Thoughts on Allowing Fighter Only Feats


Class Discussion


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel that both warpriest and swashbuckler should not be given blanket access to fighter only feats because it gives away one of the fighter's few things that only it got.

This is similar to the thinking that all rogue talents should not be given away to slayer or investigator.

In general, giving away those special features and giving access to all of the features the parent class has leads to situations that weaken the viability and uniqueness of the parent class.

Also, while obviously the goal is for all classes to be well balanced, it also makes it difficult to re tune or give goodies to one class without the other. For example, because the ninja gets all rogue talents, there is no way to help better carve the rogue's niche in relation to the ninja by giving special rogue talents because the ninja can take those anyway.

It also means from now on any cool interesting abilities that would be good for a rogue must be balanced for both it and ninja.

An example from this playtest would be creating new powerful fighter only feats for high levels should not be impeded because a medium casting class is already pretty strong at that level and they can take it too (warpriest).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

what about making them count as half fighter? as in a level 12 swashbuckler counts as a level 6 fighter for feat purposes.


Haven't looked at the Warpriest, but the Swashbuckler wouldn't hold up without access to those feats IMO. It's already a marginal front liner, so gimping it more would be pretty bad.


That's an interesting argument, and I quite understand the sentiment behind it.

But then, where are warpriests wit below 13 int supposed to take their feats?


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
drbuzzard wrote:
Haven't looked at the Warpriest, but the Swashbuckler wouldn't hold up without access to those feats IMO. It's already a marginal front liner, so gimping it more would be pretty bad.

I disagree with that statement about swashbuckler, I think they are slightly overpowered right now, but it doesn't matter for this argument.

If swashbuckler is too weak without fighter only feats give them something else to bring them up.

My point is just to not give fighter only feats.

Having said that, especially with swashbucklers, I am fine with specifically giving certain fighter only feats as class abilities if they make sense; just not the blanket statement that they get them all.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kekkres wrote:
what about making them count as half fighter? as in a level 12 swashbuckler counts as a level 6 fighter for feat purposes.

I can see this perspective, but at that point why not give them none? There are plenty of feats every class that is not named fighter can take.

Also, while it definitely decreases the issue, you still have the problem of trying to give something to fighters and then having to deal with being forced to balance it with regards to the other classes (even if they get it later).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In any case this horse is already out of the barn. There are a number of archetypes which give out fighter bonus feats.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because if it is considered a hybrid class, like the magus, it makes sense to go halfsies (kind of like multiclassing.) You could even have an archetype like the kensai that gives level-4 for purposes of qualifying.


drbuzzard wrote:
In any case this horse is already out of the barn. There are a number of archetypes which give out fighter bonus feats.

Or, if you are looking for something in the CRB, levels in Eldritch Knight count as fighter levels for qualifying for feats.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And the ninja gets all rogue talents.

Yes it has been done before.

In my opinion, it was wrong to be done before.

A bunch of hybrid classes however will make the problem exponentially worst because now there are even more classes and not just archetypes that have to be kept in mind when adding new fighter feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good. It's about time Fighter stopped having a death grip on some interesting Feats because the dev team knows it's a bad class and wanted to give him something "special" to make up for it.


Fighter feats should be useable by these classes. If any restrictions need to be applied, these classes should count as fighters - 4 levels or something. However I think that would be overkill.

Grand Lodge

I wish the horse hadn't bolted already and that Ninja talents were limited to their own pool but rogues got open access via Int or something and that fighter feats were specific to fighters only... but it has.

Power creep sucks. Sometimes it just seems the right thing to do at the time but then the full scope of the impact is known later.

That said, I also have to echo Rynjin. While I don't think the fighter class is a 'bad' class, the newer classes has been given better toys to play with and this has eroded by fighter and rogue both.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
Fighter feats should be useable by these classes. If any restrictions need to be applied, these classes should count as fighters - 4 levels or something. However I think that would be overkill.

i treat alll fighter feats in home games as having two alternate requirements, the fighter level or the fighter level +2 worth of BAB so a feat that requires fighter 6 i would allow to any charicter who has a BAB of 8 for example, but thats just me.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Thoughts on Allowing Fighter Only Feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Class Discussion