The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,151 to 3,200 of 3,805 << first < prev | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
The Swashbuckler kills yet another "fighter" archetype :)

No, it introduces the high Charisma/high Dex martial, which previously did not exist.


It creates a viable, one handed, finessy melee combatant. Something that fighter archetypes have tried and failed to create.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
It creates a viable, one handed, finessy melee combatant. Something that fighter archetypes have tried and failed to create.

I would say "purporsely failed", because it is imposible that they hoped that arcehtype to really represent the swashbuckling style.


I don't remember seeing a fighter archetype that is specifically for finesse combatants, unless you count the Swordlord. Closest I can think of is the Mobile Fighter and that's more for dual-wielding. I guess maybe the Duelist PrC but that's not a fighter archetype.

And really, you could make a viable finesse fighter before just by taking Dervish Dance. The thing that's new with the Swashbuckler is keying off Charisma.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
It creates a viable, one handed, finessy melee combatant. Something that fighter archetypes have tried and failed to create.
I would say "purporsely failed", because it is imposible that they hoped that arcehtype to really represent the swashbuckling style.

With old Crane Wing it was okay. The Fighter(And Swashbuckler in the Playtest) are still lacking in the charismatic department however.


Scavion wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
It creates a viable, one handed, finessy melee combatant. Something that fighter archetypes have tried and failed to create.
I would say "purporsely failed", because it is imposible that they hoped that arcehtype to really represent the swashbuckling style.
With old Crane Wing it was okay. The Fighter(And Swashbuckler in the Playtest) are still lacking in the charismatic department however.

I Do not know what to feel about charisma. It is good that there is the posibility for it, but it is a shame that a entire class get pigeonholed. (In the same token, I think there should be an archetye for paladins that let then use wisdom instead of cha)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While randomly finding myself reading the old Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting I found a little piece of text that may infuriate a lot of readers here.

Fighters got a choice of a social skill to be added as a class skill and they received 4+INT skills per level.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
It was only a matter of days before it was to be reincarnated anyway.

If it was reincarnated, would it roll to come back as a rogue or monk thread instead?


master_marshmallow wrote:

While randomly finding myself reading the old Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting I found a little piece of text that may infuriate a lot of readers here.

Fighters got a choice of a social skill to be added as a class skill and they received 4+INT skills per level.

Why it would infuriate people? , I do not remember it well, bu I think it was a 3.5 book and you loose heavy armor proficiency or something.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

While randomly finding myself reading the old Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting I found a little piece of text that may infuriate a lot of readers here.

Fighters got a choice of a social skill to be added as a class skill and they received 4+INT skills per level.

Why it would infuriate people? , I do not remember it well, bu I think it was a 3.5 book and you loose heavy armor proficiency or something.

Multiple classes were augmented in that book, and fighters simply got the extra skills without giving things up.

Just saying it's something that already exists from paizo.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

While randomly finding myself reading the old Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting I found a little piece of text that may infuriate a lot of readers here.

Fighters got a choice of a social skill to be added as a class skill and they received 4+INT skills per level.

Why it would infuriate people? , I do not remember it well, bu I think it was a 3.5 book and you loose heavy armor proficiency or something.

Multiple classes were augmented in that book, and fighters simply got the extra skills without giving things up.

Just saying it's something that already exists from paizo.

Seriously? that was a great idea then.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

While randomly finding myself reading the old Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting I found a little piece of text that may infuriate a lot of readers here.

Fighters got a choice of a social skill to be added as a class skill and they received 4+INT skills per level.

Why it would infuriate people? , I do not remember it well, bu I think it was a 3.5 book and you loose heavy armor proficiency or something.

Multiple classes were augmented in that book, and fighters simply got the extra skills without giving things up.

Just saying it's something that already exists from paizo.

Seriously? that was a great idea then.

so paizo already thought that was fair!?!


I don't know what the problem is with fighters. Especially 25 point buy MYTHIC fighters ;) doesn't seem to be any for the latter.


Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or

fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Gather
Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
(Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility
and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.

Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or

fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Gather
Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
(Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility
and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.

Meanwhile they let Clerics drop Domains to get full base attack bonus and D10 hitdice.


Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or

fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Gather
Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
(Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility
and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.
Meanwhile they let Clerics drop Domains to get full base attack bonus and D10 hitdice.

I didn't say everything in the book was well balanced.

EDIT: That said, clerics already "had" full BAB in 3.5 anyway thanks to Divine Power's old text. Hence the builds known as Clericzilla.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or

fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Gather
Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
(Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility
and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.
Meanwhile they let Clerics drop Domains to get full base attack bonus and D10 hitdice.
I didn't say everything in the book was well balanced.

No you didn't. I find the thought of them being okay with the Cleric being Full BAB d10 Hit Dice and 9th level casting quite humorous.

EDIT: Not needing the spell back when domains weren't super fantastic is nuts.


christos gurd wrote:
so paizo already thought that was fair!?!

Someone who worked for them might off, might not be safe to say paizo thought it was fair since there are a lot of minds in a workplace dontcha' know.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or

fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Gather
Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
(Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility
and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.

I think I'd still take the warblade personally.


Wow this is a huge thread. I've only read a few posts from the front and back, but I think I spotted the main problem with fighters.

Almost everyone can see that the fighter has problems but everyone has different ideas on how to fix them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gunsmith Paladin wrote:

Wow this is a huge thread. I've only read a few posts from the front and back, but I think I spotted the main problem with fighters.

Almost everyone can see that the fighter has problems but everyone has different ideas on how to fix them.

true but i do think it is largly agreed 4+int for skills is desirable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
christos gurd wrote:
Gunsmith Paladin wrote:

Wow this is a huge thread. I've only read a few posts from the front and back, but I think I spotted the main problem with fighters.

Almost everyone can see that the fighter has problems but everyone has different ideas on how to fix them.

true but i do think it is largly agreed 4+int for skills is desirable.

Fair enough on that. I should probably give my opinion on this though.

I personally think that the fighter's problem doesn't stem from the class itself but from the fact that the fighter's main class feature, the bonus feats, suffer from poor design choices. There's no need for improved trip and greater trip. Why don't some feats just scale? Not to mention crappy feat taxes and strange or downright absurd requirements.


The main problem with fighters? No practical flamethrowers are commercially available in pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
TOZ wrote:
The main problem with fighters is the arguments over them.

Amen to that....never seen a fighter in-game that their player was upset that he couldn't do anything. I guess real-life play trumps messageboard guessing about a class's potential.

Game I play the casters are holding back to give the martial guys something to do and it shows.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or

fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Gather
Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
(Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility
and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.

You forgot the part that explains those benefits:

Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting wrote:

Class Abilities: Numerous martial academies around the

Inner Sea region teach weapon skill, tactics, diplomacy, and
other tools useful for war. Fighters who attend these schools
may choose the above option, which replaces the bonus feat
gained upon taking the first level of fighter.

You give up your 1st level bonus feat for twice the skill points.

Gain: Bonus that builds over levels.
Cost: Slower access to feat trees, lower maximum feat combination, opportunity cost (less "fightery" first level play).

It wasn't a straight up 'gimme'.


Kaisoku wrote:

You give up your 1st level bonus feat for twice the skill points.

It wasn't a straight up 'gimme'.

True, but losing a combat feat is a pretty minor cost compared to doubling your base skill points and gaining a new class skill. Especially since a lot of Fighter builds end up with an excess of combat feats anyway.

Silver Crusade

In my games, all fighters gain either of the following at level one.

Agile Fighter: Your two main saves are Fortitude and Reflex.

Stalwart Fighter: Your two main saves are Fortitude and Willpower.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Focused Fighter: Your two main saves are Reflex and Willpower.

:)

==Aelryinth


3 people marked this as a favorite.

1e fighter: Your main saves are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
1e fighter: Your main saves are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.

How did that happen? I wasn't playing then so its mindbogglingly to think of a fighter having all good saves. Did it happen slowly or did 3rd edition just suddenly kicked him in the shins?


Malwing wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
1e fighter: Your main saves are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
How did that happen? I wasn't playing then so its mindbogglingly to think of a fighter having all good saves. Did it happen slowly or did 3rd edition just suddenly kicked him in the shins?

Not know about 1e, but in 2e they start with bad saves but end with the second better set of saves (just below the paladin).


christos gurd wrote:
Gunsmith Paladin wrote:

Wow this is a huge thread. I've only read a few posts from the front and back, but I think I spotted the main problem with fighters.

Almost everyone can see that the fighter has problems but everyone has different ideas on how to fix them.

true but i do think it is largly agreed 4+int for skills is desirable.

+1.


Malwing wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
1e fighter: Your main saves are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
How did that happen? I wasn't playing then so its mindbogglingly to think of a fighter having all good saves. Did it happen slowly or did 3rd edition just suddenly kicked him in the shins?

It was a bit different, because Saving Throws were static targets that decreased with level, rather than an increasing bonus added to a roll against an increasing DC, but Fighters had best saving throws. I didn't play much 2e, but as I remember it 3e totally did just suddenly kick him in the shins.

Edit: Given what Alex said, unlike 2e, 1e had save progressions for Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User and Thief, and the sub-classes advanced as the main classes did.


The design of 3e very intentionally nerfed the martial characters all to hell while inexplicably powering up the casters. Before that:

  • If you took any damage before your spell went off, you lost the spell. No concentration check allowed. Higher-level spells took longer to cast, so more chance for someone to chuck a dagger at you or hit you with a single magic missile or whatever.

  • You couldn't move and cast, but you could half move (IIRC) and full attack.

  • Fighters eneded the game with the ability to succeed at any saving throw against nearly anything in the game with a 90% success rate.

  • Casters didn't get 0-level spells (those were all 1st level), didn't get more spells per day for high stats, and save DCs didn't scale with your stats or with spell level.

  • Wizards had to roll vs. Intelligence to see if they could add a spell to their spellbooks, and had Int-based maximum numbers of spells they could add.

  • Leadership was a class feature, not a feat, and fighters and rangers were the best at it (the former got a large army, and the latter could get forest critters, magical beasts, etc.).

    Should I go on?


  • Malwing wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    1e fighter: Your main saves are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
    How did that happen? I wasn't playing then so its mindbogglingly to think of a fighter having all good saves. Did it happen slowly or did 3rd edition just suddenly kicked him in the shins?

    In 0e, 1e and 2e there were five saving throw categories which were roughly:

    Death Effects
    Rods, staves, wands
    Paralysis/Petrification
    Breath Weapon
    Spell

    Don't ask why just accept that they don't make any damn sense.

    Each class had a number for each category. You had to roll that number of better if targeted by an effect which fell into that category. Fighters ended up with some of the best saves in each category and, more importantly, they also went up faster than anyone else.

    As I recall fighter saves improve every 2 levels, cleric every 3, thief every 4 and wizard every 5 levels.

    Also there were few, if any, ways for casters to impose penalties on their saves and magical items existed which increased them across the board.

    Basically magic was much more difficult to get to stick back in the day. Evocation still did half damage on a save, their damage was generally uncapped (until 2e) and everything had fewer HP (the most powerful dragons in 1e had 88HP). As such evocation was the strongest strategy for in combat spellcasting, assuming you avoided being interrupted. It you were hit by anything at all while casting then you lost the spell. No concentration check, you simply fail to cast and lose the spell slot. You also had far fewer slots. The Wizard table had fewer than 3.x or PF and you didn't get bonus spell slots for a high stat.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
  • Leadership was a class feature, not a feat, and fighters and rangers were the best at it (the former got a large army, and the latter could get forest critters, magical beasts, etc.).

    Should I go on?

  • Rangers were decent but if you used the table you ended up with a lot of very random low level multi classed demi-humans. Fighters got a lot of low level men at arms which never struck me as terribly effective. Wizards got more Wizards and while they were more limited than their 3.x and later incarnations having more magicians on your side was always a plus.

    Having said that henchmen were generally more important and could be obtained by anyone. Given the impact of charisma on the number and loyalty of henchmen it was actually an important stat back then.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Casters didn't get 0-level spells (those were all 1st level), didn't get more spells per day for high stats, and save DCs didn't scale with your stats or with spell level.

    Not true for 2e edition divine caster.

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

    Also, preparing spells for an arcane caster take much longer.


    1e clerics also received bonus spells for high wisdom but it was an extremely small number and the cleric list was way more limited than it is nowadays.


    Alexandros Satorum wrote:
    Not true for 2e edition divine caster.

    They had their own problems, like having their spell selection limited by "spheres."


    andreww wrote:
    Fighters got a lot of low level men at arms which never struck me as terribly effective.

    Rumor has it that's how Robilar managed to get through the Tomb of Horrors, and that high-level fighters were constantly sending their armies to sack rival adventurers' stongholds while the latter were out adventuring.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Alexandros Satorum wrote:
    Not true for 2e edition divine caster.
    They had their own problems, like having their spell selection limited by "spheres."

    Not much problem than 3e cleric have their spell limited by their spell list.


    Alexandros Satorum wrote:
    Not much problem than 3e cleric have their spell limited by their spell list.

    As soon as you go beyond the core rules, it was a MAJOR limitation. Look at the 2e Tome of Magic. It had tons of new cleric spells -- spells that most clerics couldn't cast, because they didn't have access to those spheres. Contrast 3e and PF splats -- every cleric immediately gets access to every new cleric spell released.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    andreww wrote:
    Fighters got a lot of low level men at arms which never struck me as terribly effective.
    Rumor has it that's how Robilar managed to get through the Tomb of Horrors, and that high-level fighters were constantly sending their armies to sack rival adventurers' stongholds while the latter were out adventuring.

    As I understand it he dug the place out using orcish slave labour and/or earth elementals. Still a far better idea than actually dealing with its ludicrous death traps.


    Malwing wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    1e fighter: Your main saves are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
    How did that happen? I wasn't playing then so its mindbogglingly to think of a fighter having all good saves. Did it happen slowly or did 3rd edition just suddenly kicked him in the shins?

    The Rogue/theif and Fighters where kicked in the shin come 3rd edtion and casters where given halo's, gum drops, unicorns and double rainbows.

    before fighters and rogues level faster than any other class, Rogue skill were taken from them and giving to every class to be able to do,so they loss there primary role in the party, it sneak attack/back stabs became of hard to get as more requirements and limits were taken from them because they removed facing for whatever reason. this is the bigger kicker, rogues leveled faster than any other class, so it was very possible to have a rouge 3 to 4 level ahead of the rest of the party making up for their poor bab/THAC0 and lower hp and normally saves.

    Fighters leveled 3rd fastest(made sense as you where depent on cleric to stay a live, he leveled 2nd fastest, but had far fewer ablitys and a lot less healing and a crapy attack rating and spells stoped at level 7), really about average so they were most often 1 level ahead of paladin and rangers (barbarian depending on edition leveled the slowest or was a fighter archetype). This Should have stayed that way, they never even had rage. Rage was for berserks which was a fighter archetype. Fighter got more attacks than anyone else up to 5 every two rounds. While everyone else got 1 a round or 3 every 2 if they were melee type.

    nerf to all melee as full movement and full attack where reduced move and 1 attack or full attack and move 5ft. while casters before could not move and cast a spell, they can now full move and cast a spell most of the time and quick spells and get two off.

    nerf to con and str, as only fighter and other warriors were allowed to get exceptional str bonus to hit and damage, and extra hp from con past of more than 2 a level. Every other class was stuck at +2 per level no matter what their con was.

    nerf Stand still became a feat and when before auto success was built into every class because Aoo did not exist. Creature just could not get past you if you blocked the way without taking you on or going away around you. Also Aoo for using ranged weapons were introduce did not exist before.

    spell interruption was reduced to concentration check or 5ft step away. where before. you had to decide what you were doing before initiative was rolled and locked in. if you roll bad on imitative and someone got past the fighter protecting you hit you the spell was lost. higher level the spell the longer it took to cast also.

    Not saying some of the things casters got where bad, I think concentration was all that was needed to give them a chance to keep their spell if they got hit. Earl levels caster leveled quickly to reflect their spells and as their got high in level they actual leveled slower. Often being 2 to levels behind a fighter or paladin/ranger. But this was pretty fair because they were getting it to what we call the broken 7 thru 9 levels spell that can be used to alter reality

    Nerf Fighter/Ranger/Paladin all got the same number of skill points just different class skills per say. Now ranger gets 3 times the amount,

    so yeah you can see all the bonus that made fighter great in the older editions where either removed from him or his powers where giving to everyone else leaving him, with nothing special of his own then he is expected to level up at the same rate as everyone else same for the poor rogue. all in the name of making multi classing easier, which pathfinder nerf with cap stone and getting rid of dead levels. want to fix the rogue and the fighter lets them level up on fast progression, lets full casters use slow and eveything else use normal and get rid of multi classing.


    The levelling thing isn't quite true. The 1e xp progression favoured the fighter for the first 5 or 6 levels but then switched to the Wizard until about 13. The true speed levellers were the Thief and, bizarrely, the Druid.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:

    What the other 700+ post thread on fighters wasn't enough?

    Fighters are singled out because they are the prototypical mundane dude in armor. They get very little as class abilities besides feats. People see that and immediately assume "wow, fighters suck".

    But feats are, outside of spells, probably the single most flexibility enhancing part of the game. Feats will allow a character to do many, many things, both in combat and out. And fighters get more feats to work with than anyone.

    So if you want to be a wand-wielding UMD specialist casting heal spells in combat, you can do that as a fighter. If you want to be a sneaky dude looking for and disabling traps, you can do that too.

    The one thing you can't do is cast innate spells.

    One of the things I see on these boards all the time is "I can't generate the most optimal possible result with this class for this option, so this class is obviously useless for this option." That's nonsense, but that's what I see all the time. If you want to be socially active in the game all you need is to put a few skill points into a social skill. You don't have to be overflowing with ranks. There are many ways to boost your likelihood of success, ranging from having other party members "aid another", to skill boosting spells that can be put in a wand.

    I know this will get me jumped all over, but the main reason people complain about this class or that class being useless for this role or that role is not because the class is boned, it's because they lack the experience or the imagination to figure out how to make it work.

    2ed was a completely different game. Many of the caster nerfs and martial buffs were removed because they don't work in 3rd ed.

    Scarab Sages

    I have a question. WHY does everyone boil down the fighter to 'amount of damage they can deal?' If I boil down character effectiveness to 'ability to sneak,' than rogues are super op and paladins are the worst.

    1) fighters are basically the most versifier melee class. Sheild missile, shield ray, disruptive, spell breaker. I can run up to the Mage, ignore his disintegrate, and make sure he never casts a spell again. Plus penetrating strike lets me straight up ignore damage reduction, what other class gets that?

    2) Eventual full speed in full plate. Almost no one else gets this (except for dwarves)

    3) weapon training not only applies to dmg(helping damage, like you guys want) but also to cmb. I've seen fighters successfully grapple small dragons, essentially letting a rogue sneak attack for all their worth.

    I'm sorry, but what is the problem with fighters again? Are they broken? No. Can they be made situationally ineffective? Yes. Are they worthless? Hell no.

    Oh, and the 2nd ed leveling system was all messed up. Ignore it, EVERYONE leveled at different rates, with very strange progression curves. Look at the druid.


    VampByDay wrote:
    1) fighters are basically the most versifier melee class. Sheild missile, shield ray, disruptive, spell breaker. I can run up to the Mage, ignore his disintegrate, and make sure he never casts a spell again. Plus penetrating strike lets me straight up ignore damage reduction, what other class gets that?

    That's a joke right?


    I don't see how disruptive and spellbreaker prevent casters from casting, am I missing something?


    Trogdar wrote:
    I don't see how disruptive and spellbreaker prevent casters from casting, am I missing something?

    Usually if your in melee range you want to cast defensively, which is normally an easy check, but disruptive and spellbreaker make it much harder. Of course you can usually five foot step back too, so your foe might want to burn a feat on step up to catch up.

    The biggest joke is casting disintegrate though imo. You usually try to hit someone's weak save.


    Neither feat actually makes defensive casting that much more difficult.

    3,151 to 3,200 of 3,805 << first < prev | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards