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.
I know I've said something that isn't quite the same, but is roughly in the same ballpark: that I've found that for a fighter, the ability to turn high attack and damage bonuses into high damage actually dealt is sharply inconsistent.
"I have high nominal damage but frequently run into trouble actually dealing it" is a lot more nuanced statement than Mojorat's (or at least, I hope that's how it gets read) but perhaps it is this, or similar posts by others that he had in mind?
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.
I'd be careful in saying that the Fighter has his damage bonuses against everything. Fighters specialize in only one weapon, and you cannot use a single weapon against everything. What happens if you run into an enemy that is, for example, behind an Antilife Shell? Granted, you will get your Weapon Training and feat bonuses on a Fighter weapon more often than a Ranger would run into their Favored Enemies, but to say they get it against everything all the time would be false.
While a Ranger loses a good portion of their damage if not fighting against their Favored Enemy, they also have fallbacks, namely spells and an Animal Companion. Once they get Instant Enemy, they also are able to force an enemy to become their Favored Enemy even if they aren't. Fighters do not have the option to gain all of their attack and damage bonuses in a pinch.
I used a Ranger as a point of comparison because you made the claim that you could make a Fighter not only with large amounts of skill points, but also able to spec into multiple combat styles. The Ranger is the best comparison, because they are the best class when it comes to this kind of versatility. They get huge amounts of skill points, and also are able to spec into multiple combat styles better than any other martial. Simply take Power Attack and Deadly Aim, and take the Archery Combat Style path, and you're set. You also have the rest of your feats to do what you want with them, if you want to train in maneuvers or something.
Fighters, on the other hand, must use up all of their bonus feats in order to spec into two different weapons, otherwise they will lose around half of their damage bonuses. Yes, they can spec into multiple weapons, but if they spend all of their bonus feats in doing so, then they have lost their niche of having tons of bonus feats. And isn't that the point of a Fighter?
I know I've said something that isn't quite the same, but is roughly in the same ballpark: that I've found that for a fighter, the ability to turn high attack and damage bonuses into high damage actually dealt is sharply inconsistent.
"I have high nominal damage but frequently run into trouble actually dealing it" is a lot more nuanced statement than Mojorat's (or at least, I hope that's how it gets read) but perhaps it is this, or similar posts by others that he had in mind?
Yes, being unable to deal the proper damage is one of the Fighter's downfalls, because they never get any tools to deal with, ignore or remove things like spells or terrain, you're right. I was just mentioning that in terms of DPS, taking into account nothing else, Fighters do pretty well. But yes, the ability to do the damage is a problem sometimes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know Paizo doesn't want to go with this concept, but fighters, more than anyone, would be best for the kind of thing we saw in the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords. Call them Techniques, once an encounter abilities that play off the fighter's existing class features to provide extra defenses, mobility, or utility. Make it an optional swap-out like the Quinggong monk abilities, they can take one every even level instead of a combat feat. Making some of them boosts or counters (swift / immediate actions, respectively) would give the fighter something to do with those actions, too, whereas now they don't matter to him.
Minor confession: this is less for me about the fighter being underpowered and more about the lack of martial-maneuver-like abilities in the game. Because those are very, very cool.
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.
I'd be careful in saying that the Fighter has his damage bonuses against everything. Fighters specialize in only one weapon, and you cannot use a single weapon against everything. What happens if you run into an enemy that is, for example, behind an Antilife Shell? Granted, you will get your Weapon Training and feat bonuses on a Fighter weapon more often than a Ranger would run into their Favored Enemies, but to say they get it against everything all the time would be false.
While a Ranger loses a good portion of their damage if not fighting against their Favored Enemy, they also have fallbacks, namely spells and an Animal Companion. Once they get Instant Enemy, they also are able to force an enemy to become their Favored Enemy even if they aren't. Fighters do not have the option to gain all of their attack and damage bonuses in a pinch.
I used a Ranger as a point of comparison because you made the claim that you could make a...
Actually, a fighter can easily specialize in multiple weapons. The fact that They dont is a player thing. the one caveat ill admit here, is to do this archery needs to be the secondary focus because its so feat intensive.
I should clarify something though. I dont think the Fighter is without flaws. I think it probly could use some work. I just dont think its OMGWTFBBW millions of pages the world is coming to an end broken like the boards seem to make it out.
I know Paizo doesn't want to go with this concept, but fighters, more than anyone, would be best for the kind of thing we saw in the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords. Call them Techniques, once an encounter abilities that play off the fighter's existing class features to provide extra defenses, mobility, or utility. Make it an optional swap-out like the Quinggong monk abilities, they can take one every even level instead of a combat feat. Making some of them boosts or counters (swift / immediate actions, respectively) would give the fighter something to do with those actions, too, whereas now they don't matter to him.
Minor confession: this is less for me about the fighter being underpowered and more about the lack of martial-maneuver-like abilities in the game. Because those are very, very cool.
the TOB option is a horrible Option, and i dont say this from a 'I hate ToB' position. As its own stand alone system it was fine, I would be more than happy to play a game in which the mechanics of the whole game system were built around it.
As an Add on option layered on top of the core d20 system? It was horrible. When i decide to play a martial i dont want to play a wizard with a sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hated TOB, but at least it acknowledged that there was a problem.
Actually, a fighter can easily specialize in multiple weapons. The fact that They dont is a player thing. the one caveat ill admit here, is to do this archery needs to be the secondary focus because its so feat intensive.
I should clarify something though. I dont think the Fighter is without flaws. I think it probly could use some work. I just dont think its OMGWTFBBW millions of pages the world is coming to an end broken like the boards seem to make it out.
The reason why I used specing into a melee weapon and archery as an example is because there isn't much point into specing in two melee weapons. They both perform the same function.
I'm probably not the best person to discuss Fighters with then, because I actually believe that Fighters can be removed from the game without affecting it in any way, because it is obsolete. They have no fluff nor mechanical niche. The fact that it's weaker than other martials doesn't help this either.
The only reason why I think the Fighter shouldn't be removed is because some people like it. But again, that doesn't mean it isn't weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Paizo doesn't want to go with this concept, but fighters, more than anyone, would be best for the kind of thing we saw in the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords. Call them Techniques, once an encounter abilities that play off the fighter's existing class features to provide extra defenses, mobility, or utility. Make it an optional swap-out like the Quinggong monk abilities, they can take one every even level instead of a combat feat. Making some of them boosts or counters (swift / immediate actions, respectively) would give the fighter something to do with those actions, too, whereas now they don't matter to him.
Minor confession: this is less for me about the fighter being underpowered and more about the lack of martial-maneuver-like abilities in the game. Because those are very, very cool.
Dreamscarred Press has their Path of War stuff. It's not to my tastes, personally (I can't stand the "gambits" for the warlord, the Warder is closer to what I want, but they're not quite right either, and the Deadly strike thing the Stalker has is the type of crit-fishing ability that I despise) but I recognize that this is largely personal taste, and that there is a lot to like there.
Actually, a fighter can easily specialize in multiple weapons. The fact that They dont is a player thing. the one caveat ill admit here, is to do this archery needs to be the secondary focus because its so feat intensive.
I should clarify something though. I dont think the Fighter is without flaws. I think it probly could use some work. I just dont think its OMGWTFBBW millions of pages the world is coming to an end broken like the boards seem to make it out.
The reason why I used specing into a melee weapon and archery as an example is because there isn't much point into specing in two melee weapons. They both perform the same function.
I'm probably not the best person to discuss Fighters with then, because I actually believe that Fighters can be removed from the game without affecting it in any way, because it is obsolete. They have no fluff nor mechanical niche. The fact that it's weaker than other martials doesn't help this either.
The only reason why I think the Fighter shouldn't be removed is because some people like it. But again, that doesn't mean it isn't weak.
The problem is that there needs to be room for a martial class without any inborn flavor. There are just too many concepts to be filled by the others. Ranger could go a long way, but not far enough, and if you change all the things about a ranger that make it not suitable for a generic martial class, you might as well just start with the fighter chassis and build up from there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know Paizo doesn't want to go with this concept, but fighters, more than anyone, would be best for the kind of thing we saw in the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords. Call them Techniques, once an encounter abilities that play off the fighter's existing class features to provide extra defenses, mobility, or utility. Make it an optional swap-out like the Quinggong monk abilities, they can take one every even level instead of a combat feat. Making some of them boosts or counters (swift / immediate actions, respectively) would give the fighter something to do with those actions, too, whereas now they don't matter to him.
Minor confession: this is less for me about the fighter being underpowered and more about the lack of martial-maneuver-like abilities in the game. Because those are very, very cool.
the TOB option is a horrible Option, and i dont say this from a 'I hate ToB' position. As its own stand alone system it was fine, I would be more than happy to play a game in which the mechanics of the whole game system were built around it.
As an Add on option layered on top of the core d20 system? It was horrible. When i decide to play a martial i dont want to play a wizard with a sword.
I'm not proposing something like Time Stands Still or another of the very powerful high end maneuvers. I'm talking small things here and there to shore up some of the less interesting aspects of the class. These would be once per encounter abilities meant to make him more interesting and useful in group play. Here's a few examples from the list I'm working on...
- Steel Skin (Ex): Precise timing and reflexes allow the fighter to position himself just right so that a blow avoids his most vital spots. As an immediate action, he can reduce the physical damage from one attack by an amount equal to his fighter level plus his shield armor bonus. At 10th level, he can either use this against energy damage or attempt a Reflex save against a DC equal to the attack roll against him. He gains a bonus to this save equal to twice his armor training bonus. If he succeeds, he gains negates any critical damage or sneak damage against him as part of that attack.
- Rallying Cry (Ex): Tapping their great capability for courage, a fighter can give off a great rallying cry to his comrades to inspire them in battle. As a move action, he can grant all allies within 30' who can hear him (including himself) a morale bonus equal to his Bravery modifier to one d20 roll they make on their the next turn. At 10th level, he can choose to either make this cry as a swift action or affects all allies who can hear him, regardless of distance.
- Commander's Presence(Ex): The gaze and presence of a seasoned fighter can be a powerful tool both on and off the battlefield. He gains a bonus to Intimidate checks equal to his Bravery bonus. Additionally, he may use the Aid Another action as a swift action and increase the bonus they receive to match his Bravery bonus. At 10th level, the fighter can either use Aid Another on an ally within 30' or use Intimidate on all targets within 30'.
I know Paizo doesn't want to go with this concept, but fighters, more than anyone, would be best for the kind of thing we saw in the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords. Call them Techniques, once an encounter abilities that play off the fighter's existing class features to provide extra defenses, mobility, or utility. Make it an optional swap-out like the Quinggong monk abilities, they can take one every even level instead of a combat feat. Making some of them boosts or counters (swift / immediate actions, respectively) would give the fighter something to do with those actions, too, whereas now they don't matter to him.
Minor confession: this is less for me about the fighter being underpowered and more about the lack of martial-maneuver-like abilities in the game. Because those are very, very cool.
the TOB option is a horrible Option, and i dont say this from a 'I hate ToB' position. As its own stand alone system it was fine, I would be more than happy to play a game in which the mechanics of the whole game system were built around it.
As an Add on option layered on top of the core d20 system? It was horrible. When i decide to play a martial i dont want to play a wizard with a sword.
I'm not proposing something like Time Stands Still or another of the very powerful high end maneuvers. I'm talking small things here and there to shore up some of the less interesting aspects of the class. These would be once per encounter abilities meant to make him more interesting and useful in group play. Here's a few examples from the list I'm working on...
...
- Steel Skin (Ex): Precise timing and reflexes allow the fighter to position himself just right so that a blow avoids his most vital spots. As an immediate action, he can reduce the physical damage from one attack by an amount equal to his fighter level plus his shield armor bonus. At 10th level, he can either use this against energy damage or attempt a Reflex save
The problem is I don't think that matters to a lot of people who dislike TOB classes. Just having similar mechanics to Vancian casting, makes people scream 'spellcasting!' As someone who loves point buy systems it doesn't bug me. I'd rather have mechanics that are enjoyable and have interesting tactical choices than try to force boring mechanics on a class just to keep it from having vague mechanical similarities to other classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, being unable to deal the proper damage is one of the Fighter's downfalls, because they never get any tools to deal with, ignore or remove things like spells or terrain, you're right. I was just mentioning that in terms of DPS, taking into account nothing else, Fighters do pretty well. But yes, the ability to do the damage is a problem sometimes.I know I've said something that isn't quite the same, but is roughly in the same ballpark: that I've found that for a fighter, the ability to turn high attack and damage bonuses into high damage actually dealt is sharply inconsistent.
"I have high nominal damage but frequently run into trouble actually dealing it" is a lot more nuanced statement than Mojorat's (or at least, I hope that's how it gets read) but perhaps it is this, or similar posts by others that he had in mind?
Doing well at DPR would be an advantage if DPR existed in the Pathfinder rules, or even if it had a stable relationship to actual typical damage dealt per round (such as "typical damage dealt per round is between 25-65% of nominal DPR for XYZ style characters"). However, neither is the case.
Hmm. The highest level fighter we have is in our 8th level campaign.... so far, no complaints or any feeling of uselessness, with traits we are able to add some class skills, so that's working, the +3 to class skills, and the combat expertise chain, our elven curve blade fighter gave himself a 14 int.
Be patient, we came over from 3.5 almost a year ago, so everything looks great. ... so far. Only level 8, though, knowledge nobility, most of our fighters took it for rp, but it's never a class skill for them, I wouldn't object to that, knowledge nobility add a class skill, that's it so far.
I know Paizo doesn't want to go with this concept, but fighters, more than anyone, would be best for the kind of thing we saw in the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords. Call them Techniques, once an encounter abilities that play off the fighter's existing class features to provide extra defenses, mobility, or utility. Make it an optional swap-out like the Quinggong monk abilities, they can take one every even level instead of a combat feat. Making some of them boosts or counters (swift / immediate actions, respectively) would give the fighter something to do with those actions, too, whereas now they don't matter to him.
Minor confession: this is less for me about the fighter being underpowered and more about the lack of martial-maneuver-like abilities in the game. Because those are very, very cool.
the TOB option is a horrible Option, and i dont say this from a 'I hate ToB' position. As its own stand alone system it was fine, I would be more than happy to play a game in which the mechanics of the whole game system were built around it.
As an Add on option layered on top of the core d20 system? It was horrible. When i decide to play a martial i dont want to play a wizard with a sword.
I'm not proposing something like Time Stands Still or another of the very powerful high end maneuvers. I'm talking small things here and there to shore up some of the less interesting aspects of the class. These would be once per encounter abilities meant to make him more interesting and useful in group play. Here's a few examples from the list I'm working on...
...
- Steel Skin (Ex): Precise timing and reflexes allow the fighter to position himself just right so that a blow avoids his most vital spots. As an immediate action, he can reduce the physical damage from one attack by an amount equal to his fighter level plus his shield armor bonus. At 10th level, he can either use this against energy damage or attempt a Reflex save
Maybe i should clarify. I hav eno issue with the flavour of the ToB stuff or even Wuxia style imagery etc. Or even the general power level of the TOB stuff. Though there were specific powers.. Iron heart surge? whover wrote that one?
What i am saying is that when i decide Im playing somethign that thematically fits as a martial, then the style of play presented by ToB is not something i am looking for. I have no issiues with the vancian magic system etc.
I simply think as a Combat system that is Layered on top of an existing d20 system It is a poor addon.
If an entirely new system were designed around it i would have less issues.. but we know how well 4rth edition sold.
Judging by its popularity at the table (rather than on this board), I'd say it's just fine as-is. But I do like the archetypes as well--gives a bit of variety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fighter needs the following changes to make it do what it's supposed to do:
1. More skill points. 4 or 6 skill points so that he can be good at soldier skills like Perception and Profession Soldier. Perception should be a class skills. What books do you read where the grizzled warrior can't spot an ambush?
2. A choice of a second good save. He should be able to choose either Will or Reflex and make it a good save. Ranger and Paladin have tossed out the idea of a +20 BAB class having only one good save.
A fighter relies on his ability to resist magic by mundane means. I see no reason he wouldn't train to resist either will effects or reflex save effects. Both are extremely common effects.
3. I'd give a fighter a save mechanic at high level where he always gets a chance to save even against spells that grant no save. He's the ultimate mundane warrior. A high level fighter should be capable of powering through almost any magical effect by his sheer badass will. He's the grizzled veteran surviving in a world of powerful magic. He should be that guy that can shrug off almost any magical effect.
4. I'd add some Feats or abilities that give tactical advantages in fights. Maybe initiative or save bonuses based on insight. He knows where to dodge a fireball. He knows to close his eyes when fighting a medusa. He knows almost every method of fighting every creature in a mundane way. He would get insight bonuses based on his tactical abilities to saves and other such checks.
5. If I were getting wild, I'd give the fighter customizable magic weapons and armor. Let him pick his trusty weapon and customize it as he levels. Every powerful fighter in a story has a trusty weapon he relies on. Let them customize their weapon until it reaches legendary status at high level.
Then again I do like designing weapons for my high level martials as a DM and making them earn it. I can see why fighter players might enjoy designing their own legendary weapon to be forever associated with their character's name.
That's what I'd do for fighters. Then I'd do some stuff for rogues.
|
I have my doubts about Perception as a class skill for fighters - it's useful for everyone, but I think straight bonuses like Class Skill should be reserved for scout/sneak classes like the Rogue and Ranger.
That said, what about an "Ambushfinding" level-scaling bonus to Perception (and maybe Initiative) related to avoiding/exploiting surprise?
I usually straight up tell the PC who takes fighter that at later levels, his comrades are going to have a bunch of limited use wiz-bang-pow flashy stuff, but, so long as the party uses the fighter to kill the enemy by maneuvering the fighter to the enemy and controlling how many enemies he faces at a time, etc, they start to see the fighter's great worth (uses up way less resources to win the day, generally, not always, but). But I see people's issue, like I said, our only fighter since the conversion is in an 8th level group and I don't want to see him feel sub-par and not having a good time. I lose players this way, why would they play something that isn't very fun, they could do video games or something.
I don't know what it will look like at higher levels (fighter in the group) and was wondering if anyone had taken a straight fighter into the higher levels and how that worked within the team.
+16/+11/+6/+1 attacks also need to go. It should be 4 attacks at +16.This one sticks out as quite interesting to me. Let all the other classes have their multi-attack progression stand, but the fighter (and ONLY the fighter) gets all his multi-attacks at the full attack bonus.
that would be interesting....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what it will look like at higher levels (fighter in the group) and was wondering if anyone had taken a straight fighter into the higher levels and how that worked within the team.
I have. Sword and board, no archetype, about as straight as you can get. ;)
I post about play experience a fair amount. Here's some.
Estimating frequency of his full attacks
Estimating practical squishiness party-wide (as well as a brief description of the party)
Description of a battle part 1
part 2 (mixed with general thoughts)
Some more play reports (while playtesting mythic)
An older one
And some general thoughts
About ability to overcome adverse circumstances
Similar post, about resiliency, flexibility and mobility
As for the question of how the fighter stacks up within the group, mixed. When paired with the heavy support from others you mentioned, and when circumstances are not too adverse, he can deal a huge amount of damage and dish out some debilitation as well with Staggering Critical (on a 15-20). Enough to overwhelm many potential challenges, though certainly not all. On the other hand, at 15th level, buff hungriness has grown to the extent that other PCs started to significantly resent how much of their own resources and time in combat were being spent propping up the fighter, in what had before been a very buff-friendly party. Even the bard complained about the levels of dependency.
On the other other hand, both fighters are working to address those concerns (and GM is aware as well). We'll see how it goes and if the trend reverses as we continue to level. Maybe if we comb through enough books we can find that one magic item that makes it all better, or something ;)
How would you feel about this:
4 + INT skill ranks
Good Reflex save (nothing about the sword-swinging Fighter says he should be more resistant to mind control effects than anyone else)
The bonuses to combat maneuvers that Lore Wardens get right now.
Those three things would seem to go a long way towards balancing the Fighter out and would give him something (Combat Maneuvers) that they are significantly better at than other martial classes without massively re-writing the class, the ripple affect of rewriting feats for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that would be interesting....+16/+11/+6/+1 attacks also need to go. It should be 4 attacks at +16.This one sticks out as quite interesting to me. Let all the other classes have their multi-attack progression stand, but the fighter (and ONLY the fighter) gets all his multi-attacks at the full attack bonus.
I think more attack or damage bonuses is not the best way to go.
+16/+11/+6/+1 attacks also need to go. It should be 4 attacks at +16.This one sticks out as quite interesting to me. Let all the other classes have their multi-attack progression stand, but the fighter (and ONLY the fighter) gets all his multi-attacks at the full attack bonus.
Eh, at by that point it's probably more like +40/+35/+30/+25 before buffs. With buffs, you're almost always going to land your first 3 hits (4 if you add Haste) at least against pretty much any enemy in the Bestiary (excepting possibly a Solar, since their AC is 44). Full BAB for every attack would ensure that you'd never miss an attack against anything but the most cheesed-out monsters ever. Am I missing something? Do high level character routinely run into monsters with an AC of 45+?
As it stands, the Fighter class does a ton of damage when you can get off a Full Attack action. Bumping that up a little bit won't help much with the gameplay-related issues people complain about.
+16/+11/+6/+1 attacks also need to go. It should be 4 attacks at +16.This one sticks out as quite interesting to me. Let all the other classes have their multi-attack progression stand, but the fighter (and ONLY the fighter) gets all his multi-attacks at the full attack bonus.
Eh, at by that point it's probably more like +40/+35/+30/+25 before buffs. With buffs, you're almost always going to land your first 3 hits (4 if you add Haste) at least against pretty much any enemy in the Bestiary (excepting possibly a Solar, since their AC is 44). Full BAB for every attack would ensure that you'd never miss an attack against anything but the most cheesed-out monsters ever. Am I missing something? Do high level character routinely run into monsters with an AC of 45+?
As it stands, the Fighter class does a ton of damage when you can get off a Full Attack action. Bumping that up a little bit won't help much with the gameplay-related issues people complain about.
People have been complaining that the fighter gets out damaged too easily as well.
Good Reflex save (nothing about the sword-swinging Fighter says he should be more resistant to mind control effects than anyone else)
I'm a fan of choice for another good save. The circumstances the Fighter comes from can vary and could indicate a good will save. An officer might be better at Will.
Perhaps a large portion of the "problem" is not the Fighter class itself, but rather that a whole lot of feats are pretty terrible in Pathfinder compared to class features and spells.
Pathfinder shifted things heavily towards class features, and that can have the effect of leaving classes with few unique class features behind.
-Matt
I'm a fan of choice for another good save. The circumstances the Fighter comes from can vary and could indicate a good will save. An officer might be better at Will.
Good Reflex save (nothing about the sword-swinging Fighter says he should be more resistant to mind control effects than anyone else)
That same argument could be made for any class. In my opinion, if 'circumstances' dictate that he have a stronger will save than other fighters, that can be replicated with the Iron Will feat easily enough. There is nothing about the class itself which says that they should be greater at resisting mind-affecting effects than any other martial. Avoiding physical danger on the other hand, there's a legitimate argument to be made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand...
Why do some classes get two good saves and other classes only get one? It would be more balanced if every class got one Good, one Moderate, and one Poor save. Except the Monk, because three good saves is their thing.
-Matt
People have been complaining that the fighter gets out damaged too easily as well.
A Fighter doing a full attack does a bunch of ~guaranteed damage. There are other classes that can do more, but the main problems for Fighter aren't related to Full Attack damage. Fighters get outdamaged in a real game quite often because they don't get chances to Full Attack, while other classes (Barbarian e.g.) have ways to make this happen.
Getting a free "Improved [Insert name of combat maneuver]" at every odd level?
Too much?
The class itself is so general that you could call basically any Pathfinder class a fighter and not be wrong.
On the other hand...
Why do some classes get two good saves and other classes only get one? It would be more balanced if every class got one Good, one Moderate, and one Poor save. Except the Monk, because three good saves is their thing.
-Matt
I believe it's primarily thematic reasons. Soldiers are built to be tough and durable. Wizards have highly specialized minds that can more easily shrug off various assaults on their willpower. Rogues are nimble and react to danger instinctively. The balance of power vis-a-vis class features was then built around those concepts (monk was given less offensive power due to their great defensive capability, such as all good saving throw progression).
That said, I can see fighters maybe deserving a better Reflex save. You don't train soldiers to be slow and unresponsive to danger, after all. And that's what a fighter is, a well-trained warrior who masters various armor, weapons, and tactics to support his unit.
On the other hand...
Why do some classes get two good saves and other classes only get one? It would be more balanced if every class got one Good, one Moderate, and one Poor save. Except the Monk, because three good saves is their thing.
-Matt
This speaks more to the game as a whole, rather than to the fighter specifically, but I think the save vs. DC disparity that seems to bother a lot of people could be essentially fixed with one house rule. Give all characters a Base Save progression of 1/2 level, and then give a non-stacking "class bonus to save" of +2 for the good save categories.
Although sweeping, I've heard only a few people in 14 years say "saves are fine the way they are. I don't think there are a lot of folks who would hate on this, and there are definitely a lot of folks who would love it.
You don't train soldiers to be slow and unresponsive to danger, after all. And that's what a fighter is, a well-trained warrior who masters various armor, weapons, and tactics to support his unit.I think part of the problem is that the Fighter is a broad class that should encompass two-weapon duellists, heavily armoured tanks, archers, pole-arm fighters and everything in between. In reality, other classes and archetypes become optimised for specific concepts, leaving the generic fighter class trailing behind.
You can just as easily argue that Fighters should have Will save (cf. AD&D) as Reflex (e.g. the Dwarf axe-wielder who deals with fireballs by sucking up the damage and then charging). I think you could do worse than allowing a fighter +1 to any save of their choice at every 3rd level. That would allow them to have the equivalent of a second good save, improve their all round resistance, or just become the most rugged Fortitudinal grunt in the world!
It IS fairly broad. Ranger and cavalier certainly have a lot of flavor and specialized class abilities that make them a more focused concept, both thematically and mechanically. Fighter could benefit a bit from something like that, something which spells out the real difference between, say, how 2-weapon fighters and 2-weapon rangers act in combat.
Have to disagree on the Will saves. When I think of the training and discipline that goes into creating a soldier, that's what I envision for the fighter class. That shouldn't include the ability to shrug off a Suggestion or resist psionic attacks, though. You just don't train soldiers for that kind of thing. Resisting interrogation, yes, but a lot of the pain subtyped spells use Fortitude instead of Will as their save type. No, soldiers are trained to fight in combat, where the fear of death will be at an all-time high. Giving an experienced soldier a bonus to resist fear as a side-effect of so often striding out to meet his foe and avoiding death is an appropriate class feature to help out with some saving throws without raising the entire class' Will save as a result.
I had picked up a 3pp called Class Acts Compendium. In it there were some Fighter-centric feats that I felt came class to what a Fighter needs;
Always Ready: a feat that grants an initiative bonus equal to the Bravery Bonus
A lot of Fighter Archetypes that take away Bravery replace it with something that gains a similar bonus progression to some other thing. Perhaps feats that key off of bravery could be key to a lot of fighter fixes, or a series of feats that grant the archetypes' 'bravery' replacement effects.
The other feat was Fighter's Focus: a feat that gives a bonus to will saves but only in combat (plus it makes perception a class skill and improved the ability to hear and recognize combat).
I loved that one because it keyed off of combat and granted the fighter something iconic and useful without feeling like you're wasting a feat. If a lot of fighter problems are exclusive to fighters why not have some intense fighter feats to shore up those problems?
that would be interesting....+16/+11/+6/+1 attacks also need to go. It should be 4 attacks at +16.This one sticks out as quite interesting to me. Let all the other classes have their multi-attack progression stand, but the fighter (and ONLY the fighter) gets all his multi-attacks at the full attack bonus.
thats what kirthfinder did.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the fighter can be fixed retroactively without having to change the base class at all, since Paizo seems to be strongly against that, by adding fighter only feats.
1-a feat that gives you 2 skill points for each level of fighter you have.
2- a professional guard feat that adds something like knowledge local, nobility, perception and sense motive to a fighters class skills.
3-combat style feat chains like the monk styles from UC. Each a set of 3 feats that have fighter level requirements. You have to enter the stance just like the monk ones. Example: breaker style prereq 2nd level fighter, +1CMB & CMD. Brutal breaker, prereq 6th level fighter, when you succeed at a combat maneuver you may make a free attack at bab-5. Master breaker, prereq fighter 10, additional +1CMB & CMD, you never provoke attacks of opportunity from making any combat maneuvers.
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.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that there needs to be better narrative martial power.
I'm a little bit at a loss as to how you would accomplish mechanically it without rolling attacks vs AC/CMD, because from a versatility perspective, the wizard can only throw out spells and hope for a failed saving throw...yet no one would agree they aren't versatile. The amount they are able to accomplish with that mechanic is fairly large.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the fighter can be fixed retroactively without having to change the base class at all, since Paizo seems to be strongly against that, by adding fighter only feats.
1-a feat that gives you 2 skill points for each level of fighter you have.
2- a professional guard feat that adds something like knowledge local, nobility, perception and sense motive to a fighters class skills.
3-combat style feat chains like the monk styles from UC. Each a set of 3 feats that have fighter level requirements. You have to enter the stance just like the monk ones. Example: breaker style prereq 2nd level fighter, +1CMB & CMD. Brutal breaker, prereq 6th level fighter, when you succeed at a combat maneuver you may make a free attack at bab-5. Master breaker, prereq fighter 10, additional +1CMB & CMD, you never provoke attacks of opportunity from making any combat maneuvers.
This is a really tempting style of fix to do, and I find that it's kinda like writing a vampire novel - everyone's got a feats-only fighter fix in their desk drawer someplace. But ultimately you're asking the fighter to spend a valuable and irreplacable resource - his feats - on a secondary focus that isn't helping him do any of his theoretical jobs. It's a sort-of-fix that aggravates a different part of the problem.
|
|
This is a really tempting style of fix to do, and I find that it's kinda like writing a vampire novel - everyone's got a feats-only fighter fix in their desk drawer someplace. But ultimately you're asking the fighter to spend a valuable and irreplacable resource - his feats - on a secondary focus that isn't helping him do any of his theoretical jobs. It's a sort-of-fix that aggravates a different part of the problem.I think that the fighter can be fixed retroactively without having to change the base class at all, since Paizo seems to be strongly against that, by adding fighter only feats.
1-a feat that gives you 2 skill points for each level of fighter you have.
2- a professional guard feat that adds something like knowledge local, nobility, perception and sense motive to a fighters class skills.
3-combat style feat chains like the monk styles from UC. Each a set of 3 feats that have fighter level requirements. You have to enter the stance just like the monk ones. Example: breaker style prereq 2nd level fighter, +1CMB & CMD. Brutal breaker, prereq 6th level fighter, when you succeed at a combat maneuver you may make a free attack at bab-5. Master breaker, prereq fighter 10, additional +1CMB & CMD, you never provoke attacks of opportunity from making any combat maneuvers.
I agree, but it's also a fix that is feasible to do in a splat book and requires no rewriting of the core rules. It also has some precedence from the ultimate combat book. I had no interest in playing a monk prior to the style feats. For me they fixed the class by adding unique interesting options. The same could be done via fighter styles. They could even incorporate skill point bonuses, like monkey style does.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that there needs to be better narrative martial power.
I'm a little bit at a loss as to how you would accomplish mechanically it without rolling attacks vs AC/CMD, because from a versatility perspective, the wizard can only throw out spells and hope for a failed saving throw...yet no one would agree they aren't versatile. The amount they are able to accomplish with that mechanic is fairly large.
That's because there are many wizard spells where they can either A) simply accomplish something without a save being rolled (e.g. obscuring mist, waves of exhaustion, teleport), or they are able to bring in effects that make the rolls without the wizard wasting actions during their turn (black tentacles, summon Monster #, Dazing Geyser).
This is a really tempting style of fix to do, and I find that it's kinda like writing a vampire novel - everyone's got a feats-only fighter fix in their desk drawer someplace. But ultimately you're asking the fighter to spend a valuable and irreplacable resource - his feats - on a secondary focus that isn't helping him do any of his theoretical jobs. It's a sort-of-fix that aggravates a different part of the problem.I think that the fighter can be fixed retroactively without having to change the base class at all, since Paizo seems to be strongly against that, by adding fighter only feats.
1-a feat that gives you 2 skill points for each level of fighter you have.
2- a professional guard feat that adds something like knowledge local, nobility, perception and sense motive to a fighters class skills.
3-combat style feat chains like the monk styles from UC. Each a set of 3 feats that have fighter level requirements. You have to enter the stance just like the monk ones. Example: breaker style prereq 2nd level fighter, +1CMB & CMD. Brutal breaker, prereq 6th level fighter, when you succeed at a combat maneuver you may make a free attack at bab-5. Master breaker, prereq fighter 10, additional +1CMB & CMD, you never provoke attacks of opportunity from making any combat maneuvers.
Unless the fighter-only feats are better versions of normal combat feats
FOr now it seems like the most popular options is to give fighter more skills per level. It woudl never happen, but it woudl be like the most easier errata ever.
Skills would be nice, better version of bravery (or second high save), and more fighter only feats, not feats archetype y of class "no a fighter" gets as well or class feature x gives fighter feat y. But true if not a fighter (as in no real levels) then you can't have them. Feat tree that give ways of getting off full attacks easier, or allows vital strike to stack like it should (charge and spring).