCs would retire then? In all the years playing 1e, I don't think we ever got a wizard above 14th level.


w01fe01 wrote:
sorry, i know people may hate me for it, but i just cannot back 3 good saves on a fighter.

Yup, sorry, you're hated now. That disagreement is enough to earn eternal hatred! (j/k)


P.S. I don't worry too much about skill points, because by 5th level or so, skills are irrelevant. Stealth gets trumped by invisibility, lockpicks by wands of knock, Intimidate by critters and PrCs that actually get frightful presence, etc. I'd go on, but it's too depressing. Seriously, I give fighters in my home game all kinds of free skill ranks every level (Diplomacy for officers, Handle Animal for hussars, etc.) and it's not even a thing.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
"What about when wizards learned to stop time!" Remember when 10th to 14th level was considered "high level," and it was sort of expected that most PCs would retire then? In all the years playing 1e, I don't think we ever got a wizard above 14th level.

Yeah, it was doggedly hard to level Wizards after 12th level. It could be done. But EXP rewards didn't scale as much as it would in later editions, there was no built-in recommendation to the DM that "characters should gain a level after x encounters." You leveled when you leveled and past "name level," the mindset was that reaching high levels would take years of IRL campaign time.

Plus all the other stuff you mentioned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
w01fe01 wrote:

i feel like combat feats is too rangerish. why not something more unique.

When you level you can replace a existing feat you have with a new feat, even if that feat is part of a chain. You do not lose the ability to use the other feats in said chain, but you do lose the benefits the feat you had gave you.

Want some feat down a chain but find one or more of its previous feats useless? NO LONGER, and it has the obvious limitation of not working for everything, as some feats that are required for later ones are still needed/used in combination. first one that comes to mind is the crane style path.

If I were making new feats I'd actually make them more akin to a Monk's style feats only for weapon groups, although my point was that having Weapon Styles always irked me in regards to the forest having them and not the Weapon Training guy. I'd argue that Fighter should have weapon styles and Ranger should have something else but as a patch as opposed to a rewrite, I think that since some classes share features like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and domains it doesn't hurt for Fighter and Ranger to share weapon style feats [rage] especially since the g+~*+# ranger shouldn't have that in the first place! What the f@&$ is the hunter in the woods going to do with a f&@@ing sword and shield. Using weapons better is the Fighter's turf not his, the Ranger is just being an a%&@@@#. Stupid b!!++$%@ Ranger is just a hunter of beast, men or whatever. He's either a bounty hunger or a monster hunter, but no, being the cast of Cowboy Bebop wasn't cool enough for him, he needed some druid powers, some abilities the fighter should have, plus he gets evasion and hide in plain sight!!! Why doesn't the Rogue have that. Ranger needs to stop riding every other class' dick! I don't even know what he is anymore, just an amalgamation of abilities that should have gone somewhere else! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM! STATS-WISE ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER! ONLY THAT ELF WAS A RANGER! ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER![/rage]

The feat replacement ability is useful but feat tax is a whole different can of worms that's more of an everyone problem than a fighter problem.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

My biggest issue is narrative power, not combat.

THIS.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say but never found the right words.
I wish I could fav this post mire than once

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Arcane Paladin Digression:

Spellsword suggested homebrew class

It has problems. I probably would have to switch to the full on paladin/ranger spell progression, to be fair. Though I really want cantrips!!!

I wonder if the arcane maneuvers should use strength, and only include intelligence modifier as a bonus. And I think the spell book needs a lot of work...especially spells specifically made for the class, like ranger and paladin spells. Some borrowing from the newer spells for those classes would be good too, like lead blades.

Kirth, I think that's a point a lot of people have been fumbling for. Wizards twist the cosmos to their will - while that's powerful in combat, it's also powerful imagery from a storytelling perspective. Fighters have nothing remotely comparable, and should have a way to shine in the overall story.


i shine just fine

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I wasn't talking about sparkling.

Did you roll in glue and glitter there? Or are you a Twilight vampire?


i am also a poet and did not even know it

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Stop pretending to be a fighter! You're obviously a bard!


I think a well-built, well-rounded fighter with the right player running it can be just as devastating as any other character. The one thing I see every player do is wade in and stand in one square and roll attack and damage dice every round. Likewise, they focus solely on dealing high damage with every option and feat they choose. Everyone takes Power Attack, Vital Strike etc. etc. Then they get blasted by everything on the board and say fighters suck. If someone uses their fighter feats strategically from day one and takes advantage of every option in the combat section such as fighting defensively, taking cover etc. they can be extremely dangerous. The only caveat to that is fighters usually fair better when the party works as a team and they receive buffs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

do not mock my talk
i am a brighter fighter
sharp blade, sharper wit

omg haiku


Iron_Stormhammer wrote:
Everyone takes Power Attack, Vital Strike etc.

Not everyone takes vital strike. Its a trap feat after all. Everyone takes power attack yes, but that's probably a reason it shouldn't be a feat when you think about it.

So, the fighter doesn't get bonuses to fighting defensively or going for cover. That's something everyone can do.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:

do not mock my talk

i am a brighter fighter
sharp blade, sharper wit

omg haiku

この戦士の

きらきら栄光
盲する

Kono musha no
Kirakira eikou
Meshii suru

This warrior‘s
Sparkling glory
blinds!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
w01fe01 wrote:
having a fighter with 6+INT skills would make me probably break my teeth on a mouth guard from frustration simply cuz things like monks would then have less then even fighters, which...thematically, make such little sense to me.

Monks spend all their time in a monastery learning supernatural ways to suck. What is the fighter learning?

Quote:
i feel like combat feats is too rangerish. why not something more unique.

It's bonus feats on a class that was defined by bonus combat feats, except now it gets more bonus combat feats and they're actually class features that you don't have to meet prerequisites for.

Quote:

When you level you can replace a existing feat you have with a new feat, even if that feat is part of a chain. You do not lose the ability to use the other feats in said chain, but you do lose the benefits the feat you had gave you.

Want some feat down a chain but find one or more of its previous feats useless? NO LONGER, and it has the obvious limitation of not working for everything, as some feats that are required for later ones are still needed/used in combination. first one that comes to mind is the crane style path.

I'm not very fond of this idea because it sounds like a nightmare in terms of management, but from a GMing auditing perspective and for newbies for whom the class is often hailed as being for in the first place. Better to keep it simple.


honeslty if someone cant learn a class they shouldnt play the game imo. asking/reading and playing is how you do it. i hate braindead classes. but thats me.

and i guess you need to clarify how your bonus feats are working, are they in addition to fighters bonus feats? or instead of? i dont think the fighter should get more bonus feats then what they already have.


Ashiel wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:
having a fighter with 6+INT skills would make me probably break my teeth on a mouth guard from frustration simply cuz things like monks would then have less then even fighters, which...thematically, make such little sense to me.
Monks spend all their time in a monastery learning supernatural ways to suck.

This brings up something; Why are we whining about the Fighter? I know that the Fighter needs to be whined about and I'll do my part to whine for him but Monk needs way more whining than Fighter. I never get to really see a Monk in action so I don't have that much to say from experience but from my count he has more class features than anyone but people pick Fighters and Rogues on their team over Monks


lets keep monk threads to monk threads and fighter threads to fighter threads, no need to bring up a actual debate/argument about who sucks more lol.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

what the-
my glory does not blind them
dirty trick does

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I assume the combat styles replace all bonus feats. So a fighter gets 4 combat styles, a new combat style ability each level (sort of the equivalent of 20 bonus feats), plus the normal character feats every character gets every odd level.


I think it's "replace *SOME* bonus feats, but the Fighter still gets bonus feats on the levels he doesn't get style feats or feats that all characters get as they advance in level.


i dunno, just not a fan of giving fighters even more bonus feats, seems like a cheap way to overinflate/buff them. now, more flexibility in there bonus feats sure.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm okay with all those feats, especially on pre-defined "paths", because feats are generally adding versatility rather than greater power.

The feat chains that add "more power" (two weapon fighting, vital strike immediately come to mind) cost a lot of feat investment for smaller and smaller payoffs. I think feats should give you something new and cool you can do, rather than "And here's another +1. Enjoy."


uh sorry monk I was off in a tavern refining how to be awesome and just get the most out of life

nice job on that one hand clapping thing though, I guess

you just keep headbutting wooden planks while I talk to this interesting girl with all the knives and drink this ale


i agree, and certainly most feats are not overpowered, tho i still dont agree with giving fighters a metric ton of them just cuz they are considered weak, better to help them somewhere else then overload them with feats.

and this is coming from someone whose favorite moment on level up is to pick a feat lol. its like...OOOoooOOOooo shiny

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If they don't increase the power level, but simply increase the versatility of the fighter to fight in different styles, why not? It seems to be making the fighter the master of combat, rather than the "I can hit things with sticks really well, in maybe two different ways...if I can reach the thing to hit it. And it doesn't move too much once I reach it."

Do you have a reason you don't like it other than that you don't like it?


In regards to weapon style feats I'm more in favor of replacing bonus feat slots with Style feat slots Than adding feats. I think I mentioned why before; feats can take a lot of research and planning making Fighter a complicated class and I don't want to compound that problem. Making some of them Prereqless versions of general staples of fighter builds seems simpler, keeps new (and sometimes intermediate) players from traps. Also it syncs up flavorfully with Weapon Training.

I also think it opens up room for some versatility considering that some nice trick or weapon group style feats can be made which I think is important because I really don't think Fighters have a DPR problem. I just want to open up some space for a fighter to have feats that allow them to do in and out of combat tricks besides 'I hit it'


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Less concerned with feats just now, and wanting to focus on narrative power, which would require actual class features. Just off the top of my head:

Bravery (Ex): At 2nd level, you are immune to fear and fear effects.

Assess Prowess (Ex): By 5th level, you have seen enough combat to guess at the skill of those you meet. On a successful Sense Motive check made as a full-round action, you can determine one creature's base attack bonus and preferred mode of combat (melee, ranged weapon, spells, etc.). If you actually see the creature in combat, you can make this check as a free action. This comes on line just as your caster friends are getting nifty divinations like clairvoyance and arcane sight. They can scry and see magic; you can assess combat prowess.

Leader of Men (Ex): At 9th level, you gain Leadership as a bonus feat. If you have a keep or stronghold, you are seen as the protector of the surrounding lands, and gain a noble title. Lesser planar ally, overland flight, and teleport give the casters long-range abilities; this does the same for the fighter.

Commanding Presence (Ex): At 13th level, your command in battle is so sure that your every order is treated as a command spell. Once they have seen you fight, intelligent NPC combatants of CR equal to your level -3 or less refuse to fight you in melee under any circumstances, even if commanded to (magical control will still work), and must save vs. Will (DC 10 + half your fighter level + your Charisma bonus) or throw their weapons at your feat and join your service on the spot (they can save again when not in your presence, and once per day thereafter, in an effort to shake off the effect). Widespread use of planar binding and powerful enchantments mean that the casters at this point are controlling minds and powerful combatants. You are now able to keep up with them.

Supreme Warlord (Ex): By 17th level, nearly all of the soldiers and warriors in the places you've travelled have been awed by your prowess. At will, you can personally assert control of any military apparatus or personnel in the world not directly commanded by an equal or higher-CR leader. This transcends racial and tribal loyalties and national boundaries. Casters are creating personal demi-planes and gating in gods at this point. You now control your home plane.

Warlord of Mars (Ex): At 20th level, your supreme warlord ability applies even on other planes. Just to throw you a final bone and make sure you stay on even footing with the casters.


2nd level immune to fear and fear effects on a base class? maybe by 8th level....

i think perception would be a better check logistically then sense motive for assess prowess.

leadership is already banned by so many people, cool, but potentially gamebreaking (maybe?)

its damn flavorful ill give you that. i suppose my main gripe would be fear immunity so early, id say push it to later.

1,951 to 2,000 of 3,805 << first < prev | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards