You can vote for more than one option.
| 91 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need more skill points and better class skills, only two skill points for a class with no int sinergy and no out of combat class feature is bad.
| 51 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need to sometimes ignore silly feat prerequisites, like absurdly high dex for GTWF or combat expertise for maneuvers feats.
| 49 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make bravery an actual class feature and not just a really bad joke.
| 52 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need better saves, just give them a good will save.
| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor training 3 and 4 are gives less than armor trining 1 and 3, that should not be the case for high level abilities. Fix this.
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor mastery have to stack with adamantine.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing, fighter are prefectly balanced as they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing, Start enjoying being subpar like every good roleplayer. (pun option, but who knows)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need more flexible options and a way to make their success or failure non-binary.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need more fighter only feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need more flexible options and a way to make their success or failure non-binary.
Has no on this site ever heard of strawpoll or something? They're a much more efficient way to make these.
Also, is there an option for "Something beyond raw number increases"
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need an option for "they are unsalvageable in the game as it currently exists and should be replaced with something built from the ground up".
I see statements like this and just laugh. The amount of hyperbole around these "discussions" is just absurd. "Unsalvageable"? Really?
Thousands upon thousands of players have played the fighter class and enjoyed it immensely, all while contributing quite a lot to the campaign.
Hyperbole never helps anyone in making a case, especially if they're trying to get change to happen.
| 28 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter should not be held to any pretense of "realism" beyond the low levels. This goes for all mundane classes and skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need 4 skill points per level (they had close to this in proficiencies in 2nd e), better saves (+5/+4/+4 lvl 1 2nd ed had this as well) and spell DCs need to be nerfed to DC 10+ level of spell with no ability score bonus on them.
+16/+11/+6/+1 attacks also need to go. It should be 4 attacks at +16. 2nd ed also had this. In my home brew D&D I use these rules and I houserule a few of them into Pathfinder when I play that- lower spell DCs, more skill points and better saves.
I think you could have a "fixed" 3,5 derived game without going to the extremes of 4th ed. But it would not be compatible without a bit of work with existing 3rd ed/PF material. Pick your poison.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need more skill points and better class skills, only two skill points for a class with no int sinergy and no out of combat class feature is bad.
I don't think any class should be limited to 2 skill points per level. 4 at a minimum for all, including Wizards.
They need better saves, just give them a good will save.
I can't come up with a single justification for giving Fighters good Will saves. Bravery in its current form covers the only aspect of mind-affecting effects they should have some insulation from. They should have good Reflex saves in my opinion.
While I understand the complaints against Fighters (and Rogues and Monks), I've never worshipped at the altar of 'balance at all costs' and I'm just fine with one class being more powerful or more powerful at certain levels than another. That's life. If it were a case where no one played these classes then I might understand the need for redesign, but that's never been the situation that I can recall.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, is there an option for "Something beyond raw number increases"
Seconding this. One of the Fighter's bigger problems is a serious lack of options beyond "I hit it with my favorite weapon for HP damage." Most combat maneuvers require a hefty resource investment into a single maneuver to maintain viability with how CMD scales, and most combat maneuvers will have broad categories of enemies that are outright immune to said maneuvers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need more skill points and better class skills, only two skill points for a class with no int sinergy and no out of combat class feature is bad.
Just about the only thing I can immediately agree with in all this.
They need to sometimes ignore silly feat prerequisites, like absurdly high dex for GTWF or combat expertise for maneuvers feats.
GTWF is not that great though (it is at your bonus -10, with TWF penalties added in).... you can easily make an acceptable fighter without any dump stats on a 20 point buy using most races.Just start with these physical stats: STR 16 DEX 16 CON 14. You accomplish one of those 16's typically by starting with a 14 and getting a racial bonus to it (again, almost every race adds to either dex or strength; +2 con races have it a bit more complicated though).
With that, you have more than enough to get by as long as you put your level 4 ability score adjustment into DEX. 17 is all that you need to get all the good TWF feats. And with this, you can still be strength based.
Hard to comment on every feat chain and prerequisite, but it would be a problem most classes would face anyway after the TWF problem is addressed. After that, most feats are designed to be useful for the kinds of builds that would use them
Although the maneuver feats with that "you need int 13 for combat expertise" thing is annoying. But that has already been addressed, to some extent. With the countless archetypes that are provided, you can more than likely find something that will fit your needs (there are even ones that give pseudo pounces). I just say that improving the skill situation would be enough to solve the 'not much to do when you aren't smacking things' situation. After that, any holes can be solved by their almost two dozen feats, it would seem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They need better saves, just give them a good will save.I can't come up with a single justification for giving Fighters good Will saves. Bravery in its current form covers the only aspect of mind-affecting effects they should have some insulation from. They should have good Reflex saves in my opinion.
That is OK. IN fact one of my favorite fix s to give then choice. Fighter should be always vanilla and the possibility to choose against what effect the fighter is strong is a plus.
In favor of will saves, I have to say that the warrior that have so a strong mind that he can resist the foulest magic is a common trope in literature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The dangerous and difficult nature of adventuring would eventually weed out those who didn't have either magic, or a high resistance to magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My feelings on the matter:
-4+Int Skill points and a few more class skills
-Replace Bravery with Good Will progression
-Give more Fighter Only feats to ensure that the fighter can do things that the other Full BAB classes cannot, just like they have things that the Fighter cannot do.
-Allow fighters to use their Fighter level to qualify for prerequisites early, somehow (perhaps replace Ability score prerequisites with Fighter level+10, or allow some fraction of fighter levels to count towards BAB requirements)
The first two are the real key, and are more or less mandatory fixes. The latter two are less mandatory and more of "I'd be nice to have, to give fighters something that the other full BAB classes don't get" but neither are neccesarily needed, and I'd hesitate to give both.
You need an option for "they are unsalvageable in the game as it currently exists and should be replaced with something built from the ground up".I see statements like this and just laugh. The amount of hyperbole around these "discussions" is just absurd. "Unsalvageable"? Really?
Thousands upon thousands of players have played the fighter class and enjoyed it immensely, all while contributing quite a lot to the campaign.
Hyperbole never helps anyone in making a case, especially if they're trying to get change to happen.
I agree to an extent. I often like to play fighter classes but in a 12-15 level game I can almost never bring myself to play a straight fighter. It almost always gets splashed with oracle, ranger, rouge, bard, or inquisitor.
As a big proponent of the class I find it sad that it doesn't stand well on its own.
I think that the fighter should be able to sub out an attack for 15ft of movement a number if times up to his speed.
|
I voted for "soup up bravery" and "more fighter-only feats".
Right now, the biggest argument in favor of playing a fighter is Weapon Specialization (which other classes arguably don't need, as they have other class features to improve their damage) and the Critical Feats, which let fighters supplement their damage with their choice of debuff. Sure, swinging that zweihander for all the damage you could ever care to and more is fun, but the critical feats allow you to dual-wield kukris and crit-fish on every enemy in range if you'd rather play more controlling. If there were more fighter-only feats, there'd be more reason to play a fighter.
Also, Bravery really is a joke.
I'm mostly in favor of more skills and being able to ignore some prerequisites as it just means you get to waste a lot of your main class feature, bonus feats. Hell, look at the Ranger. He gets a lot less bonus feats than the Fighter, but all of them matter much more because he doesn't need to make mediocre build choices to get them... plus he gets them early.
I don't think I would mind Bravery so much if it actually culminated into Fear immunity, most reasonably around 10th level.
If there were a "moar versatility" option, I would vote for that. I suppose that might fall under more fighter only feats, but of the small smattering of fighter only feats that there are, not many follow along those lines rather than something like "+2 damage with one specific weapon."
Fighters - IMO - have two Achilles' heels in combat (one for each foot? :P ). One is resiliency/defenses, the other is versatility.
As it stands, they are among the bottom rank in defenses in general (more so at high level than low level, since at low level the one defense they can be fairly good at, non-touch AC, is more relevant) and possibly the very rock bottom on versatility to overcome any challenge of mobility, obstacles, nonstandard defenses, almost anything other than rolling attack vs AC/CMD.
Lore Wardens are actually quite viable. Note that they get both more skill points and Class Skills, and a huge bonus on Combat Maneuvers that nobody else gets.
They seem a good baseline for a viable general Fighter.
uhm, unfortunately Lore wardend have a reputation of a terrible archetype among some devs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
uhm, unfortunately Lore wardend have a reputation of a terrible archetype among some devs.Lore Wardens are actually quite viable. Note that they get both more skill points and Class Skills, and a huge bonus on Combat Maneuvers that nobody else gets.
They seem a good baseline for a viable general Fighter.
Not precisely. It has a reputation as a terribly designed archetype, because what it gains is notably better than what it loses. This is objectively true. This means we won't get many similarly powerful options...but also makes it a good baseline for making Fighters better.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd switch bravery for a choice between either Will or Reflex as a second good save. Decide for your individual fighter what to focus on, rather than a blanket rule for all fighters everywhere.
And the 4 skill points thing.
And feat chains need to be shorter for everyone, so everyone can have a combat gimmick and fighters can have five gimmicks.
Option #umpteenth:
Weapon-specific feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization apply to the entire group of weapons instead (using the Weapon Training groups). Fighters should be deadly with anything they pick up.
That is pretty important but I forgot to put it :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
uhm, unfortunately Lore wardend have a reputation of a terrible archetype among some devs.Lore Wardens are actually quite viable. Note that they get both more skill points and Class Skills, and a huge bonus on Combat Maneuvers that nobody else gets.
They seem a good baseline for a viable general Fighter.
Well, the "devs" aren't going to change the Fighter at all, so their opinion doesn't really matter in this case.
Ive never really understood the constant rants about fighters sucking. Or rahter i get on some level they cant time stop or alter reality. But in actual game play Ive finished two AP with Pc's playing fighter and neither was useless.
They have enough feats to honestly be good at alot of stuff even outside of combat, the fact that no one ever seems to use the feats for out of combat stuff is a player issue not a game one.
I suspect most of the issues are playstyle ones rather than actual game play ones.
Ive never really understood the constant rants about fighters sucking. Or rahter i get on some level they cant time stop or alter reality. But in actual game play Ive finished two AP with Pc's playing fighter and neither was useless.
They have enough feats to honestly be good at alot of stuff even outside of combat, the fact that no one ever seems to use the feats for out of combat stuff is a player issue not a game one.
I suspect most of the issues are playstyle ones rather than actual game play ones.
On the contrary, I GM a game where we originally had two Fighters. Both players separately and personally came up to me and requested a switch to a Barbarian and Cavalier respectively, because they felt the Fighter was both boring and weak. From what I know, they are much happier with their new class choices.
Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever play a Fighter. But liking a class doesn't necessarily mean you can't see it's weak.
Ive never really understood the constant rants about fighters sucking. Or rahter i get on some level they cant time stop or alter reality. But in actual game play Ive finished two AP with Pc's playing fighter and neither was useless.
They have enough feats to honestly be good at alot of stuff even outside of combat, the fact that no one ever seems to use the feats for out of combat stuff is a player issue not a game one.
I suspect most of the issues are playstyle ones rather than actual game play ones.
On the contrary, I GM a game where we originally had two Fighters. Both players separately and personally came up to me and requested a switch to a Barbarian and Cavalier respectively, because they felt the Fighter was both boring and weak. From what I know, they are much happier with their new class choices.
Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever play a Fighter. But liking a class doesn't necessarily mean you can't see it's weak.
The fighter suffers from an image problem in that, if i decide to play a ranger for example I have alot /clearer/ concepts and my class features likely mostly more directly support that.
IF i play a fighter, I have the options to make any fighting man concept i might possibly want, and i am provided witht he class features that allow me to do that. However, the difference is that I am fully deciding how those class features are used to define my fighting man concept.
The fact that, everone focuses on 18 str 7 int characters, is a Player issue. I have seen posts by people that say fighters do poor damage seriously?
But anyhow, I can make a Fighter who gets 5-6 sp a level and will be able to fulfill every combat role the game wants of him. He will have skill areas in multiple areas hes good at and can take feats to easily add new class skills.
Now thers nothing wrong with a PC deciding to make the 18 str 7 int fighter. But if does that and the character is a 1 dimensional combat focused character.. thats the Players decision making.
However, what has worked for the players of my group may obviously not work for others. However, On a side note in the RotRL game we played, the fighter archer was the reason the runelord was stopped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that, everone focuses on 18 str 7 int characters, is a Player issue
A int 14 fither have less utility than a int 7 ranger, and those are points thatn can go into str, dex or con for more figthing prowess for hte ranger, How that is a player issue?
And, Mojorat, there is an option for people who think figthers are fine as they are, please make your opinion count in there.
The fighter suffers from an image problem in that, if i decide to play a ranger for example I have alot /clearer/ concepts and my class features likely mostly more directly support that.
IF i play a fighter, I have the options to make any fighting man concept i might possibly want, and i am provided witht he class features that allow me to do that. However, the difference is that I am fully deciding how those class features are used to define my fighting man concept.
The fact that, everone focuses on 18 str 7 int characters, is a Player issue. I have seen posts by people that say fighters do poor damage seriously?
I haven't seen anyone say the Fighter does poor damage. Fighters do good damage, this cannot be denied. But unfortunately it is the only thing they excel in.
But anyhow, I can make a Fighter who gets 5-6 sp a level and will be able to fulfill every combat role the game wants of him. He will have skill areas in multiple areas hes good at and can take feats to easily add new class skills.
I'm interested. Can you post an example of this that does it better than say, a Ranger?
However, what has worked for the players of my group may obviously not work for others. However, On a side note in the RotRL game we played, the fighter archer was the reason the runelord was stopped.
Archer Fighters are better because they deal less with the big issues that Fighters have. But what was stopping another martial from doing the same thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Easy answer: I agree the Fighter should have more skill points.
Other answer: The fighter needs an expendable resource pool because practically every other class does. And when those pools run out is generally when the group rests. The Fighter is not better off for not having such a pool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something I should have said earlier in addition to giving the class more options. Let's stop considering bonus feats actual class features. Having more of something that everyone else can get isn't really having a unique class feature.
Now if you were to make fighter bonus feats something akin to rogue talents or rage powers we might have something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some good points, brings up rangers
The thing about rangers, is the fighter does solid consistant damage against /everything/. Built properly They should be able to be prepared to fight any challenge provided they are able to make an attack roll.
Rangers are great, against their favoured enemy they are awesome.. against everything else? not so much. There is instant enemy but they dont get that until level 10.
Im not sure what you mean by 'do better' than a ranger? Fighters should be tops in any game where they are given a chance to full attack. The character can be designed to deal with multiple situations involving combat wether its being trained in multiple weapons or combat maneuvers.
I will add one caveat though, my own experience playing games with rangers was a single instance He did great damage vs his FE. but he was also played by an inexperienced player. Was to level 13 in Jade regent.
When i mentally compare that archer ranger to the RotRL fighter the fighter seemed consistantly stronger. However, memory and time kind of fuzzies out some of the details.