|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I like the idea with bravery bonus to charisma checks but also agree that not all fighters should be charmers, so how about making that one of several options I could think of the following added to the bravery class feature:
The fighter chooses one of the following types of bravery, he gains the associated bonuses in addition to the bonus to will saves against fear:
Confidence The fighter radiates an aura of confidence that make him an impressive individual. He gains his bravery bonus bonus to all charisma based checks.
Daring the fighter takes physical challenges without hesitation. He gains his bravery bonus as a morale bonus to acrobatics, fly, ride and all strength-based checks.
Discipline The fighter is focused on his tasks and hard to deter. The fighter gains his bravery bonus to all wisdom based checks.
animemetalhead wrote: Flawed wrote: Nicos wrote: Flawed wrote: 2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ int Really? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything. What are you even talking about?
Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end. I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable. Misunderstood him? He literally stated with sarcasm that combat expertise can't be used for some sort of defense. Was there really more to read?
Combat expertise being a tax doesn't make a difference. Paizo thought combat maneuvers required a feat to enter. That feat requires int so by proxy Paizo thinks using combat maneuvers requires intelligence. If fighters are good at maneuvers and can make for viable tactics then it doesn't matter how much anyone thinks it's a tax it's a legitimate strategy to a class that can use them and especially with a class that can choose them with 1 of their 21 feats.
Flawed wrote: Misunderstood him? He literally stated with sarcasm that combat expertise can't be used for some sort of defense. Was there really more to read? Defense of your argument, not defense of a character in the game. He was saying Combat Expertise is not a point that supports the idea that Fighters benefit from Int.
It's a point that forms of combat require you to have intelligence and fighters have more broad options for combat so should probably have intelligence to cover the facets that require it.
That's a lot of inference applied to his one sentence that made no mention of the likes.
And none of this changes the fact that a fighter benefits from intelligence. The benefit is access to feat lines, using some items, and skills of which people like to use as a selling point for how much they think the fighter doesn't contribute.
Again back to the generic stats I posted and you can see that anyone can be built to have skills, good saves, OoC utility, in combat utility, good DPR(although not the huge optimized numbers). The level 10 stats and the level 20 stats show it. No one NEEDS a 18 or 20 starting strength. I haven't built a character above a 16 starting stat in years. They function great at all levels and have far more versatility than anything with an 18 open. Sure my characters aren't one hit McSmasherton, but they'll kill you on the second swing and have good enough defenses to not worry about what happens in between the first and second swing.
Trogdar wrote: Because the class is so one dimensional that it actually breaks verisimilitude? The fighter is Mombata, whose main role is to look and be dangerous. If that role seems one dimensional, it's because of a lack of effort to bring life to it.
Threeshades wrote: I like the idea with bravery bonus to charisma checks but also agree that not all fighters should be charmers, so how about making that one of several options I could think of the following added to the bravery class feature:
The fighter chooses one of the following types of bravery, he gains the associated bonuses in addition to the bonus to will saves against fear:
Confidence The fighter radiates an aura of confidence that make him an impressive individual. He gains his bravery bonus bonus to all charisma based checks.
Daring the fighter takes physical challenges without hesitation. He gains his bravery bonus as a morale bonus to acrobatics, fly, ride and all strength-based checks.
Discipline The fighter is focused on his tasks and hard to deter. The fighter gains his bravery bonus to all wisdom based checks.
Good ideas. I'd add as another option: a "Learned" one, to allow the Bravery bonus to be added to Knowledge checks, and all Knowledge skills become class skills, so you can make a fighter who can identify opponents, which seems to fit in with the theme fine.
That plus making skill points 4+Int per level would be enough to make fighters versatile enough.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Flawed wrote: It's a point that forms of combat require you to have intelligence and fighters have more broad options for combat so should probably have intelligence to cover the facets that require it.
That's a lot of inference applied to his one sentence that made no mention of the likes.
And none of this changes the fact that a fighter benefits from intelligence. The benefit is access to feat lines, using some items, and skills of which people like to use as a selling point for how much they think the fighter doesn't contribute.
But the fighter isn't benefiting from intelligence, he's being taxed into raising it, rather than having any sort of meaningful class feature that promotes it. The ONLY use a fighter has for Int is meeting prereqs for Combat Expertise, and a few extra skill points.
Flawed wrote: Again back to the generic stats I posted and you can see that anyone can be built to have skills, good saves, OoC utility, in combat utility, good DPR(although not the huge optimized numbers). The level 10 stats and the level 20 stats show it. No one NEEDS a 18 or 20 starting strength. I haven't built a character above a 16 starting stat in years. They function great at all levels and have far more versatility than anything with an 18 open. Sure my characters aren't one hit McSmasherton, but they'll kill you on the second swing and have good enough defenses to not worry about what happens in between the first and second swing. But that's the point, at best you're par with a moderately optimized martial of another class in combat, and still behind them in terms of out of combat use. At worst, they're better than you out of combat (between skills, spells, and class features) AND kicking your arse in DPR AND they've got better defenses because they didn't have to blow all their wealth on both of the +6-to-all-stats items.
Flawed is arguing stats as a class comparison. It's a failure on its face. The same stats for different classes will outperform the fighter.
He's arguing fighters are great because they can benefit from wearing adamantine full plate...and move normally. And the barbarian can't, despite the fact adamantine isn't affordable until level 8+, and by then the barb's class features are just as good...and they don't stack.
Not to mention mithral's +2 to AC is generally better then adamantine at ALL levels. It doesn't even stack with the fighter's capstone effect, making it MORE useless as time goes on.
And the fighter doesn't move faster in heavy armor...his REDUCTION IN MOVEMENT goes away. Of course, if you're a dwarf, you get this at level 1.
And the barb is moving 40', the ranger is moving 40', and the paladin might be riding Superhorse. The fighter is slogging along at 30'. Movement bonus, where? Oh, right, and the paladin has a spell which does that for him, too, doesn't he?
Weapon Training is not a buff. It equals rage (used every fight) which equals Favored Enemy. The other stuff is situational...that's buffs. And Weapon Training is inherently limited by the weapon, even moreso if you pursue Weapon Spec.
Armor Training is barely a buff. You can get Armor which does basically everything it does (Celestial, Mithral). And if you don't have the Dex, it does not provide you an AC bonus at all.
Contrast with Greater Magical Vestment, Barkskin, Raging Nat armor and dodge bonuses, and a Monk's + to AC as they level. You don't need an uber stat...you just get the AC!
Godless healing is a general feat, and you can't take it with Fighter bonus feats. Surprise! Barbs can take it, too, and rangers and paladins don't need it. Net benefit to fighter = none. Not to mention it's barely as good as a 1/day Cure Serious Wounds...at level 20. Ugh. Renewed Vigor does the same without a restriction of being below half hit points, and can lead to fast healing!
And did we mention barbs have various ways to punch DR that dwarf Penetrate Damage Reduction? Sure we did.
=============
Barbs have tremendous versatility in builds and you can customize them against an enemy very, very easily if that's what you want to do. As an all-arounder, it also shines in virtually every capacity.
And that's without bringing in general feats, stats, race, FC, traits and magic items, which are ALL irrelevant to a class discussion.
==Aelryinth
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Threeshades wrote: I like the idea with bravery bonus to charisma checks but also agree that not all fighters should be charmers, so how about making that one of several options I could think of the following added to the bravery class feature:
The fighter chooses one of the following types of bravery, he gains the associated bonuses in addition to the bonus to will saves against fear:
Confidence The fighter radiates an aura of confidence that make him an impressive individual. He gains his bravery bonus bonus to all charisma based checks.
Daring the fighter takes physical challenges without hesitation. He gains his bravery bonus as a morale bonus to acrobatics, fly, ride and all strength-based checks.
Discipline The fighter is focused on his tasks and hard to deter. The fighter gains his bravery bonus to all wisdom based checks.
Ideally, he'd get all of these. Bravery is just that bad, and since it's capped at +5, none of these bonuses are ever going to be 'broken'.
You could rein them in further by making them morale bonuses so they don't stack with certain other buffs, instead of being untyped, if you needed to.
But yeah, when I did a fighter rewrite, Bravery got massively rewritten into something useful and viable at all levels.
==Aelryinth
Confidence/Daring/Discipline is a great idea. I had an idea to give the fighter five class skills of a player's choice, so the fighter could be whatever martial figure they wanted in RP terms.
Aelryinth, I'd be really interested to see your fighter rewrite, if it's posted anywhere. Don't worry if you don't feel like sharing. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
@Flawed - The thread is about adding versatility to the fighter class, not adding versatility to your fighter character... the difference is significant.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Flawed wrote: animemetalhead wrote: Flawed wrote: Nicos wrote: Flawed wrote: 2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ int Really? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything. What are you even talking about?
Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end. I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable. Misunderstood him? He literally stated with sarcasm that combat expertise can't be used for some sort of defense. Was there really more to read?
Combat expertise being a tax doesn't make a difference. Paizo thought combat maneuvers required a feat to enter. That feat requires int so by proxy Paizo thinks using combat maneuvers requires intelligence. If fighters are good at maneuvers and can make for viable tactics then it doesn't matter how much anyone thinks it's a tax it's a legitimate strategy to a class that can use them and especially with a class that can choose them with 1 of their 21 feats. In isolation, the Int 13 requirement for 'intelligent' feats like Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm makes sense.
In comparison to spell-casters, the Int 13 requirement (for combat expertise) becomes a liability an unwarranted 'stat tax' on the fighter class. A wizard character doesn't need 13 Constitution to gain access to a group of spells. In D&D (2e) specialist spellcasters had minimum stat requirements to gain access to a certain spell school (evocation, necromancy etc.)
Fighters already have 2 stat requirements, Str for the Power Attack line of feats and Dex for the Shield Focus and Two-weapon Fighting line of feats. Are 2 stat requirements not enough? Do they really need 3 (Int stat).
At the very least, its reasonable to suggest that fighters should ignore the Int stat requirement or a stat requirement should be introduced to the spell-casting classes.
animemetalhead wrote: The ONLY use a fighter has for Int is meeting prereqs for Combat Expertise, and a few extra skill points. "The ONly use a fighter has for Str is meeting prereqs for power attack and a few extra to hit and damage."
I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well.
Every stat has varying levels of necessity based on your class and your build. A fighter struggles with skill points so int has some value to them because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean it has more value than con or strength, but it has value.
I also posted my interpretation on how a fighters stats would be arrayed with str/dex > con/wis > int > cha vs. another poster's version that was the same as a barbarians str > con/dex > wis > int/cha or something like that.
Flawed wrote: animemetalhead wrote: The ONLY use a fighter has for Int is meeting prereqs for Combat Expertise, and a few extra skill points. "The ONly use a fighter has for Str is meeting prereqs for power attack and a few extra to hit and damage."
I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well.
Every stat has varying levels of necessity based on your class and your build. A fighter struggles with skill points so int has some value to them because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean it has more value than con or strength, but it has value.
I also posted my interpretation on how a fighters stats would be arrayed with str/dex > con/wis > int > cha vs. another poster's version that was the same as a barbarians str > con/dex > wis > int/cha or something like that.
"I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well," this is a fairly condescending comment. It's fairly obvious contributors to this discussion know how stats in the Pathfinder game work without you having to explain it to them.
It's also fairly obvious Animemetalhead is referring to MAD. The fighter class is already lumbered with the dependency of the three physical stats (Str, Dex, Con).
This thread is about ideas that can improve fighter versatility. And removing stat requirements is one way of doing that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Aelryinth wrote: Flawed is arguing stats as a class comparison. It's a failure on its face. The same stats for different classes will outperform the fighter.
He's arguing fighters are great because they can benefit from wearing adamantine full plate...and move normally. And the barbarian can't, despite the fact adamantine isn't affordable until level 8+, and by then the barb's class features are just as good...and they don't stack.
Not to mention mithral's +2 to AC is generally better then adamantine at ALL levels. It doesn't even stack with the fighter's capstone effect, making it MORE useless as time goes on.
And the fighter doesn't move faster in heavy armor...his REDUCTION IN MOVEMENT goes away. Of course, if you're a dwarf, you get this at level 1.
And the barb is moving 40', the ranger is moving 40', and the paladin might be riding Superhorse. The fighter is slogging along at 30'. Movement bonus, where? Oh, right, and the paladin has a spell which does that for him, too, doesn't he?
Weapon Training is not a buff. It equals rage (used every fight) which equals Favored Enemy. The other stuff is situational...that's buffs. And Weapon Training is inherently limited by the weapon, even moreso if you pursue Weapon Spec.
Armor Training is barely a buff. You can get Armor which does basically everything it does (Celestial, Mithral). And if you don't have the Dex, it does not provide you an AC bonus at all.
Contrast with Greater Magical Vestment, Barkskin, Raging Nat armor and dodge bonuses, and a Monk's + to AC as they level. You don't need an uber stat...you just get the AC!
Godless healing is a general feat, and you can't take it with Fighter bonus feats. Surprise! Barbs can take it, too, and rangers and paladins don't need it. Net benefit to fighter = none. Not to mention it's barely as good as a 1/day Cure Serious Wounds...at level 20. Ugh. Renewed Vigor does the same without a restriction of being below half hit points, and can lead to fast healing!
And did we mention barbs have various ways to punch...
I love all the assumption, hostility, and use of logical fallacies to discredit posters on these boards. I never once said fighters are great. I've said on many occasions in this thread that fighters could use a boost to help them compete with other classes.
I know right? Mithrals bonus to AC is awesome at ALL levels. Unless you have a class feature that is in effect by the time you can even afford a mithral suit of armor and your bonus from dexterity doesn't require you buy a suit of mithral. Weird.
So true man. The reduction in movement goes away. Now. Let's run through the logic here. A fighter has a movement speed of 30 while wearing heavy armor because his reduction in movement has gone away. A cleric has a movement speed of 20 while wearing medium or heavy armor because the reduction in movement has not gone away. The result here is....drum roll please... that the fighter will move faster than any other class while wearing heavy armor. A single race does not invalidate this fact because they get a racial feature that does a similar thing that a fighter class feature does.
Or the fighter uses his many feats to set up a means of getting more movement or a better form of movement? 2 fleet feats and the fighter moves as fast as the barb or the ranger and he still has as many if not more feats. These are such minor and petty differences. Depending on your race(any half race/human/suli) can grab the 2-3 feats required to gain flight. The new archetype fighter can get wings. Any class can grab an eldritch heritage feat chain to get wings just fighters can actually spare the feats and still be combat capable. Why are we still walking?
How can you argue that someone else can get armor training by basically getting celestial or mithral armor? So what happens again when the fighter puts on the celestial or mithral armor? Oh right it gets a more substantial dex to ac bonus than any other class that was wearing said armor.
OMG! OMG! OMG! its a general feat so therefore everyone can take it! So now the barb only has 9 more feats left to the fighters 20. What was the problem again?
Did we mention that a fighter will eventually outdo everyone in DPR based on their crit multiplier alone? I can talk end game scenario's too.
I've also said 3 or 4 times in this thread now that I'm not here to compare other classes to the fighter. I was just stating that fighters are contributing members to any party and can be built to do so. It does not matter that another class can cover some facet of what a fighter does. The fighter's entire chassis is it's combat prowess. Weapon Training + Full BAB and you'll always have a means of hitting. Armor Training + Well balanced stats = Higher regular and touch AC than other classes wearing equivalent armor. The fighter will always have more feats than other classes allowing them to try more feat chains both combat and non combat options. This also includes completing chains quicker than other classes to make your combat style viable faster. A fighter will have more ability in armor than other classes including moving full speed in heavy armor which includes being able to use acrobatics to move without provoking, eventually no penalty to skills in heavy armors, the option to wear adamantine armors and keep a good dex to ac bonus.
None of this is great, it just is what it is.
All that said, the fighter is still able to contribute to any party it joins. Even just going 13 int for combat expertise is 3 skills per level. Grab another 1 from favored bonus for 4/level. That's 4 skills you can contribute with. Choose wisely as to what niche you want to jump into. As your character grows you grab a headband or ioun stone of int with new skills you want to add.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Morzadian wrote: Flawed wrote: animemetalhead wrote: The ONLY use a fighter has for Int is meeting prereqs for Combat Expertise, and a few extra skill points. "The ONly use a fighter has for Str is meeting prereqs for power attack and a few extra to hit and damage."
I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well.
Every stat has varying levels of necessity based on your class and your build. A fighter struggles with skill points so int has some value to them because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean it has more value than con or strength, but it has value.
I also posted my interpretation on how a fighters stats would be arrayed with str/dex > con/wis > int > cha vs. another poster's version that was the same as a barbarians str > con/dex > wis > int/cha or something like that.
"I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well," this is a fairly condescending comment. It's fairly obvious contributors to this discussion know how stats in the Pathfinder game work without you having to explain it to them.
It's also fairly obvious Animemetalhead is referring to MAD. The fighter class is already lumbered with the dependency of the three physical stats (Str, Dex, Con).
This thread is about ideas that can improve fighter versatility. And removing stat requirements is one way of doing that.
Yes, this thread is about versatility to the fighter class. Maybe the versatility could be coming from your stat array that compliments your class features instead of a need of new class features so you can dump your charisma and intelligence to keep your strength at obscene levels of optimization.
Fighters could use some help as a class. So could players designing balanced PC's.
Why is 3 build points so hard to manage that makes fighters so MAD?
Flawed wrote: The result here is....drum roll please... that the fighter will move faster than any other class while wearing heavy armor. A single race does not invalidate this fact because they get a racial feature that does a similar thing that a fighter class feature does. My Travel cleric moves 40ft in his plate. My druid will be 30ft in his wild plate.
Flawed wrote: Fighters could use some help as a class. So could players designing balanced PC's. On that note, how am I doing so far?
And here comes the caster/martial parade.
Its good though. Now a single domain means fighters class feature means nothing and a +4 suit of armor minimum.
EDIT:
TOZ wrote: On that note, how am I doing so far? I'd take the effort to make an evaluation, but I can only guess by the plethora of threads that everyone here has posted in in regards to a fighter it must lack will saves, skill points, comes up short on DPR compared to a barbarian, has 0 OoC utility, stares at sandbags and imagines swinging his beatstick.
He's a knife fighter, actually.
As long as you have river rat nothing else matters.
EDIT: I'd have changed starting stats to:
STR 14+2
DEX 16
CON 12
INT 13(14)
WIS 12
CHA 8(7)
And then added the point for STR 17 at level 4 or even gone DEX 17 to qualify for Improved TWF at level 6 without needing a belt. It's nice to have that extra +1 to hit and damage(And it might actually be for the best for a TWF build), but that extra +1 AC/Reflex saves/initiative/dex skills mean more to me usually. I'm also not huge on TWF builds and prefer sword and board single weapon fighting. No clue what your feats are intended for.
I think my fighter arrays look more like str/dex > con/int/wis > cha more than anything. Aim for a 16 starting in both str/dex +2 from levels into both +6 belt to both and +2 book to both if no other means of inherent bonus is available and you hit str/dex 26 or str28/dex24 if you get a permanent enlarge person which then caps dex in mithral full plate for a fighter.
Again though. None of this matters because you have river rat.
animemetalhead wrote: Flawed wrote: Nicos wrote: Flawed wrote: 2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ int Really? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything. What are you even talking about?
Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end. I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable. yup.
Nicos wrote: animemetalhead wrote: Flawed wrote: Nicos wrote: Flawed wrote: 2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ int Really? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything. What are you even talking about?
Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end. I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable. yup. Yes, I did. My bad, but I wasn't saying combat expertise makes fighters good. I was implying that a feat that gives access to more combat feats has a prerequisite of 13 int and since fighters are capable of performing maneuvers its a little informative that a 13 INT will be common on fighters.
Quote: Any class can grab an eldritch heritage feat chain to get wings just fighters can actually spare the feats and still be combat capable. Why are we still walking If you are spending the points in CHA to get Eldritch Heritage (or the gold for the Headband), then I don't know if you'd have the Dex to benefit from armor training, or the Strength to hit anything, or the Wisdom to avoid getting Murderous Urged, or the Int for Combat Expertise...
I don't know, you come up with so many hypotheticals in every thread, but I've never seen you post a build because you'd have to make a case in point.
Fighters get outshone by everyone... they can shore off their deficiencies, but the sheer lack of power of feats makes them very weak.
Also, that Barb has 10 rage powers that can imitate and surpass the effect of feats.
Flawed wrote: Morzadian wrote: Flawed wrote: animemetalhead wrote: The ONLY use a fighter has for Int is meeting prereqs for Combat Expertise, and a few extra skill points. "The ONly use a fighter has for Str is meeting prereqs for power attack and a few extra to hit and damage."
I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well.
Every stat has varying levels of necessity based on your class and your build. A fighter struggles with skill points so int has some value to them because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean it has more value than con or strength, but it has value.
I also posted my interpretation on how a fighters stats would be arrayed with str/dex > con/wis > int > cha vs. another poster's version that was the same as a barbarians str > con/dex > wis > int/cha or something like that.
"I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well," this is a fairly condescending comment. It's fairly obvious contributors to this discussion know how stats in the Pathfinder game work without you having to explain it to them.
It's also fairly obvious Animemetalhead is referring to MAD. The fighter class is already lumbered with the dependency of the three physical stats (Str, Dex, Con).
This thread is about ideas that can improve fighter versatility. And removing stat requirements is one way of doing that.
Yes, this thread is about versatility to the fighter class. Maybe the versatility could be coming from your stat array that compliments your class features instead of a need of new class features so you can dump your charisma and intelligence to keep your strength at obscene levels of optimization.
Fighters could use some help as a class. So could players designing balanced PC's.
Why is 3 build points so hard to manage that makes fighters so MAD? The general consensus on this thread and other threads is that fighters skill points are too low and should be increased from 2 to 4. Now a common house rule, which is integrated into diverse campaigns (of different styles and goals).
Also the fighter class feature of bonus combat feats is recognized as a poor substitute for special abilities offered by other classes.
And yes min-maxing in small doses is a natural and rewarding facet of the Pathfinder game.
I agree, extreme min-maxing (unbalanced character building in an optimizing framework) and the debates that it fuels is destructive to the Pathfinder game (Sean K. Reynolds and the Separatist cleric debacle come to mind).
Spell-casters have obscene levels of optimization by default because spells scale in power. They don't have to take a feat for their power to increase. While fighters do.
Spells like displacement and stoneskin practically diminish the need for the Dex stat and AC.
Fighters don't have those options and depend on stats (like Dex) a lot more.
And yes, some feats scale in power automatically like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, yet all maneuvers (bull rush, sunder etc.) belong to a feat taxing 'feat tree' diminishing the potential of the fighter class (Lemmy's argument, and a valid one).
Can't spare the 3 build points and a +4 headband or a rod of lordly might (25000gp) by level 17? The 3 build points could be a problem if you planned to dump charisma, but the money shouldn't be an issue. That gets you limitless wings from the infernal bloodline, +10 fire resistance with a +4 to saves vs. poison, and a touch attack that causes shaken with no save 6 times a day.
3 build points is the difference of a 15 to a 16 strength stat buy. 15 strength with 13 charisma and a headband and you can take Orc or abyssal and get an nherent bonus to strength that scales to +6 with the second feat in the line. Abyssal can then add claws and resist electricity 10 +4 vs poison. Orc can grant a good scalable morale bonus that goes very nice with a trait that extends morale bonuses and the cap of Orc gets you a minute per level enlarge that comes with more large size bonuses to strength.
Rage powers are a class of their own. This still doesn't mean a fighter can't pull off a feat chain faster than the barb or chains unattainable by a barb.
Morzadian wrote: Flawed wrote: Morzadian wrote: Flawed wrote: animemetalhead wrote: The ONLY use a fighter has for Int is meeting prereqs for Combat Expertise, and a few extra skill points. "The ONly use a fighter has for Str is meeting prereqs for power attack and a few extra to hit and damage."
I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well.
Every stat has varying levels of necessity based on your class and your build. A fighter struggles with skill points so int has some value to them because of that. It doesn't necessarily mean it has more value than con or strength, but it has value.
I also posted my interpretation on how a fighters stats would be arrayed with str/dex > con/wis > int > cha vs. another poster's version that was the same as a barbarians str > con/dex > wis > int/cha or something like that.
"I can list off what a stat provides for a class as well," this is a fairly condescending comment. It's fairly obvious contributors to this discussion know how stats in the Pathfinder game work without you having to explain it to them.
It's also fairly obvious Animemetalhead is referring to MAD. The fighter class is already lumbered with the dependency of the three physical stats (Str, Dex, Con).
This thread is about ideas that can improve fighter versatility. And removing stat requirements is one way of doing that.
Yes, this thread is about versatility to the fighter class. Maybe the versatility could be coming from your stat array that compliments your class features instead of a need of new class features so you can dump your charisma and intelligence to keep your strength at obscene levels of optimization.
Fighters could use some help as a class. So could players designing balanced PC's.
Why is 3 build points so hard to manage that makes fighters so MAD? The general consensus on this thread and other threads is that fighters skill points are too low and should be increased from 2 to 4. Now a common house rule, which... Who does all this recognizing. If it were unanimous I wouldn't be claiming the class isn't as bad off as people make it out to be with a little work. Just because people want to claim that the same work can be done to any class to make it effective doesn't change anything about the fighter. I don't agree that 11 feats isn't worthy of being a class feature. A class with double the feats of most other classes is a good feature.
Sure fighters should be raised to 4+INT skills. I'd rather see all classes that are below 6+ raised to being 6+. It's illogical that in the course of your life you only managed to be capable at 2-4 skills well with a normal intelligence.
I just don't see all the hype that people say about the fighter when I've seen fighters played well without nonsense GMs baby sitting and setting up for players and they are devastating in combat and useful outside of it. The variance of real play vs. online theory crafting creates a vast discrepancy.
We can leave the casters out. Spells imba.
Aelryinth wrote: Fighters should only beat things with a stick?
You're describing a WARRIOR.
Fighters are the OLYMPIANS of the melee set. They should be able to become excellent at every single role expected of a melee combatant, and stand shoulder to shoulder with every other melee class.
(quote trimmed)
All you've done is just reinforce my point. I expect Fighters to be the premier physical combatant, but that is entirely different to the point of the thread. Everyone is now completely diverting from the thread topic, which is how to buff Fighters to do better out of combat.
I have said they should not be buffed for out of combat, as it is not their job to do well outside of combat. Out-of-combat performance should come from the build, not the class features. If you want a highly social facepunching Fighter, up your Charisma, build your skills and damn well deal with the fact that your Bard or Paladin is going to be much more likeable or Intimidating.
The Fighter Class is not a social class. Stop trying to make it what is it not meant to be.
This is not a thread about how to fix the Fighter's existing combat flaws.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wasted wrote: The Fighter Class is not a social class. Stop trying to make it what is it not meant to be.
This is all I've ever meant by building a class within its limitations.
I don't pick a fighter and say I want to make a social guy with lots of skills and a good will save. As much as I don't pick a bard magician and say I want to be a wizard. You design a character concept. Your character is going to be those things. You pick a class to fit the character. So if you say I want to play a guy who has lots of feats and understands a variety of combat styles, wears heavy armor, and wields a weapon vs unarmed strikes or something you could grab a fighter. You wanted your guy to know so many skills, but not hurt offense too much so you grab a 13-14 intelligence and now you're pulling 3-5 skills a level maybe 6 depending on your race. No it isn't the fighter giving you this 6th skill, it's the character build which includes the fighter class. Maybe it could've worked with another class if you didn't grab a few feats, but that's now straying from what the fighter can provide.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Flawed wrote: Nicos wrote: animemetalhead wrote: Flawed wrote: Nicos wrote: Flawed wrote: 2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ int Really? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything. What are you even talking about?
Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end. I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable. yup. Yes, I did. My bad, but I wasn't saying combat expertise makes fighters good. I was implying that a feat that gives access to more combat feats has a prerequisite of 13 int and since fighters are capable of performing maneuvers its a little informative that a 13 INT will be common on fighters. Since this is the houserule forum and the OP was asking for houerule I have a very good one
(a) Take away combat expertise as a prerequisite for any other feat that is not realated to defense (Funy enough, the only feats taht have good sinergy with CE does not have that feat as a prerequisite, stalwart).
There are two completely different conversations going on in this thread, and yet the participants continue... Odd.
bookrat wrote: One idea I saw in another thread was to add up up all the hit points and skill points gained in a level (so a fighter would have 1d10 + con mod + 2 + int mod + favored class bonus) and the player could allocate any of those to hit points or skills points as they see fit. Why do we want fighters to have 2 less skill points and 2 more hit points per level?
@Wasted,
Who does all this recognizing? Players and GMs with decades of experience like me and Aelyrinth.
And Paizo designers, the yet-to-be-released book Pathfinder Unchained claims it will deal with problems that exist within the Fighter class.
The problems exist, there is no doubt about that.
Skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, History and Knowledge (local) are not class skills for the fighter limiting his out-of-combat options.
Just because a fighter's main emphasis is on combat shouldn't deprive him of a more 'balanced' skill set.
Stats play their part, although they are not the nucleus of the problem.
The weird thing is that, in a class based game, the fighter is not really a class. What I mean is that no part of the fighter informs the player of their standing in universe. What is the fighter? An adventurer could never be something so limited as that, "I fight".
Trogdar wrote: There are two completely different conversations going on in this thread, and yet the participants continue... Odd. Proud players of the fighter class will defend the class, no matter what thread it is, no matter what world it's on, even in another galaxy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Again though you represent a small portion of the gaming community. You can't claim your opinion is absolute because a few people agree with you when you're just the vocal part of the community. There's guaranteed a large portion of the community that has very little to do with these boards. I haven't heard anything about fighters being fixed in the upcoming new version only that they were redesigning the rogue.
Paizo designers have never said there is a problem with their product and they won't. Their marketing team would see that no negative publicity is given by the design team as it hurts your own product to tell people you made a bad product.
The problems do exist. They're just not as large in scope as people think they are and playing the proper stats for your class and playing to your classes strengths while using resources to shore weaknesses is the way the system works. What the designers have said and will do so again in future products guaranteed is that they did not design a game for optimizers. They created a game with a large variety of options for players to experience fun how they should choose. If everything had to be the most optimized route we can burn most of the pages of our books and just all play wizards.
Trogdar wrote: The weird thing is that, in a class based game, the fighter is not really a class. What I mean is that no part of the fighter informs the player of their standing in universe. What is the fighter? An adventurer could never be something so limited as that, "I fight". Is rage somehow different?
Fighters only get the "I fight" action if you choose to dump the stat that governs skills which happen to be the other part of the game when not in combat. You don't get to close your eyes at a theatre and then say a movie sucked because it was just sound effects. If you sacrificed your intelligence to squeeze out the extra two points of damage then maybe you deserve to sit and do nothing until more combat starts.
A well balanced build will have 3-5 skills to get some OoC utility. 2+1-2INT+1 favored bonus. Races can augment your skills further. That's a 3-5 build point. Enough stats have been tossed around this thread to show a fighter can get decent skills while still performing damage duty.
Flawed wrote: If you sacrificed your intelligence to squeeze out the extra two points of damage then maybe you deserve to sit and do nothing until more combat starts.
Slayer will have more skill ponits with way less int and they hit harder than fighter. And they also ignore prerequisites of multiple feats allowing them to master almost every combat style.
Rage is different because the barbarian class has class features that inform the player of their standing in universe by giving class features that suit a certain kind of adventurer. They have more angles to approach the game from. For all intents and purposes, the fighter has one feature that informs the narrative surrounding them, and that is bravery.
Please no hybrid classes. They're already better than most of the preceding classes that are similar.
@Trogdar
So a fighter gaining 11 bonus feats isn't a class feature to help establish your place in the universe, but rage is? Fighters are a certain kind of adventurer. The one that doesn't want to deal with keeping track of rage rounds and wants more feats than they can shake their beat stick at. Why is 11 feats just not worth anything?
Flawed wrote: Please no hybrid classes. They're already better than most of the preceding classes that are similar. Slayer are certainly not better than rangers. So, if the fighter is umalanced compared to the slayer then he is umbalanced compared to the ranger.
Says you lol. I'd take a slayer over a ranger any day.
The point is, it'd be one thing if the fighter was far and wide the best class for hitting things with other things, but there are other classes that do so just as well and with a plethora of other features that they bring to the table. The fighter just falls behind, and if he wants to contribute out of combat as effectively as another martial (not another face class, mind you, just another martial) he has to dedicate a significant portion of his limited resources into doing so.
Meanwhile the wizard is pumping his Int to infinity and making rude gestures that may or may not be arcane.
I don't think it would though and from all the arguments no one has said they want the fighter to do more damage than other similar classes. People want their fighters to be less fighters and more renaissance man. The guy who can do everything. All I've seen is that fighters get less skill points per level so they're the worst. Fighters get worse will saves so they're the worst. Fighters don't do as much damage as some optimized barbarian build so they're the worst. If it was just DPR a fighter can post comparable numbers at all levels and then wins at level 20.
A paladin gets 2+INT skills per level and has as much need of int as a fighter if not less, but because the barbarian and ranger get more skills the fighter is the worst... Under this logic everything is the worst compared to a ranger who gets more skills of the martials. A fighter with 13 int for combat expertise gets 1 less skill per level than the 10 int barb. The barb dumps int as is the norm on these boards and suddenly the fighter has MORE OoC utility than the barbarian. Weird how being the worst finds you better than some classes sometimes.
Flawed wrote: Again though you represent a small portion of the gaming community. You can't claim your opinion is absolute because a few people agree with you when you're just the vocal part of the community. There's guaranteed a large portion of the community that has very little to do with these boards. I haven't heard anything about fighters being fixed in the upcoming new version only that they were redesigning the rogue.
Paizo designers have never said there is a problem with their product and they won't. Their marketing team would see that no negative publicity is given by the design team as it hurts your own product to tell people you made a bad product.
The problems do exist. They're just not as large in scope as people think they are and playing the proper stats for your class and playing to your classes strengths while using resources to shore weaknesses is the way the system works. What the designers have said and will do so again in future products guaranteed is that hey did not design a game for optimizers. They created a game with a large variety of options for players to experience fun how they should choose. If everything had to be the most optimized route we can burn most of the pages of our books and just all play wizards.
@Flawed, I don't speak in absolutes, I'm pretty open minded when it comes to ideas about the Pathfinder game.
When people (with decades of experience)in regards to D&D and Pathfinder, claim there is a problem with the fighter class...there will be some truth involved.
How many threads are out there with people complaining about how weak clerics and wizards are? (followed by an eerie silence)
Yesterday, I spoke to Mark Seifter (Paizo designer) about Pathfinder Unchained. And he promised me innovation in regards to problems occurring because of 3.5 legacy.
And yes they have admitted to mistakes and lack of foresight about the things they have designed and the legacy concepts they inherited from D&D 3.5.
In the same vein as Aelyrinth's idea about the 'Olympic Class' fighter, the Paizo designers have a 'martial pool' on the design table. A mechanic to increase the physical capabilities of the martial classes.
Im a person with decades of experience in D&D and I'm saying you guys exaggerate the scope of the discrepancy.
And then when challenged the continual "let's compare stats vs. builds" comes up with more nonsense as each class has different needs based on stats regardless of their intent as melee type. And the whole "sure the fighter can do that facet that this class we were initially comparing to can't do, but not as well as this other class" begins to creep up and suddenly it's not comparison and just people shouting I hate fighter. Good times.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I, personally, want the fighter to be something instead of a mass of inert numbers on a poor chassis... I could be alone in this.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I really couldn't give a crap about how many years a person has played table top. It is completely irrelevant in the face of the changing nature of game mechanics through those decades. Its like someone trying to make an appeal based on their work in first edition when everyone is playing ShadowRun.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Flawed wrote: Im a person with decades of experience in D&D and I'm saying you guys exaggerate the scope of the discrepancy.
@Flawed, Putting us all in the 'exaggeration' basket is inaccurate.
Contributors to this thread have varying opinions on possible fixes to the fighter class. Even though we agree a fix is definitely needed.
Trogdar wrote: I really couldn't give a crap about how many years a person has played table top. It is completely irrelevant in the face of the changing nature of game mechanics through those decades. Its like someone trying to make an appeal based on their work in first edition when everyone is playing ShadowRun. I do take in consideration someones experience. A Paizo or WOTC designer and their extensive hand on experience with game design offers insight that I may not have.
However, it doesn't matter if you have played Pathfinder 1 day or 1 year, you have a right to your opinion.
|
