| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
With old Crane Wing it was okay. The Fighter(And Swashbuckler in the Playtest) are still lacking in the charismatic department however.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 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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Seriously? that was a great idea then.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.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.
Meanwhile they let Clerics drop Domains to get full base attack bonus and D10 hitdice.
Meanwhile they let Clerics drop Domains to get full base attack bonus and D10 hitdice.Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.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.
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.
I didn't say everything in the book was well balanced.Meanwhile they let Clerics drop Domains to get full base attack bonus and D10 hitdice.Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.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.
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.
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.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.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.
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. |
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. |
true but i do think it is largly agreed 4+int for skills is desirable.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.
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.
Obviously meant for 3.5, but still it's right there.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.
You forgot the part that explains those benefits:
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'.
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.
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.
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?
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).
true but i do think it is largly agreed 4+int for skills is desirable.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.
+1.
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:
Should I go on?
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.
Not true for 2e edition divine caster.
They had their own problems, like having their spell selection limited by "spheres."
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
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.
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?
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.