Yeah, incomplete is a good word. Is my fighter a leader of men or an errant knight? Should they not both have advantages in different social scenarios?
I'm currently playing a 3rd level Half-Orc Fighter in a pathfinder campaign.
But with house rules. Skills +4, 2 hirelings and 7 feats, 22 feats at 10th level.
So far, there is less of a disparity between the martial and spell-casting classes.
There is some min-maxing spell-casters in my group. And the house rules are necessary.
You could try borrowing the backgrounds from 5e. Basically, every character has a background that is not tied to their class, and that gives them a total of 4 languages + skills (which scale with level) and also provides some sort of social benefit, such as military rank, guild membership, or friends letting you travel for free on their ships. It pretty much guarantees that every character, regardless of class, will have something useful to contribute outside of combat.
Equivalent to Pathfinder traits (kind of).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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".
If you need this to be explained, then I think there's no hope here.
A Fighter is a master of arms, not necessarily an adventurer. A Paladin, or Barbarian or Ranger, while skilled in the use of many arms and knowledgeable of various forms of combat, is not a dedicated master.
Weaponcraft is the Fighter's vocation. That is your standing in the universe: You study the ways of combat and martial prowess. You are a master of warfare and battlefield tactics.
Other martial classes study these just enough to do their job (hell, Barbarians don't study - they just pick up steel and let rage do the talking), but for a Fighter, this IS their job. Combat is what they live, excrete and breathe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Equivalent to Pathfinder traits (kind of).You could try borrowing the backgrounds from 5e. Basically, every character has a background that is not tied to their class, and that gives them a total of 4 languages + skills (which scale with level) and also provides some sort of social benefit, such as military rank, guild membership, or friends letting you travel for free on their ships. It pretty much guarantees that every character, regardless of class, will have something useful to contribute outside of combat.
They go further than traits, in a good way. And traits in PF are very tempting to use for combat anyhow (+2 init and +1 to a save? Yes please).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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".If you need this to be explained, then I think there's no hope here.
A Fighter is a master of arms, not necessarily an adventurer. A Paladin, or Barbarian or Ranger, while skilled in the use of many arms and knowledgeable of various forms of combat, is not a dedicated master.
Weaponcraft is the Fighter's vocation. That is your standing in the universe: You study the ways of combat and martial prowess. You are a master of warfare and battlefield tactics.
Other martial classes study these just enough to do their job (hell, Barbarians don't study - they just pick up steel and let rage do the talking), but for a Fighter, this IS their job. Combat is what they live, excrete and breathe.
The thing is, it doesn't feel like the Fighter is a master of arms. For one to be a master of arms, I'd expect them to be able to overcome limitations and perform feats with their chosen weapon that no one else can do. The Fighter does not get this, since all they do is simply increase damage with one weapon. This is not special, since any class that fights has a way to increase their damage.
For example, I could say the Zen Archer is what I expect a master of bows to be. They can, using the bow, perform actions like shoot around corners or negating an enemy's invisibility through their training with their weapon. I'm sure someone can come up with even better examples of a character that has mastered a weapon, since the Zen Archer still isn't even that great of an example.
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".If you need this to be explained, then I think there's no hope here.
A Fighter is a master of arms, not necessarily an adventurer. A Paladin, or Barbarian or Ranger, while skilled in the use of many arms and knowledgeable of various forms of combat, is not a dedicated master.
Weaponcraft is the Fighter's vocation. That is your standing in the universe: You study the ways of combat and martial prowess. You are a master of warfare and battlefield tactics.
Other martial classes study these just enough to do their job (hell, Barbarians don't study - they just pick up steel and let rage do the talking), but for a Fighter, this IS their job. Combat is what they live, excrete and breathe.
I agree, Fighter is a class,
As Wasted skillfully describes it weapon-craft is a fighter's vocation.
That doesn't mean there aren't missing elements. Missing support elements.
A two-handed fighter archetype with a strength related skill that makes him able to break down doors more easily or sunder a shield spell
A free handed fighter being able to identify an opponent's AC.
Rogues can disable traps, a wizard can identify spells being cast and a fighter can climb a tree in full plate?
The Fighter doesn't FEEL like a master of arms, because of it's rules.
That doesn't invalidate the fact that Paizo intends for it to be so.
So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.
I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.
The Fighter doesn't FEEL like a master of arms, because of it's rules.
That doesn't invalidate the fact that Paizo intends for it to be so.
So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.
I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.
Homebrew rules has little to do with what Paizo intends the fighter class to be.
Anyway, what a game mechanic intends to do and what it actually does can mean two different things, hence the terms RAW and RAI.
A master of arms without any expert knowledge about anything (combat related or otherwise), or diplomatic or deceptive social powers feels like an incomplete character for many.
A valid point of inquiry.
I was replying to Lyra. I mentioned nothing about homebrew.
Paizo's intent of the Fighter concept is quite explicit; perhaps not 100% explicit, but overwhelmingly so. Everything I mentioned is inferred or lifted directly from the description of the class in the Player's Handbook.
The Fighter doesn't FEEL like a master of arms, because of it's rules.
That doesn't invalidate the fact that Paizo intends for it to be so.
If the Fighter is supposed to be a master of arms, but doesn't feel like it, then by default there is a serious problem with the class itself.
So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.
I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.
I have a feeling this wasn't directed to me, but I'll respond in case it was.
I personally am neutral on the Fighter's capability outside of combat. You'll note that I did not make any suggestions for how to improve the Fighter, both in and out of combat. I merely commented on what I saw was a flaw of the Fighter's thematic concept.
If you were to ask me what to do with the Fighter, I'd say a complete rework of the class might be necessary. But at the same time, I also think that one could even do away with the Fighter altogether, but I can imagine that suggestion would result in some heated discussions.
If the Fighter is supposed to be a master of arms, but doesn't feel like it, then by default there is a serious problem with the class itself.The Fighter doesn't FEEL like a master of arms, because of it's rules.
That doesn't invalidate the fact that Paizo intends for it to be so.
We've already established this. Way to miss the point. We know the Fighter is broken, this has been repeated ad nauseum by now.
So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.
I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.
I have a feeling this wasn't directed to me, but I'll respond in case it was.
I personally am neutral on the Fighter's capability outside of combat. You'll note that I did not make any suggestions for how to improve the Fighter, both in and out of combat. I merely commented on what I saw was a flaw of the Fighter's thematic concept.
The thread is about the out-of-combat aspects of the Fighter, specifically the lack thereof. You're simply stating the obvious. We know there is a dissonance between what the Fighter is and what is it intended to be.
If you were to ask me what to do with the Fighter, I'd say a complete rework of the class might be necessary. But at the same time, I also think that one could even do away with the Fighter altogether, but I can imagine that suggestion would result in some heated discussions.
Missing the point of the thread by a long shot. The consensus is the class as whole needs fixing. We already know this, Paizo are already on it with Pathfinder Unchained.
This is not a thread to point out the overall flaws of the Fighter. We already know what they are. It is about suggestions on how to improve the out-of-combat (or argue that no such changes are needed).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You roll dice and roleplay anyway? I'm sorry, I didn't realise GMs just magically ignored the Fighter once they put their sword back into its sheath.
Fighters have been dealing with out-of-combat situations since the tabletop RPG was invented. There are already answers to your problems within the system. They won't make you an outstanding party face, but you're not meant to be.
This is not a thread to point out the overall flaws of the Fighter. We already know what they are. It is about suggestions on how to improve the out-of-combat (or argue that no such changes are needed).
I don't understand. This contradicts your statement:
So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.
I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.
First you say that this is for suggestions of out-of-combat improvement. But before you questioned why they needed to be in the first place.
What is your point?
You roll dice and roleplay anyway? I'm sorry, I didn't realise GMs just magically ignored the Fighter once they put their sword back into its sheath.
Fighters have been dealing with out-of-combat situations since the tabletop RPG was invented. There are already answers to your problems within the system. They won't make you an outstanding party face, but you're not meant to be.
D&D 1e there was no such thing as diplomacy or bluff checks.
Those checks relied on the expertise of the player.
So an expert player of a D&D 1e fighter who could role-play tense diplomatic situations with the evil barbarian king or tell a funny story to his orc captors (a distraction, granting him the opportunity to unsheathe his hidden dagger) had plenty of out-of-combat moments to shine.
D&D 3.75 (Pathfinder) has changed all that.
@JoeJ, I agree it does limit the fighter character to sharpening his sword (again?) or telling tales of his adventures to the blind, deaf old fisherman with no friends, who is sitting by himself in the corner of the Rusty Dragon inn.
You roll dice and roleplay anyway? I'm sorry, I didn't realise GMs just magically ignored the Fighter once they put their sword back into its sheath.
Fighters have been dealing with out-of-combat situations since the tabletop RPG was invented. There are already answers to your problems within the system. They won't make you an outstanding party face, but you're not meant to be.
D&D 1e there was no such thing as diplomacy or bluff checks.
Those checks relied on the expertise of the player.
So an expert player of a D&D 1e fighter who could role-play tense diplomatic situations with the evil barbarian king or tell a funny story to his orc captors (a distraction, granting him the opportunity to unsheathe his hidden dagger) had plenty of out-of-combat moments to shine.
D&D 3.75 (Pathfinder) has changed all that.
@JoeJ, I agree it does limit the fighter character to sharpening his sword (again?) or telling tales of his adventures to the blind, deaf old fisherman with no friends, who is sitting by himself in the corner of the Rusty Dragon inn.
Largely irrelevant, and a complete cop-out. If you want your Fighter to be competent at Charisma-based checks, build your Fighter to do so.
This is not a thread to point out the overall flaws of the Fighter. We already know what they are. It is about suggestions on how to improve the out-of-combat (or argue that no such changes are needed).I don't understand. This contradicts your statement:
So...again, we come back to the "Why?". Why does a master of battle need be competent socially? The answer is: they don't. It's their job to employ their knowledge of combat and martial training to kill things.
I say again: Stop trying to make the Fighter into something it isn't meant to be.
First you say that this is for suggestions of out-of-combat improvement. But before you questioned why they needed to be in the first place.
What is your point?
It contradicts nothing. The thread asks: How do we improve the Fighter outside of combat? That is what is being asked in the OP.
I say: We don't, and I do indeed question why such changes are needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, but, that means I only get a +3 STR modifier instead of +4!!!! I'm doing +4 damage with my Greatsword instead of +6!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You could build any martial class that way, same stat array and items and favored class to skills, and still come out ahead though. Most people want the Fighter to come out on par.
How many skills do you need to be good in to have the OoC utility you're asking for? Having combat expertise means you're getting at least 3 per level. Toss in your favored class bonus as a skill for 4 per level and you're at as many as a barb gets. Perception, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Linguistics. Its not like you need the other skills to be useful in combat. Grab additional traits and make em all class skills if you can spare a trait to not grab a +1 will save and the feat. Find the appropriate item to get a +5 modifier and suddenly you have 4 skills all with out of combat purpose with a +18-20 Modifier. DC 30 Diplomacy, Perception, Sense Motive, Linguistic checks are of some value to a party I'm sure. All at the cost of a feat to gain 4 traits instead of 2 and 3 buy points to get 13 INT. Play a human and grab a bunch of skill focuses. and suddenly you're hitting 36 on a couple of your skills.
Add in allies aiding your check from a five man party and you're pushing 38-40 or 44-46 with skills you have skill focus in and depending on other people's builds. Maybe other players like the Halfling Aid another bonus and you get even more. Who know's as a real game scenario hasn't even crept into the vacuum of the boards yet.
Throw in 5 buy points, play a human and rock the 6 skill points per level you get.
STR 15+2
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 7Its really not that hard to have a decent number of skills and a well rounded PC if you're willing to have less than an 18 in a starting stat. If you have a 25 point buy go nuts and grab the 18, but less than that and you're hindering yourself in other aspects.
The main concern is that if you put that same amount of effort into another class, you always get better results. And whatever class you use to compare to this Fighter can still fight just as well.
I'm sure anyone can make any class work at least viably if they tried hard enough. But if the result is still worse in comparison to a similar class, what is the point?
How many skills do you need to be good in to have the OoC utility you're asking for? Having combat expertise means you're getting at least 3 per level. Toss in your favored class bonus as a skill for 4 per level and you're at as many as a barb gets. Perception, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Linguistics. Its not like you need the other skills to be useful in combat. Grab additional traits and make em all class skills if you can spare a trait to not grab a +1 will save and the feat. Find the appropriate item to get a +5 modifier and suddenly you have 4 skills all with out of combat purpose with a +18-20 Modifier. DC 30 Diplomacy, Perception, Sense Motive, Linguistic checks are of some value to a party I'm sure. All at the cost of a feat to gain 4 traits instead of 2 and 3 buy points to get 13 INT.
Add in allies aiding your check and you're pushing 38-40 in a five man party depending on other people's builds.
Throw in 5 buy points, play a human and rock the 6 skill points per level you get.
STR 15+2
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 7Its really not that hard to have a decent number of skills and a well rounded PC if you're willing to have less than an 18 in a starting stat. If you have a 25 point buy go nuts and grab the 18, but less than that and you're hindering yourself in other aspects.
Not convinced. The build parameters are too confined.
Fighters come in all shapes and sizes, some of them not terribly bright others have unshakable willpower.
Also traits is an optional rule not used by many people (I don't use them in my games) and so including them is really only a theoretical way of looking at out-of-combat issues not a practical one.
The Fighter's limited class skills puts him at a -3 compared to other classes when making Diplomacy or Perception rolls. Leaving the fighter the tax of investing in skill feats to be on par with everyone else.
All rules are potentially optional. Your argument is a moot point.
You have no proof that many DMs not allow traits, this is merely conjecture. Do not use yourself to represent the majority.
You still want the Fighter to be on par with other classes out of combat, when that is not their role; regardless of character background.
The build example above is a Fighter who is still competent out-of-combat for minimal investment. Regardless of whether they are -3 or -20 behind other classes in modifiers, the only question that matters is: Could they reasonably get the job done?
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
Yeah i was going to make it morale bonuses. I actually forgot to delete that reference from the Daring entry. But then I remembered how low the Bravery bonus actually is. Maybe a fighter could choose one type every time bravery increases to add to the ones he already has
Certainly this wouldn't be the only change i'd make to fighters. I already have 4 skill points per level in place in my games.
You all are forgetting the fact that the fighter lags behind -in- combat as well.
Barbarian has pounce. That literally just makes him the king of martial combat.
Ranger has a companion, spellcasting and effectively many more combat related feats than the fighter.
Paladin has healing, spellcasting and smite.
Granted, as a fighter, you rely on passive bonuses to keep you relevant in combat, but those passive bonuses (for a purely combat-oriented class) should be at least on par with the above classes, which they are not. (Yes, I take feats into consideration. The only thing the fighter is better at is two-weapon-fighting-sword-and-board, and that's still arguable with the right ranger styles.)
Considering combat very rarely lasts over... well, the barbarian is definitely going to kill everythig before his rage expires, the fighter is at a rather big disadvantage.
Yes, I know, this is DM dependant, but the majority of DMs don't make uber-long fights.
If it was a battlefield with fights lasting for hours if not days? The fighter rocks the board with his awesome passive bonuses... unless a spellcaster comes along. But since 9/10 times the fighter has no battlefield to rock, there you go.
It's a core class that seems to be effective in a very limited number of scenarios. Both in and out of combat. And anything the fighter can do out of combat, other classes can do better.
All rules are potentially optional. Your argument is a moot point.
You have no proof that many DMs not allow traits, this is merely conjecture. Do not use yourself to represent the majority.
You still want the Fighter to be on par with other classes out of combat, when that is not their role; regardless of character background.
The build example above is a Fighter who is still competent out-of-combat for minimal investment. Regardless of whether they are -3 or -20 behind other classes in modifiers, the only question that matters is: Could they reasonably get the job done?
@Wasted, traits is an optional rule (ask your GM..., APG, p. 326). And if it wasn't an optional rule, I wouldn't say otherwise. Your statement "all rules are potentially optional" is purely conjecture, manipulative conjecture at best.
Many GMs and players opt for a more restrained version of Pathfinder finding that the options bloat (and things are broken bloat) of the many source books sabotages game play. It's a fair and reasonable statement.
A cleric's role is not necessarily a diplomatic one, or one that requires vast knowledge about the local area, or about the history of the realms.
And the sorcerer's role is not defined by deception and cunning traits. Yet they all have those options given to them on a red velvet pillow.
The fighter's role is not defined by social or intellectual skills. But the above examples gives precedence to the idea that fighters (and barbarians) shouldn't be excluded from it.
Yrag the fighter (Gary Gygax's character) was always neck deep in political intrigue, as he had the necessary social and intellectual skills to interact with the outside-of-combat side of the D&D game (no diplomacy and bluff skills in D&D 1e).
One of the traditions of the fighter was social skills (and intellectual skills) and it was unfairly stripped from the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the fighter has always been the best martial leader of the classes. The experienced soldier and leader of militaries was always the fighter.
The fighter sucks at this role.
The fighter, when placed next to other martial classes in all of the five standard roles of Champion, Guardian, Sentry, Hunter and Soldier, is worse then any other class.
Do you realize the Fighter is the only martial class that doesn't get a damage bonus at level 1?
The fighter has no quasi or full magical ability to fall back on. Yet we are supposed to believe that a man with no magic is less skilled then someone who can wiggle his fingers and solve a problem without having to work hard, or some other brute from a savage background who just goes ape(^&*^ to solve his problems?
The Fighter is not on a par with the other martial classes, and he should be.
======
ANd Flawed, moving the goal posts is another sure sign of a failed argument.
Come on, bringing in the cleric to a discussion of movement speeds? A spellcaster that can whip up spells to solve the problem as they like? All of my examples used the other martial classes because that what I was comparing the fighter with. We don't go near casters.
And having a monster dex bonus to AC permitted is absolutely useless unless a) you are a Dex-centered fighter and b) you actually have the monster dex.
A suit of Mithral Celestial Plate provides for any class of heavy armor character up to a dex of 25. Exactly why does the average fighter need his class ability if +6 enhancement and +5 Inherent from a starting 13 Dex delivers him to that point?
More to the point, starting with a 14 Dex, Celestial Plate will satisfy any martial character until level 17 without using Mithral, assuming no inherents before then.
============================
and Wasted, saying 'Fighters weren't designed with social skills, so suck it up' is not an argument, when every other martial class gets some form of social power, be it from being able to buff those around them or flat out bonuses to skill checks (that may or may not be class skills).
Saying 'suck it and build up his Cha' is really saying "Don't play a fighter. Build some other martial class so you can do what you want to better."
==Aelryinth
Since this is in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew section can I recommend some third party fixes? I use url=http://paizo.com/products/btpy8wz2?A-Necromancers-Grimoire-The-Book-of- Martial-Action]The Book of Marital Action[/url]? It has been cool when people use it but to give a fighter edge in there for an upcoming game I gave Fighters a class feature that gives them an extra martial pool point for each of the martial pool feats. With the martial pool feats they have access to;
Multiple full attacks.
Save boosts against single targets.
Pounce
level one damage bonuses
All the martial pool feats are combat feats so he has the most room to abuse the ones that key off of how many you have. I tried to push it a bit by building a few fighters using the feats and I'm hoping that players will clue in that with a martial pool Fighters are mobile and lethal with fewer feats leaving room for feats that do more interesting things.
I think the biggest drawback for fighters is Weapon/Armor training rather than the bonus feats. For the most part they deal with numerical bonuses that every other class seems to get along fine without, they more directly deal with nothing outside of combat, and the fighter exclusive feats lock you into a weapon preference making Weapon Training 2, 3 and 4 borderline useless. If I wanted to replace something I'd replace weapon and armor training. Note that this doesn't include Bravery. This is because Bravery at least gives a basis for design space (Rogue Genius Games bravery feats) actually attempts to shore up a weakness even if badly, and gives some semblance of flavor.
Malwing,
You can use Armor and Weapon Training as a design basis, too.
Consider it this way:
Bravery represents a sign of mental training, discipline and confidence that scales from +1 to +5.
Weapon training represents a sign of strength, coordination and martial/offensive discipline that scales from +1 to +4 (+5 if you include level 20).
Armor Training represents a sign of endurance, toughness, movement training and defensive martial discipline that scales from +1 to +4 (+5 if you include level 19 capstone).
Now, you've got 3 sets of stats, scaling evenly from +1 to +5, which means they won't break the game, and they apply to literally everything a Fighter can do.
Now, USE THOSE BONUSES. Just for much more then they were intended!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malwing,
You can use Armor and Weapon Training as a design basis, too.
Consider it this way:
Bravery represents a sign of mental training, discipline and confidence that scales from +1 to +5.
Weapon training represents a sign of strength, coordination and martial/offensive discipline that scales from +1 to +4 (+5 if you include level 20).
Armor Training represents a sign of endurance, toughness, movement training and defensive martial discipline that scales from +1 to +4 (+5 if you include level 19 capstone).
Now, you've got 3 sets of stats, scaling evenly from +1 to +5, which means they won't break the game, and they apply to literally everything a Fighter can do.
Now, USE THOSE BONUSES. Just for much more then they were intended!
==Aelryinth
I still don't like three sets of numerical bonuses instead of something, y'know, useful.
Malwing,
You can use Armor and Weapon Training as a design basis, too.
Consider it this way:
Bravery represents a sign of mental training, discipline and confidence that scales from +1 to +5.
Weapon training represents a sign of strength, coordination and martial/offensive discipline that scales from +1 to +4 (+5 if you include level 20).
Armor Training represents a sign of endurance, toughness, movement training and defensive martial discipline that scales from +1 to +4 (+5 if you include level 19 capstone).
Now, you've got 3 sets of stats, scaling evenly from +1 to +5, which means they won't break the game, and they apply to literally everything a Fighter can do.
Now, USE THOSE BONUSES. Just for much more then they were intended!
==Aelryinth
Will we ever gonna see your version of the fighter or is it debate-only version?
You use them like this:
Iron WIll: +2 to Will saves. If you have Bravery, you may increase this by your Bravery Modifier.
Light Reflexes: Repeat with Armor Training.
Great Fort: Repeat with Weapon Training.
Dodge: Replace your Dex bonus from your Armor Training effect with the equivalent increasing Dodge bonus from this feat.
Discipline in Training: Add your Weapon Training to all Str and Coord skill checks; Add your Armor Training to all Constitution skill checks; add your Bravery to all mental skill checks. Add your Expertise modifier to all skills with a martial theme or application (such as Profession/Soldier, crafting arms/armor, Knowledge/history applying to military, Perform (military drills); Knowledge checks to discern the abilities of foes, and Sense motive/bluff checks used in combat with opposed rolls, and Perception/Stealth used to detect enemies or evade notice.)
Use the numbers, apply them creatively. Unlike 'add this stat to this check', you won't get massively inflated numbers, but instead things that provide a slow, steady bonus and scale evenly.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's unfortunate to see that a thread that began with an innocent intent like "Brainstorm ideas for home-tweaks to a class" can turn into another argument between different design viewpoints.
There isn't any victory in this debate, no prize to be won at the end of it. All it seems to do is cause vitriol among the community.
I wish we could agree to set aside our own opinions in order to help a fellow fan.
Why does a barbarian get more skills than a fighter?
|
You use them like this:
Iron WIll: +2 to Will saves. If you have Bravery, you may increase this by your Bravery Modifier.
Light Reflexes: Repeat with Armor Training.
Great Fort: Repeat with Weapon Training.Dodge: Replace your Dex bonus from your Armor Training effect with the equivalent increasing Dodge bonus from this feat.
Discipline in Training: Add your Weapon Training to all Str and Coord skill checks; Add your Armor Training to all Constitution skill checks; add your Bravery to all mental skill checks. Add your Expertise modifier to all skills with a martial theme or application (such as Profession/Soldier, crafting arms/armor, Knowledge/history applying to military, Perform (military drills); Knowledge checks to discern the abilities of foes, and Sense motive/bluff checks used in combat with opposed rolls, and Perception/Stealth used to detect enemies or evade notice.)
Use the numbers, apply them creatively. Unlike 'add this stat to this check', you won't get massively inflated numbers, but instead things that provide a slow, steady bonus and scale evenly.
==Aelryinth
maybe instead of rewriting feats altogether, you could frame this as a (long!) re-write of a single fighter class feature: Bonus Feats.
under this re-write, you could allow the fighter to select non-combat feats, then post all the synergies (like above) these general/combat feats have with existing fighter class features.
then I could tell my players "check this out >>click here<<"
Also, Aelryinth, consider starting Weapon Training four levels early, ending Armor Training V and 19th level, and double-capstoning Weapon and Armor Mastery. This'd give you +1 through +5 level-based scaling bonus for WT, AT, and Bravery - doing it's part to end the tyranny of stats to boot!
also +1 what Athel said.
Why does a barbarian get more skills than a fighter?
It's D&D (1e) legacy.
In D&D 1e, the Barbarian class had first aid, horsemanship, survival and tracking skills plus many others.
These skills were not skills like in Pathfinder, rather class abilities that functioned like skills in the game, with the exception that the barbarian character could automatically succeed at any task (that the skills relate to).
Barbarians couldn't rage, but at 9th level they could summon a 500 member barbarian horde.
The PF Barbarian has some similarities to it's ancient relative, namely 12 HD and skills.
It's unfortunate to see that a thread that began with an innocent intent like "Brainstorm ideas for home-tweaks to a class" can turn into another argument between different design viewpoints.
There isn't any victory in this debate, no prize to be won at the end of it. All it seems to do is cause vitriol among the community.
I wish we could agree to set aside our own opinions in order to help a fellow fan.
@Athel,
Agreed, a wise comment.
Everyone injects their own style into their personal campaigns.
Forums such as this one should be a place to discuss ideas, not to tell anyone how to run their campaigns or how to create their characters.
After all, there is not a wrong way or a right way, as it can be very subjective.
Why does a barbarian get more skills than a fighter?It's D&D (1e) legacy.
In D&D 1e, the Barbarian class had first aid, horsemanship, survival and tracking skills plus many others.
These skills were not skills like in Pathfinder, rather class abilities that functioned like skills in the game, with the exception that the barbarian character could automatically succeed at any task (that the skills relate to).
Barbarians couldn't rage, but at 9th level they could summon a 500 member barbarian horde.
The PF Barbarian has some similarities to it's ancient relative, namely 12 HD and skills.
Ok. So a cancerous vestigial organ.
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.
An interesting thought. I could see the fighter having a choice to make between being a Leader/Champion, Tempest, or Guard. That would greatly expand the repertoire of the fighter without making him OP during battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Flawed,
A barbarian with a Str 10/Dex 10/Con 10 is an extreme example.
Any barbarian build I design and play is worth me playing. You have no right to say otherwise. Self entitlement is toxic, "you can't do this and you can't do that." Different players have different agendas, maybe they want to break the norm and play a charismatic barbarian.
Not every post on this forum needs to be met with harsh criticism.
Politely offering suggestions and the discussion of them is vastly different to telling people what to think or offering absolute solutions.
Generally speaking, the Barbarian class has diverse variations, through archetypes (wearing heavy armour, expert light cavalry) and Gish classes (bloodrager and Skald), which grants them spell-casting ability.
Plus a 20+ history starting in D&D (1e): Unearthed Arcana ending up in Pathfinder CRB.
The spirit of D&D and Pathfinder is using your imagination and getting lost in imaginary worlds. Not extreme min-maxing and its draconian enforcement.