|
@SPCDRI: Fighters don't have to be "the smart combatant" ("savvy" does sound like the appropriate word) any more than Barbarians have to be "the big and stupid combatant" (a Barbarian with an Intelligence of 14 or 16 is a totally legit way to play), but other than that, well said and agreed.
Cut from a comment I put on a similar thread:
"The Fighter is on one level one of the most flexible, and on another pretty much THE most specialized class in the game, hence the name. Their raison d'etre that sets them apart even from paladins, rangers, barbarians, and cavaliers, is their peerless proficiency with armor and weapons, something I daresay Pathfinder actualized very well. But let me put it to you this way: Are Heracles, Beowulf, and Wolverine "boring?"
Fighters don't just have a smattering of skills (the giving of a couple of which I do find kind of questionable; I guess if I had had my way, I would have been more inclined to give Fighters any SINGLE Knowledge skill of their choice to reflect their diverse backgrounds, and Acrobatics instead of Survival) that apply to challenges beyond combat: They have strong physical abilities. Yes, one could point out that ability scores are a phenomenon separate from character class, but while that's true, bear in mind that Fighters are one of small minority of classes that can afford to function well (even fantastic) with most or all their points/good rolls dedicated to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution (the others I can think of being Rogues, Barbarians, Cavaliers, and Samurai, all of whom, quite possibly even Barbarians, actually feel a much stronger tug toward a modicum of mental power than Fighters) - which is not to say that you can't or shouldn't have a Fighter with appreciable mental faculties, just that you have the best opportunity not to, with them. Anyways, what does this mean outside combat? Plenty. Brush up on your extra-strong/nimble/tough comic book superheroes, most of whom have a "thing" about actually killing people, and wind up in a lot of situations where they employ their might for non-violent ends: Halting a runaway vehicle, clearing rubble, rescuing the weak from rockslides/falling/burning buildings/drowning, lifting and carrying impossibly heavy things, supporting collapsing structures, bursting fetters, and don't forget lifting gates and bending bars, which had it's own seat at the Strength progression table in 2nd Edition. The Fighter is not a man for all seasons - in that respect, it's in the majority of classes, and if invited to the Royal Ball, most Fighters will be in the backroom quietly playing cards and waiting for trouble with the Monk and the Alchemist - but in a well-built game that incorporates a wide array of challenges, they'll still have plenty to do.
I've thought for a while that what would be darned welcome would be a sourcebook - hardcover-sized, not just a "player companion" - that was all about non-combat challenges, and what characters of all types could do with them."
They need some way to overcome the move or damage dichotomy.
Fights tend to be mobile, the fighter moves from one target to the next, people go leaping about the battlefield, the melee leap over perilous obstacles :its exciting, tactical and cinematic.... its also cutting the fighters damage in half. The best a fighter can hope for, what they have to strive for, is a fight where they plant their feet on the ground and keep swinging every round. Thats why the bow gets such a reputation as an encounter ender: its doing what the fighter is SUPPOSED to do. A pitifull extra 2d6 from vital strike isn't doing that.
How many people here played AD&D? Fighters had some of the best saves in the game and leveled up the fastest as well. In my home rules I am playtesting a fighter using AD&D mentality.
Base saves at level 1.
+5/+5/+4
Level 20
+15/+14/+14
Spell DCs nerfed to 10+ level of spell being cast. DCs capped at 20.
AD&D fighter also had 3 skills the other classes had 3 or 4 as such so I gave the fighter 4 skill points as well.
Fighter gains extra attack at level 6,11,16 at no penalty.
And they get to cleave 1 per round per fighter level.
As I said based heavily on the AD&D fighter both 1st and 2nd ed. Roll weapon specialization into 1 feat instead of 2 and let it apply to all weapons.
I have also been rewriting the PHB feats in addition to basically rewriting the combat chapter of 3.5/PF. Touch ACs are gone for example but I am finding you can make the fighter a lot tougher just by using the ideas they had in AD&D while keeping it mundane. Also AD&D had no dex restrictions on armor. In effect in the 2nd ed to 3.0 changeover they nerfed the fighter, buffed the spell casters and then let the spell casters level at the same rate as the fighters (oops).
Pathfinder is still suffering from those bad decisions made in 1998-2000. 3.0 was not play tested at the higher levels apparently and feats were modeled on AD&D weapon profs where a +1 to hit or AC meant a lot more in AD&D than it did in 3.x systems. They also play tested 3.0 using 2nd ed mentality apparently they missed how good wands of CLW were and the 3.0 haste spell.
There is your main problem with the fighter class. A quick and dirty fix is monk saving throws and 4 skill points a level. Throw in some fighter only feats as well.
Go and compare an AD&D buff spell in the PHB to something as basic as divine favour in PF or the dodge feat with a +1 AC bonus from the fighters hand book circa 1989 and then compare that +1 AC to the bonus granted by spells like divine favour.
They need some way to overcome the move or damage dichotomy.
Fights tend to be mobile, the fighter moves from one target to the next, people go leaping about the battlefield, the melee leap over perilous obstacles :its exciting, tactical and cinematic.... its also cutting the fighters damage in half. The best a fighter can hope for, what they have to strive for, is a fight where they plant their feet on the ground and keep swinging every round. Thats why the bow gets such a reputation as an encounter ender: its doing what the fighter is SUPPOSED to do. A pitifull extra 2d6 from vital strike isn't doing that.
I agree. I think fighters would benefit from an ability that let them move and full-attack in the same round without having to invest in a magic item like the Quick Runner's Shirt. Something like "The Fighter may choose to move and take a full-attack action in the same round. When he does this his first attack is made with a -5 penalty." Or, instead of making it a -5 penalty to the first attack, make it a -2 to all attacks for that round. So then you can move and full attack, but you're taking a penalty to hit in return for it.
I'd also agree with fighters getting 4 skill points, and with Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization being applied to fighter weapon groups as opposed to just a single weapon.
As I said previously the full attack action need to die in a fire.
Some of mah rewritten feats
Rapid Shot [Martial]
You can make two quick shots with a ranged weapon.
Requirement Dexterity 13+, BAB +1,
Benefit: When using a ranged weapon you may fire two shots as a standard action against a single target. You take a -2 penalty on your attack roll, but you deal +1 die of damage with a successful attack.
Weapon Focus
You gain a +1 bonus to hit with any weapon you are proficient with.
Toughness
Your constitution score is treated as 2 points higher in terms of bonus hit points and fort saves.
Mobility
You gain a +4 AC bonus against attacks of opportunity.
|
|
@BigNorseWolf: That's all entirely situational, and every combat is different - I've seen no such "tendency" worth noting, and if you've been in situations where such a tendency was noticeable, I'd blame the DM (and whoever designed the adventure, if that was someone other than the DM) and not the game. Regarding the Vital Strike feats: I thought for a while that they weren't worth it to any full-BAB class, but then I DM'd an Organized Play adventure (one which was neither easy nor low-level) in which, due to only having 3 players in attendance, I supported with the pregenerated iconic Paladin - who, at the level at which we were playing, had Vital Strike. She wound up using it quite a bit, and it worked pretty well.
That said, I'd be supportive of:
1) Increasing the multiplier provided by every level of the Vital Strike chain by 1 (triple to begin with, quadruple for Improved, quintuple for Greater). I'd be more hesitant, but not completely closed to, permitting some static bonuses to be multiplied (probably at the "Improved" and/or "Greater" level rather than to begin with), least arguably the weapon's "plus" and feats like Weapon Specialization that are based on the character's superior proficiency with the weapon and give set, finite increases - allowing most other bonuses (particularly those based on ability scores) to be multiplied would result in automatically achieving the better part of a critical hit EVERY TIME (and moreso, if you happened to actually score a critical hit to boot).
2) Revisiting Cleave and Great Cleave; I see the validity of both the 3.5 version and the 3.75 version, and I'm pretty that combining the best of both ("you don't have to drop a target AND you don't have to make it at the expense of a full attack") would be quite overpowered, BUT as it stands, I have a greatsword-favoring Cavalier whom I was going to have pursue it, but once I saw how it'd been changed, decided it wasn't for him (or most full-BAB characters, for that matter, with the exception of certain Fighters, whose unique wealth of feats means they could afford to take one or both and use them on a situational "I'm literally surrounded on all sides - PERFECT!" basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good thread - I placed the results in a pie chart this in case anyone's interested.
That's 155 replies total, though I'm guessing a fair amount of those votes may be from the same poster voting in multiple categories.
...And the website ate the link after few hours. Dang. That's what I get for just using the first google result for online graph charts.
thats what kirthfinder did.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.
tip of the hat to kirthfinder, then.
Hate the "fighter only feat" gig, actually, hate any "class only feat", if only one class can use a feat, it should be a class feature, not a feat.
I disagree. First off, is the fact that introducing class only feats (or class preferred feats) can be an easy way to help out underpowered or underperforming classes, like the fighter or Monk. Unfortunately I don't feel Paizo has gone far enough with this. The monk-preferred style feats could have gone a bit farther, in my opinion, to fixing the problems with the monk, and while they aren't terrible, they could have done a lot more. Likewise one of the big issues the fighter has is that there's very little that a fighter has a unique dominion over. In my opinion, Since feats are the primary class feature of Fighters, they should be given similar treatment to the Barbarian's Rage powers, a Rogue's Rogue Talents, an alchemist's discoveries, ect.
Secondly, not everything suitable for a class only feat is suitable to just be given as a class feature. There are plenty abilities that I could see as fighter only feats that wouldn't be useful or even desirable for a vanilla fighter. Honestly, I think some fighter archetypes' abilities should be instead fighter only feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posted this in another thread, but it's relevant:
Now that's an interesting perspective. Hm....I can vouch for this. It's more like ~80 points but the classes are built on a 120 point spread.
You know what, let me put this another way. If you were take the idea that every class is built on a 50 point spread and then compare the value of the Fighters feats in an actual build to what they actually give him, you'd discover that the Fighter is working with about 10 points less than everyone else.
Call it like a "gamist" perspective if you will, and it's actually a pretty good way to summarize what the people who have been... less than complimentary of the Fighter have been trying to get at. The Fighter has less goodies than everyone else. Numerically, he has less. If you completely took away the Ranger's spellcasting and related features and replaced it with nothing, then the Ranger and Fighter would actually be pretty close to balanced to each other. Pause. Reflect on that.
It's not that the Fighter is bad, it's more like he's incomplete. There is room for the Fighter to do more / be more than he currently is without changing the base chassis very much at all. This could be done via more robust Fighter specific feats, or via grafting additional utility on to the base chassis.
The problem with the Fighter is that he has all of these abilities that are weighted very heavily for their potential, but it's a potential that's never truly realized. "Fighter's can get Weapon Specialition, +2 to all damage rolls!" Cool, you've just emulated 1/2 a first level spell, except it only works for one weapon. This continues on throughout the life of the Fighter. The feats that are unique to him are either super situational, just plain not good, or do something that other classes have been doing for a while, only not as well, and yet these feats are supposed to be as good as an animal companion and 4 levels of spellcasting. They released that nature's ally feat which says (basically) a Ranger Animal Companion is worth two feats. The Ranger also gets 5 bonus feats, so what they're basically saying is that the Fighter's remaining bonus feats after you take out two for the Animal Companion are worth an entire level of spellcasting each (plus some situational abilities like Wild Empathy and Hide in Plain Sight). Seriously. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, which together are worth +1/+2 for exactly one weapon are weighted towards the fighter as though they were worth all the Ranger's 1st and 2nd level spells.
The Fighter needs feats that come closer to being as strong as a single level of spellcasting- I'm not saying he should have spellcasting, but he should have feats that are as good as what a Ranger gets from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spells. What if, for example, a Fighter got a feat that looked like this-
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
The Fighter picks a region where he is well known; this region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and he gains a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As his reputation grows, additional areas learn of him (typically places where he has lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where he is known) and his bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the modifier to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, his renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of him (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.
It's basically just the Famous ability of the Celebrity Bard archetype, but it's insanely appropriate for a Fighter and gives him the skill bonuses he didn't get from his core chassis. As well, it's roughly equivalent to a single level of Ranger spellcasting (not as much versatility, but strong always on bonuses). If the Fighter had some feats like that, he'd be solid.
How many people here played AD&D? Fighters had some of the best saves in the game and leveled up the fastest as well. In my home rules I am playtesting a fighter using AD&D mentality.
Go and compare an AD&D buff spell in the PHB to something as basic as divine favour in PF or the dodge feat with a +1 AC bonus from the fighters hand book circa 1989 and then compare that +1 AC to the bonus granted by spells like divine favour.
Actually, this isn't exactly right.
Clerics have better starting Death/Wand/Spells saves, but only keeps edge with Spells/Death at higher levels. Fighters are better vs Breath most of time.Now leveling note: Wizards level faster after 6th level till about 17th level when Fighters catch up (Thief's stay really fast though).
The order starts out in level speed:
Thief-Fighter -Cleric -Wizard
Then level 6:
Thief-Wizard-Fighter-Cleric
Then level 17:
Thief-Fighter-Wizard-Cleric
Saves: Cleric beat Fighters in most things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hate the "fighter only feat" gig, actually, hate any "class only feat", if only one class can use a feat, it should be a class feature, not a feat.I agree with this, if for nothing else, design purposes it's silly to put an option restricted to a single class into an area that's supposed to be for every class.
You could still list "fighter only feats" in their own section I guess.
I think it honestly would have been better if Paizo had replaced all fighter bonus feats with "Fighter Talents" one of which being:
"Combat Feat (Ex): A Fighter that selects this talent gains a bonus combat feat.Special: You may select this Talent more than once."
That way, you get the same "Fighter Only Feat" concept (except the abilities in question wouldn't be 'feats'), but still let the fighter take Feats as they normally would.
I'm going to go out on a limb here:
There is no feasible way to come close to addressing balance issues without nerfing casters. There is a lot of room to nerf casters without making them unplayable.
A better question than "what are the changes the fighter class needs" might be "what makes the other classes so ridiculously OP by comparison and what can we take away to fix it".
Yay fighters! Boo casters! Doubleplusboo barbarians!
I disagree here. I think nerfing casters could go a long way, but I think Barbarians, Paladins and even Rangers are about where the baseline should be. There's plenty of room to boost Fighters (as well as rogues and monks) to be at that level.
Also I'm puzzled as to why you seem to consider Barbarians to need more of a nerf (at least based on your "Doubleplusboo") than casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between being perfectly balanced and needing changes.
Fighters don't NEED changes. Classes like the monk and rogue NEED changes.
Fighters could stand buffs to make the class more flexible and add more diverse options. Battlefield controls abilities that stem from a fighter's ability to intimidate or ability to lead would be nice. Viable alternatives to "I full attack" that don't require an 11+ feat chain, 17 wis, 19 cha, and 32 int.
I would like to see the fighters class features changed so that they don't inherently narrow the capability of the class as it progresses. I think the most obvious offender is the weapon training class feature, that makes using various weapons less and less effective over time.
I suggested a possible change that may work to alleviate this issue, but it was fairly rough in the other thread so I will just mention it in more depth here.
If you were to remove weapon training and replace it with a similar chain of abilities, in structure, that granted negative feedback instead of positive feedback, then you would be able to make a fighter that was effective with whatever he happened to pick up and whack you with.
To elaborate a little, lets call the ability technique mastery. Instead of granting a positive bonus for using a specific weapon, which is counter intuitive for a class that ought to be excellent with every weapon, the player gets to choose a technique and remove any associated penalty to hit that may be incurred over the course of its progression.
What this means is that, over time, the fighter might have a number of combat based techniques active at any one time that they incur no penalties for using. A level nine fighter, instead of having a +2 to hit with one weapon group and a +1 to hit with another might instead be able to use power attack at no penalty and combat expertise with a reduced penalty(because it was the second combat technique choice).
The end result is a better to hit advantage than any other classes when using combat techniques, which is both better for the overall fluff of the class and mechanically better represents the versatility of the warrior savant.
I do think a better skill bonus from class levels makes sense, and I would love to see bravery replaced with something a little more general. You could call it mental toughness or something.
@BigNorseWolf: That's all entirely situational, and every combat is different - I've seen no such "tendency" worth noting, and if you've been in situations where such a tendency was noticeable, I'd blame the DM (and whoever designed the adventure, if that was someone other than the DM)
I've seen it with every group, with DMs of various styles, in everything from home brew to 40 levels of organized play.
Round 1 the fighter is moving up to a mook
Round 2 The group focuses fire on the injured mook. the mook is dead either before the fighter goes or on the fighters first swing and the fighter is moving up to the boss
Round 3 the boss does something so they don't wind up getting smacked with the full attack.
Round 4 dead boss.
I supported with the pregenerated iconic Paladin - who, at the level at which we were playing, had Vital Strike. She wound up using it quite a bit, and it worked pretty well.
If the paladin is using vital strike quite a bit then you ARE seeing the moving around that I'm talking about.
That would be the 7th level iconic paladin (the only level with vital strike) 2d8+5 is hardly anything to write home about at level 7. The d8 is kid of meaningless when she starts smiting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the Fighter itself is functional. That isn't to say that it couldn't use improvements. As far as "narrative resolution/control", he's got one-shtick, and even that is only as versatile as far as build from one fighter to the next.
He's severely lacking versatility in the field he's good at, and the class doesn't bring much, if anything, to the character with regards to non-combat resolution.
Unlike the Monk or Rogue, who take monumental gaming effort and/or luck, to become viable. Usually an archetype that allows focusing on something well enough to cheese a solid one-trick option.
To me, that feels broken. Something needs to be overhauled in the process to fix that.
That isn't to say that people can't have fun playing the classes as is. I mean, a jaguar can drive alongside a 30 year old station wagon and both have a great relaxing drive. There's just going to be some things that old station wagon won't be able to keep up with, and might need some McGuyvering to keep it running.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3 pages and only 3 mentions of Narrative power.
I am disappoint.
This is clearly the largest proponent of Caster Martial disparity.
3 pages and only 3 mentions of Narrative power.
I am disappoint.
This is clearly the largest proponent of Caster Martial disparity.
The question isn't really "what do martials need" but rather "what does the fighter need". Most of the suggestions here are trying to improve the fighter more along the lines of the ranger, the barbarian and the paladin - not the wizard.
And let's try to avoid yet another mundane vs magic thread.
Fighter only feats have the same problem as sneak attack improvements, while the original class benefits from them, other, stronger, classes benefit as well. Swashbucklers and Warpriests will have full access.
And eldritch knights and magi and...
@narrative power: That depends on the GM and the player, not the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3 pages and only 3 mentions of Narrative power.
I am disappoint.
This is clearly the largest proponent of Caster Martial disparity.
The question isn't really "what do martials need" but rather "what does the fighter need". Most of the suggestions here are trying to improve the fighter more along the lines of the ranger, the barbarian and the paladin - not the wizard.
And let's try to avoid yet another mundane vs magic thread.
I'd say a Fighter is a Martial and that shouldn't stop him from wanting narrative options.
The Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin all have narrative options. Especially the former 2.
It's a major point that'll keep folks who want to participate aside from combat(Because other than GM Fiat, a Fighter has no ability to manipulate the world aside from SMASH!) from playing the Fighter over more interesting choices.
3 pages and only 3 mentions of Narrative power.
I am disappoint.
This is clearly the largest proponent of Caster Martial disparity.
The question isn't really "what do martials need" but rather "what does the fighter need". Most of the suggestions here are trying to improve the fighter more along the lines of the ranger, the barbarian and the paladin - not the wizard.
And let's try to avoid yet another mundane vs magic thread.
I'd say a Fighter is a Martial and that shouldn't stop him from wanting narrative options.
The Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin all have narrative options. Especially the former 2.
It's a major point that'll keep folks who want to participate aside from combat(Because other than GM Fiat, a Fighter has no ability to manipulate the world aside from SMASH!) from playing the Fighter over more interesting choices.
I didn't mean that fighters are not a martial class (by martial I mean Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger - rogue and monk are a whole other bucket of guts) but rather that the topic is not martialS vs spellcasters. Let's first try to get the fighter on a decent baseline with the other martial classes.
Secondly, increasing the fighter's skill points and giving him a better will save (the two most popular vote options) would, according to your own post made 30 minutes ago, increase the narrative power of the class. I don't really see why you are "disappoint"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for Full attack:
The solution to a full attack is to make it a BONUS effect.
As it stands now, it is the Standard...damage is based on getting off a full attack action, and if you move you give up damage.
This doesn't work at low levels because you still only get 1 attack for most characters.
To rework it, you'd have to allow all attacks on move, and then if you full attack you get BONUSES...like a bonus to hit, damage or AC for giving up your move.
Doing so would make monsters far more lethal, since all of them would always get their full attacks.
Having Vital Strike be an automatic benefit for giving up your Full Attack would make more sense. You'd just have to do it for the monsters, too, and replace those that spent feats on it. But once you turn it into a combat option, it opens up some doors.
One Striker (COmbat)
Req: Weapon Training 1, Weapon Focus
When performing the Vital Strike combat option, you include your bonuses from Weapon Training and Specialization on the single strike.
Additionally, you may perform a Vital Strike as a Full Attack action. If you do so, you gain a +2 to damage, to AC, or to a save of your Choice until the beginning of your next turn. This bonus increases by +1 for each iterative attack you give up to do this.
And there you have it.
The key with giving Fighters 'extra powers' is to make the powers they get (feats) better with fighters then with any other class. This is basically exactly what is done with Rage Powers...which are all feats, right?
4 Skill points and a feat rewrite would do wonders for a fighter, plus expansion of some of the combat options.
I personally would double all the feats a fighter grants, and assign them to a 'feat pool' of combat feats and 'training' feats...feats that enhance saves, skill points, or such like from a list. The Fighter then has the option to swap these feats in or out.
Then you can give him a feat that lets him add more feats to his pool! Since it doesn't give him any more active feats, it's just like having more rage rounds. You could also give him extra feats for high ability scores.
==Aelrynth
|
|
I supported with the pregenerated iconic Paladin - who, at the level at which we were playing, had Vital Strike. She wound up using it quite a bit, and it worked pretty well.If the paladin is using vital strike quite a bit then you ARE seeing the moving around that I'm talking about.
I'm seeing "moving around," sure, but that's NOT the same as the inescapable near-universality you're suggesting. I've seen plenty of combats, and they're all different - oh, and one of the PCs in that game was a Two-Weapon Warrior. Was he complaining? No, he was making his fair share of full attacks. Honestly, reflecting on that player and that character and all the games I've played with him in, and all the other Fighters and Monks and Rogues I've seen (including my own), and...I kind of stop seeing the problem.
That would be the 7th level iconic paladin (the only level with vital strike) 2d8+5 is hardly anything to write home about at level 7. The d8 is kid of meaningless when she starts smiting.
A) It's still not meaningless - at 7th level, adding an extra Vital Strike die is like Smite-and-a-half on that damage roll.
B) A 7th-level Paladin can Smite Evil 3/day - pretty good, but "3/day" isn't exactly the equivalent of "at will," is it? Yes, even Paladins can rely on their gods less than they can rely on their practiced swordarms.
C) Smite Evil is kind of meaningless when you're fighting enemies who aren't Evil (as a matter of fact, I don't think there are any Evil-aligned enemies in the Scenario I was running that time).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I would like to make mention that Bravery is NOT an underpowered mechanic...if you use it as a metric and enhancement device for other feats.
There are no other classes that get Bravery as a class feature. Thus, putting it as a pre-req makes a feat a fighter feat the same way Rage Powers are Barb only.
Secondly, Bravery scales early from +1 all the way to +5, and at a measured rate that is not prone to abuse.
Iron Will
You gain a +2 Bonus to WIll Saves.
Fighter: If you have bravery, this bonus increases by your Bravery bonus.
Improved Iron WIll
You may reroll a failed Will Save 1/day.
Fighter: If you have Bravery, you may reroll failed Will saves a number of times a day equal to your Bravery bonus.
Skill Focus (Intimidate)
You gain a +3 Bonus to your intimidate skill, improving to +6 at 10th level.
Fighter: If you have Bravery, this bonus increases by your Bravery ability, and you may use your Intimidate Skill as a save against all Fear effects.
Redefine Bravery not just as piddling bonus against fear, but as a measure of the Fighter's mental training and discipline when applied to feats.
You can do the same thing with Armor and Weapon Training.
Dash applies a +5 movement bonus for every level of Armor Training you have, eventually equaling and surpassing a barbarian.
Dodge turns your Armor Training bonus to Dex allowed to a straight Dodge bonus, freeing you from the tyranny of needing a 24 Dex to max out your class benefit.
Improved Initiative's bonus adds your Weapon Training bonus as you level, meaning your skill is as good as someone with a high Dex.
Sure, it's all only numbers, but it's NON-STAT numbers. It makes the fighters free of stats and all about levels and skill. The barbarian is the stat melee class.
Have a fighter's feats scale with Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training, and suddenly you'll see the appropriate level of flexibility and defensive power start to come to bear.
They'll still be vanilla, and their combat power won't generally increase by much, but it will be good numbers and in different areas.
========
You can do the same thing with Rogue Talents by improving them with Related skill Ranks.
The Rogue's biggest thing is his 8 skill points. SO have Talents level up if he has the skill ranks. Give excellent benefits for having ranks in 10+ skills, and the Rogue will be immensely cheerful as he exploits his Ranks for maximum benefit. It also rewards him for a high Int by giving him even more useful things, the same way spellcasters get something.
Note that Fighters and ROgues are the only classes that don't get 'extra stuff' for high stats. Every other class gets bonus points to a pool, or bonus spells, or enhanced smiting, or SOMETHING.
Not fighters or rogues. (the cavalier might not, either.)
==Aelryinth
|
|
Note that Fighters and ROgues are the only classes that don't get 'extra stuff' for high stats. Every other class gets bonus points to a pool, or bonus spells, or enhanced smiting, or SOMETHING.
Not fighters or rogues. (the cavalier might not, either.)
==Aelryinth
Ah, Cavaliers are interesting, aren't they? I believe the answer, in the is: Trick question (according to the parameters you set with your phraseology) - it depends on their Order. Most (but not all) Cavalier Orders feature at least one perk that hinges on a high ability score as you describe, that ability being Charisma...save for one very special case.
Along with more skill points, I think the ability to give up iterative attacks to do other things.
Also, past level 4 there should be an expectation to accomplish the super human. ( I picture Sauron (sp?) decimating entire ranks of armies in one blow)
|
My thoughts exactly.Hate the "fighter only feat" gig, actually, hate any "class only feat", if only one class can use a feat, it should be a class feature, not a feat.I agree with this, if for nothing else, design purposes it's silly to put an option restricted to a single class into an area that's supposed to be for every class.
You could still list "fighter only feats" in their own section I guess.
I think it honestly would have been better if Paizo had replaced all fighter bonus feats with "Fighter Talents" one of which being:
"Combat Feat (Ex): A Fighter that selects this talent gains a bonus combat feat.Special: You may select this Talent more than once."
That way, you get the same "Fighter Only Feat" concept (except the abilities in question wouldn't be 'feats'), but still let the fighter take Feats as they normally would.
Not only my thought, but what i did with my homemade fighter.
Also, I would like to make mention that Bravery is NOT an underpowered mechanic...if you use it as a metric and enhancement device for other feats.
Above I mentioned a 3pp that did this. Keying off of bravery is an amazing opportunity but a lot of archetypes trade it away so it may not be that viable of a 'fix'.
Speaking of Fighter Talents, there is always Rogue Genius Games' The Talented Fighter, but honestly after introducing certain third party products, including Talented Fighter, I have not had a fighter balance problem in my games so I think this discussion should be focused on 'doable' additions that could appear in a new book such as new archetypes and feats.
Well, what that did is 'replace' Bravery with other things.
I'm saying 'Keep Bravery. Make Bravery enhance feats.' ANd suddenly Bravery goes from 'oh, god' to 'is there a feat that can up my Bravery bonus?!'
:)
==Aelryinth
Well, what that did is 'replace' Bravery with other things.
I'm saying 'Keep Bravery. Make Bravery enhance feats.' ANd suddenly Bravery goes from 'oh, god' to 'is there a feat that can up my Bravery bonus?!'
:)
==Aelryinth
I was talking about the Class Acts feat that grants bravery bonus to initiative. Earlier in the thread I said that I liked how it keyed off of bravery and more things should do that.
I'd like to see fighter feats go this way for two reasons.
One it's an actual class feature even though it sucks. The plusses on the base fighter never impressed me. most fighter only feats benefit focusing on one kind of weapon so weapon training weapon training 2-4 are borderline useless, And armor training is just too useless for str build fighters. I'd much rather be able to choose where my plusses go (which would further represent a fighter's modularity) and bravery is a good scale to go by.
Two, it gives Fighters an actual flavor beyond being generic and 'I hit stuff'. They are brave. So brave that their courage grants them plusses to stuff. So many tropes revolve around the underdog that is mundane compared to the powerful magicks around him but gets buy through spirit and courage that I'm surprised this isn't a thing. I say just give the Fighter the Tri-force of courage because it totally fits. I'd totally buy a product, any product, that traded weapon/armor training slots for talents all keyed off of bravery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say I really like the idea of putting "hangers" on the Bravery class feature. The only disadvantage is that the vast majority of the fighter archetypes trades that class feature out precisely because Bravery is really underwhelming.
If you buff it significantly then you upset the archetype balance based on the current (useless) Bravery.
I gotta say I really like the idea of putting "hangers" on the Bravery class feature. The only disadvantage is that the vast majority of the fighter archetypes trades that class feature out precisely because Bravery is really underwhelming.
If you buff it significantly then you upset the archetype balance based on the current (useless) Bravery.
Unless one of the feats grants Bravery. Then even the Magus can get in (halfway in) on the action.
as far as fighter archetypes go, I believe features that replace bravery are considered to be bravery for purposes of pre-reqs, like other archetypes.
am I wrong on this?
==Aelryinth
Unless one of the feats grants Bravery. Then even the Magus can get in (halfway in) on the action.
This is the same problem as buffing rogues by improving rogue talents - the classes and archetypes that aren't rogue but get rogue talents get the same talents and benefit equally, so the status quo is mostly unchanged.
@Aelryinth
I'm pretty sure if an archetype replaces a class feature you are not considered to have that class feature.
I'll see if I can pull up the language just to make sure.
Edit: Ah, here it is:
A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced for the purposes of meeting any requirements or prerequisites.
Unless one of the feats grants Bravery. Then even the Magus can get in (halfway in) on the action.This is the same problem as buffing rogues by improving rogue talents - the classes and archetypes that aren't rogue but get rogue talents get the same talents and benefit equally, so the status quo is mostly unchanged.
@Aelryinth
I'm pretty sure if an archetype replaces a class feature you are not considered to have that class feature.I'll see if I can pull up the language just to make sure.
Edit: Ah, here it is:
A character who takes an alternate class feature does not count as having the class feature that was replaced for the purposes of meeting any requirements or prerequisites.
Wait then how does the Mutagen discovery work?
I don't mind the likes of Magus gaining up to lvl 10 fighter stuff. Fighter still gets the (likely better) Fighter 11-20 stuff. Although if it was a in a 'talent' slot, (weapon/armor training slots) then much like the mutagen discovery it stays exclusive to fighter until something comes out that can take fighter talents.
The Mutagen discovery exists so that Alchemist archetypes who lose the baseline Mutagen can still pick it up - but at the cost of a discovery. The Crypt Breaker and the Mindchemist both make a note of this in their archetype descriptions on PFSRD.
What would really help the fighter would be an ability that gives the fighter 1/2 his level on one or two skills. This would give him an edge out of combat because he can, if he wants, be better at something than most other classes.
Good options would be profession: Soldier and perception.
What would really help the fighter would be an ability that gives the fighter 1/2 his level on one or two skills. This would give him an edge out of combat because he can, if he wants, be better at something than most other classes.
Good options would be profession: Soldier and perception.
Something like this? (second quote block before end of post)
Something like this? (second quote block before end of post)What would really help the fighter would be an ability that gives the fighter 1/2 his level on one or two skills. This would give him an edge out of combat because he can, if he wants, be better at something than most other classes.
Good options would be profession: Soldier and perception.
That would certainly be interesting. I don't know if it would really help the fighter, but it would certainly be nice.