@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.
Nothing extreme at all. It's taking a class that's intended to be played as a martial combatant and stating it to be not its main function. This is the point around most fighter builds posted anywhere on these boards. The optimizers became vocal enough to drown out any rational thought of accepting a class with its features and dumping a feature to provide for maximum damage output. If that's the way you choose to play all the power too you. If that's the way you want to play and then complain a class can't keep up then prepare to be met with more comments like these.
I don't need to say otherwise. Your group will say otherwise when you tell them you want to play a class and show up with something that doesn't meet expectations. It's not a game about just you having fun remember and trying some concept that you think is fun could easily ruin someone else's. It's not fun to play a cleric who has to forgo their fun to play heal bot because the barbarian dumped...
Sounds like you have been a min-maxer for too long. Time to let go.
Pathfinder is not all about game mechanics. Role-playing and characterization plays a huge part. Maybe not to you, but not everyone is you and for many 'role-playing' plays a huge part in their enjoyment of the game.
Once again (self entitlement), you don't need to say, but i need to comply; telling me what my group will say or what the expectations are.
You don't know.
Try asking?
Lol. Don't tell me how to play my game, but I'm going to tell you how to play yours. Oh the hypocrisy.
I'm not a min maxer or an optimizer. I just have the capacity to read a class and understand the mechanics that govern it without trying to force it to be something it isn't and then join the band wagon of people that perpetuate these threads.
You really gotta stop trying to peddle this self entitlement nonsense on me. I have no sense of entitlement. I have a grasp of mechanics that seems to be drastically lacking from those that think a fighter shouldn't be investing in dex more than a barbarian would.
Your comment "I have the capacity to read a class and understand the mechanics," many people would interpret this as self entitlement. Everyone on this thread understands how to play Pathfinder, they understand the mechanics. It's not a privilege assigned to only you.
I personally think pure optimization is unhealthy to rpgs. It doesn't make for a better experience.
I play in a game where it doesn't matter if a barbarian or fighter has a low Dex. A game that encourages different types of characters.
House Rule: Healing bonus D10 hp (+4) + Con bonus. So a 3rd level Channel Energy (on a fighter with Con 14) heals 2d6 +12.
Having a low Dex isn't the end of the world.
Intelligent house rules can grant freedom (in creating different types of characters) not giving everyone their personal straitjacket.
Creativity is awesome.
@ Flawed
A fighter can pull off a pounce with unarmed attacks?
A barbarian can do that with a greatsword.
Natural AC with rage powers? Okay, but unlike the fighter, he still gets his dex bonus to armor, on top of having medium/light armor.
Switch hitter? Yeah, true. But then there's ranger. You can make a better switch hitter than the fighter with that. It's easy. You can take style feats for bow and more cheap melee feats. For instance, you can just take a two handed weapon and Power Attack and congratulations, you're an effective switch-hitter. You can also change the favored class bonus to anything with a spell, which you can cast unlike the fighter, and you still have a pet that has your back.
Paladin gets deflection bonus to his AC based off of the same skill that gives orbital saves, bonuses on smite and so on. Then you get an enhancement bonus, which kind of makes up for the difference in weapon training. The Fighter would need dex for this. And if he took it, he'd -still- do less damage than the paladin because of smite and be -less- relevant in combat because of the paladin's ability to heal and cast spells and just do whatever.
Dude, it's not situational. The fighter is worse at doing anything than anyone else.
You may argue archetypes here, but if you look at them, somehow the best and most significant abilities they offer are all level 17 or later.
It's just meh. If you look at the system from an eagle's eye point, you realise that the fighter is the class that was altered and created in the system first of all, then all the other classes were just: "Oh, okay, I've got this dude. What kind of classes can I make to give them cool unique flavour? Oh, there's this guy! And this guy! And this guy! And then that guy could have this, oh and this and this... *Looks back at the fighter* Well, that would be a bit unfair... Oh well!"
P.S. : Dude, cheer the fu#^ up. This isn't personal at any stage or point in time, and you're taking it that way.
Not to mention, applying Mithral to Celestial Plate takes the Core rules...mithral is an applied template you can apply to any armor.
And all archetypes are from splatbooks.
Comparing a full caster like a cleric to a min-caster like a ranger or a paladin just shows that you don't know how to carry an equivalent conversation. Major spellcasters will trump melee abilities regardless. Complaining that I ignore major spellcasters while citing minor ones is because this conversations is about martials who happen to have spellcasting, not because they are spellcasters who, if they choose, can whup ass.
Hey, barbs can take Pummeling Charge with BETTER unarmed strikes then the fighter, too, and don't have to take the pounce line...and then can take Dragon Wings or an inbuilt miss chance, too!
Good luck doing the same with your bonus combat feats.
And you do the classic mistake of posting builds at level 20, and then using different base stats to compare them. Uh huh. Then you say that not starting fighters with a massive dex is 'wrong'. Uh, huh. Which means you have now moved the argument from class features to builds and stat manipulation...neither of which means a bloody thing, in context.
And a barb that wants to benefit from high Dex will use Celestial Mail or Mithral Celestial Plate like a good fellow. You conveniently ignore them since they will blow your argument out of the water.
I'm also gravely amused by how the Barb having 2 less Dex results in 5 less AC.
Your arguments are flawed and off course, and very self-serving.
And The whole 'wiggle your fingers' thing is a reference to the RANGER. Who can wiggle his fingers and do stuff, completely bypassing the need for skills, and yet still is somehow worthy of 6 skill points a level. A fighter, who cannot cast at all, has 2. The paladin, who can cast, properly has 2 skill points.
It's annoying. It's inherently unequal, and it should be fixed.
==Aelryinth
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.
Which I mostly did. I gave Bravery the level 18 capstone, Armor the 19 and Weapon the 20. But changed them all so they were appropriate abilities for the level.
I added Weapon Training 0/+1 at level 1. Weapon Focus/Spec doubles Weapon Training mods. So at first level, if you are a fighter, you take Weapon Focus, specialization kicks in if it's your Primary weapon, and you are...+1/+2 with your primary weapon. :)
I suppose I could just list the feats and say what a Fighter gets with them as a Technique. Regardless, it's still a time-intensive project. There are a LOT of feats out there.
In addition, just adding numbers doesn't solve the problem. You have to condense feat trees down to actual class features. So you end up doing a feat rewrite into Greater Feats/Techniques/Whateveryouwannacallthem anyways.
==Aelryinth
Kobold Press released some condensed combat feats and they seem to be helping out with the game. I'm surprised as to how few feats need to be condensed before most of the other feats become attractive. So it's not exactly a daunting task to rewrite feats.
But earlier I did kind of want to talk about the other fighter class features because I think combat feat fixes are for everyone's sake. I want to know if there are any suggestions on what to do outside of combat because I feel confident that with my current set of house rules and third party products that fighters can be as if not more lethal as every other class but I have yet to really address utility or flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The areas fighters are weak in:
Social Skills.
Group buffs.
Non-combat skills.
Downtime contribution. (alchemist makes alchemy, casters make magic, fighter sits on his duff?)
Lack of ability to train and expand repertoire of abilities and stats (contrast to ever expanding spell lists).
Movement, all modes.
Defenses, all modes, but esp. vs magic.
===========
Kindly note that DPR is not on the list.
Note that combat feats basically address NONE of these issues, nor do his class abilities. So condensed feats doesn't mean much, unless you expand the basket of feats.
===Aelryinth
The areas fighters are weak in:
- Ability to influence events ocurring more than a bowshot away.
- Exploration and intelligence gathering- Narrative-altering abilities
Two of those basically force the fighter to become leader of an organization to do it realistically. But, of course, the fighter doesn't provide any benefits to his organization, and doesn't do Leadership better then any other class.
:/
==Aelryinth
Two of those basically force the fighter to become leader of an organization to do it realistically.
Agreed.
But, of course, the fighter doesn't provide any benefits to his organization, and doesn't do Leadership better then any other class.
As currently written, that's true, but it need not be.
Kobold Press released some condensed combat feats and they seem to be helping out with the game.
Where?
@Aelyrinth
Glosz has created a link to our Combat and Monk Techniques house rule.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rk3o?house-rules
However, the first draft included all the feats, but ended up being scaled back to Core+ APG feats.
And the final design parameters was 5 feats per technique, no racial combat feats.
Making a feat tree list is easy. The Pathfinder SRD has them all listed.
End the oppression of fighters, put the strength back into their sword swings.
@Aelyrinth and @Malwing, yes it doesn't address social skills, utility or flavor. But it's a good start.
Having the Leadership feat as 'fighter only' expands a Fighter's options...maybe some add-on house rules to provide role-playing hooks (or flavor) and options for out-of-combat utility. For example followers can be busy building or upgrading a castle.
@Kirth Gersen, your comment about the Fighter not being able to influence future events is an insightful one. Never thought about the Fighter's problems from that angle. Ah, another house rule is needed now.
I've seen those, Mosz, and I was impressed with the simplicity of condensing them down.
However, I wanted feats that synergized with class abilities. Yours is the condensation of feat chains, which is one chunk of the battle. The other is tying them to fighter class abilities, so that you can't just say "Class X counts as a fighter for purposes of learning these feats" et al.
Which is what would happen. If you simply make them better due to class synergies, not so easily duplicated.
========
Kirth, I completely understand the point you're coming from. WHen I worked on my fighter rewrite, I included several things that helped out followers, including an AoE morale effect that helped followers more then others, expanded leadership score, and the ability to train up followers. At a higher level, he even doubled his leadership, to the point of having two cohorts, AND any followers of his followers were considered followers of his for all effects.
The effect he could have on a game became massive.
But, it all relied on Leadership being allowed. The best way to do that was to restrict the fighter's leadership to non-casting classes, so you couldn't have a pocket mage making up for the leader's lack of spells. If he chose a cohort with magical abilities, he lost his extra Leadership abilities. Thus, he's encouraged to grab a fellow fighter and train him up...which, you know, is what fighters do. Train others to follow in their footsteps.
But dunno how THAT would go over, either.
==Aelryinth
Aelyrinth, Ok, I think I'm seeing where you are coming from...
Giving the Fighter class its niche.
Do Fighter Archetypes fill that niche? Only a two-handed fighter can do double Str damage with Overhand Chop. That's a unique ability. Has synergy with the Power Attack and Vital Strike feats.
Maybe the problem is with the Core fighter, Armor Training isn't crash hot and the Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization feat tree is the only Fighter specific feat tree (kind of, the Magus gets access), not brilliant, still pretty good.
Possibly more Fighter specific feats. I do like the counter feats in the Advanced Class Guide (Monk, Swashbuckler only), the ones that counter things like the Mobility feat. Maybe a Fighter version?
I think a problem is that the Fighter is perceived as a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none class and sub-classes: Cavalier and Swashbuckler are the classes that have the unique abilities and mechanics.
And if you really want to go nuts take the Lore Warden archetype and that 6 per level becomes 8. If you want your Fighter to be a social animal take a trait that makes diplomacy a class skill and remember that Intimidate is already one for you.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 few 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.
No one doubts that a fighter character can pick a specific race, traits and feats to get more skill points.
A Wizard can have high Strength, select the Weapon Focus and Martial Weapon Proficiency feats, use some buffing and protection spells and be proficient at melee combat. Nothing compared to the Magus class though, as the Magus has synergy with class abilities and class function.
The issue is the Fighter class is missing certain elements from its design.
The issue is the Fighter class is missing certain elements from its design.Technically, EVERY class is missing elements from it's design. No one gets to do everything. Your standard wizard and sorcerer for instance, tends to such at healing and restorative magic. And the wizard tends to be a lousy face, and the sorcerer only really skilled at deception, though he'll have some native talent for diplomacy, unless he's one of those sage types.
The only real issue with Fighters are those players who create low intelligence nitwits and then complain that they don't have the skill point budget for skills. The rest of the complaints are from those who seem tho think the only meaningful out of combat options are things that must involve mechanic or power rolls.
What actually needs to be put into the Fighter, if anything, is subject to debate.
A Wizard and a Cleric are Tier 1 classes.
A Fighter is a Tier 6 class.
I've never seen someone try to debate the validity of the Fighter vs. Wizard and Cleric Tier structure. It's common knowledge.
Low Int nitwits and players relying on the power roll are extreme examples. What is the average example: A Wizard flying round blasting enemies with his Wand of Fire Balls with 50 charges while the fighter character is surrounded by enemies on the ground getting the **** beaten out of him.
Or clock watching while the Wizard and Cleric are crafting magical items.
We all already know the problem, can we drum up some solutions?
Fighter being able to kill stuff is easily solved but what about affecting things without murder?
Well, the fighter needs some direction. There are essentially 3 archetypes (not pathfinder's class archetypes) that fighters fall into when actually roleplayed. Leaders, Daredevils, and Guards.
By leader, I mean a charismatic and/or intelligent warrior; an example would be Roy from Order of the Stick. They are not necessarily knights, but they can rally up troops and come up tactical solutions.
Daredevils on the other hand like to get into the thick of things. They are the vanguards who will rush to the front of battle. They tend to be acrobatic, running and jumping over obstacles. Skill and agility along with martial prowess. Outside of battle they would be show offs, dazzling people with their display of athletics and weapon mastery. Not always, but often gamblers and drinkers.
Guards are the watchful type, they usually have a specific person or order for whom they work. They tend to be very perceptive and have a keen sense of danger. They try to protect their allies in and out of combat. They should have a resolve and awareness of trickery and debauchery as well as the defense to stop physical attacks.
Now... one could say that these players should just be a different class, but those other classes have stigmas attached to them that make it difficult to properly roleplay. It would be like telling a wizard to just play a witch because it is also an int based caster class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically an INT fighter (leader), a CHA fighter (Daredevil), and a WIS fighter (Guard).
Running with that logic how about this;
A leader needs to be tactical and be able to lead. So would need things like;(not necessarily at the same time) Bravery bonus to Diplomacy/Intimidate. Good Will save. Can daily retrain combat feats. Can temporarily grant combat feats to allies. Knowledge local and/or nobility. 4+INT skills per level. If possible key some abilities to INT.
A Daredevil should be about to perform physical stunts better through force of will and willingness to be reckless, so should have things like; Bravery bonus to Acrobatics/initiative. Good Ref save. Higher base speed. Counter attack mechanic. Cha to AC.
A Guard should be able to guard things and react well so would need things like; Bravery Bonus to Initiative/Intimidate. Knowledge local/nobility/perception as class skills. Early entry into combat patrol. Attack interception mechanic. Bigger hit die. Bonuses to disabling combat maneuvers.
The thing that they have in common is Courage so unify Bravery to scale some of those things and add a reputation mechanic, a new demoralization/intimidation option, tactic assessment mechanic. I know people don't like Antagonize but being able to control enemies to some kind of extent would probably be cool if exclusive to the fighter. Do something scary that makes them five foot step away from you unless they make a will save. Be able to apply shaken or panicked conditions. Would work in conjunction with Intimidate/diplomacy bonuses or buffs.
I use Six duties for Melee classes:
Champion: The solo, elite fighter. The melee who gets to go toe to toe with the big bad by himself. subsumes the duelist. Str based. Can also be the killer Archer.
Best done by Barbs; smiting paladins; FE rangers; challenging cavs.
Sentry: Protectors/Defenders. Subsumes bodyguard and sentinel. ability to sense attacks, intercept them, and not be swerved from their duty. Preternatural alertness a requirement. Wis centered.
Fav Ter Rangers are best at this, and Paladins who can sense evil, + Barbs with uncanny dodge.
Hunter: The ability to go out and kill a foe using whatever means are possible. Stalkers and assassins. Stealth and commando tactics a given.
FE Rangers dominate. So can Rogues.
Soldier: The tough guys who specialize in teamwork, take whatever the enemy throws at them and come back for more. This is the army, guys.
Might be the ONLY thing the Fighter is good at, because battles last longer then rage rounds. However, no healing, and if they are fighting a FE, Ranger is a better choice. COn based, toughness is everything.
Marshal: The leader who buffs an army. Fighters indubitably suck at raising armies and leading them. Cha based.
Paladins who can give smites and stop fear; barbs granting rage; Rangers granting guide bonuses; cavalairs issuing orders. Of course, the bard puts them all to shame.
The Master: The expert who knows everything about combat and passes it on to others. The int-based fighter, so classic an archetype it is almost a standard. The makers of weapons and forgers of armor, if applicable.
The ranger, with the most skill points, wins this one, especially if you're talking a mono-racial society. FE: Humans stacked up will be way better then Weapon Spec at any level if you are a duelist, for example.
==========
The Fighter might be okay at soldier, but seriously, if you're a captain of Lastwall, would you rather be leading 200 f/4's against the orc threat, or a bunch of r/4's with FE: Orcs, healing magic, the same number of feats, and 6 skill points? It's not like there's any pre-reqs for rangers now. :/
==Aelryinth
Like I had an idea the fighter might be a bit more appealing if he had some way to perform well in social encounters. As if he exudes so much confidence in his skills and abilities he has a sort of personal magnetism that attracts people to him, maybe so much so he can be a "face" character.
Maybe this is a stupid idea. Just something I thought of, I'd love anyone's opinions on whether this is a good/bad idea or the actual crunch of this feature. A scaling bonus like Bravery, perhaps?
<@><@>
This is what Mult-Classing is for. Take a few levels in Bard, Rogue, or Sorcerer. Depending on statues. But the figher not getting a lot of ability out of combat, is/was, at one time the trade off vs rogue.
Still think the two should just be combined into one class "Adventure", and get the best of both worlds.
...
Since this was posted in house rules. :)
You could give your Fighter (all classes really), Bonus Skill points at first level = to there Int score. They have to spend all the skill points before 1st level, and they can not have more that 5 skill points to any one skill at first level before starting... Then they use the skill points as normal At and After 1st level.
This let's PC (( and NoN-PC, lets be fair )), be skilled in a few skill right off the bat, that are caped, until there level get high enough to overcome the cap.
Example: Fighter with Int 12, could start out with : 5 skill in Ride, 5 skill in stealth, and 2 skill in Intimidate... he can not point any more points in ride or stealth till he had 6 HD or greater, and no more into Intimidate till he had 3 HD or greater..
On the other hand, he could have put: 3 in Acrobatics, 3 in climb, 3 in Stealth, 3 in Survival. Would not be able to put any more skill point into any of these till he was 4 HD or greater.
.... Anyway, fought it was a great way to give 1st level PC and more importantly, 1st level NPC, some skill to perform there Job and Professions with.
Similar to the House rule, PC/NPC start out with there Con score in HP at 1st level, and then roll class hp as normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've yet to see that in practise. In PFS, the wizards are generally too poor to buy 50 charge wands, and most folks who decide to make themselves an aerial target at 5th-6th level live just long enough to regret it.The issue is the Fighter class is missing certain elements from its design.Technically, EVERY class is missing elements from it's design. No one gets to do everything. Your standard wizard and sorcerer for instance, tends to such at healing and restorative magic. And the wizard tends to be a lousy face, and the sorcerer only really skilled at deception, though he'll have some native talent for diplomacy, unless he's one of those sage types.
The only real issue with Fighters are those players who create low intelligence nitwits and then complain that they don't have the skill point budget for skills. The rest of the complaints are from those who seem tho think the only meaningful out of combat options are things that must involve mechanic or power rolls.
What actually needs to be put into the Fighter, if anything, is subject to debate.
A Wizard and a Cleric are Tier 1 classes.
A Fighter is a Tier 6 class.
I've never seen someone try to debate the validity of the Fighter vs. Wizard and Cleric Tier structure. It's common knowledge.
Low Int nitwits and players relying on the power roll are extreme examples. What is the average example: A Wizard flying round blasting enemies with his Wand of Fire Balls with 50 charges while the fighter character is surrounded by enemies on the ground getting the **** beaten out of him.
Or clock watching while the Wizard and Cleric are crafting magical items.
I have seen it in practice for 25 years: D&D (Oe), D&D (1e), D&D (2e), D&D (3.5e) and Pathfinder.
To be fair, the 'pathfinder experience' can vary– the amount of a player's gaming experience, online/offline play, style of campaign, player character party composition, party wealth etc.
A quick note: the Tier structure isn't a measure of power (like D&D 4e), it categorizes character class by how many different things a class can do and how well they are at doing it.
For example: A Cleric can fight in melee combat, bend the rules of reality (Stone Shape spell, escape a crushing wall trap by shaping a doorway in a wall), heal himself and others better than any other class, detect various things (evil, invisible, upcoming events).
A fighter can only do one of those above things- fight in melee combat.
In response to the flying Wizard with a fireball wand: more often than not, melee attacks are more deadly and numerous, and flying around gives them immunity to those attacks.
Also a Wand of Fireballs has a range of 600 ft. At 600 ft. you are out of range of most spells and return fire from a composite longbow has a -12 to hit. And yes you can't use this powerful tactic inside subterranean dungeons, although there still is plenty of outdoor scenarios in the Pathfinder Adventure Paths.
I'm not suggesting to ban the Fireball spell, Although like many others I feel like the Fighter class is at too much a disadvantage.
In 5e one of the fighter archetypes has a "Know Your Enemy" ability that lets the fighter interact with or observe another creature for 1 minute in order to learn that creature's physical abilities, current hit points, armor class, or class level (player's choice of 1), measured as lower, higher, or the same as the fighter's. Something like that might make a good fighter-only feat.
Although it is an interesting ability, I don't think it has much practical use for Fighter characters.
When does a heavily armored Fighter have the opportunity to observe his enemy for 10 rounds (1 minute)? Rarely. Maybe a gladiator type character observing a rival's combat techniques. Or if a campaign setting has a culture of frequent dueling between well-known opponents.
There is a sense of immediacy to melee combat, the intense waiting before the sudden clash of steel against steel, the cacophonous song of sword fighting. Fighters need an ability that allows them to quickly assess their opponents.
The D&D 5e ability 'Know your Enemy' is better suited to rogue snipers and assassins.
In 5e one of the fighter archetypes has a "Know Your Enemy" ability that lets the fighter interact with or observe another creature for 1 minute in order to learn that creature's physical abilities, current hit points, armor class, or class level (player's choice of 1), measured as lower, higher, or the same as the fighter's. Something like that might make a good fighter-only feat.
Although it is an interesting ability, I don't think it has much practical use for Fighter characters.
When does a heavily armored Fighter have the opportunity to observe his enemy for 10 rounds (1 minute)? Rarely. Maybe a gladiator type character observing a rival's combat techniques. Or if a campaign setting has a culture of frequent dueling between well-known opponents.
There is a sense of immediacy to melee combat, the intense waiting before the sudden clash of steel against steel, the cacophonous song of sword fighting. Fighters need an ability that allows them to quickly assess their opponents.
The D&D 5e ability 'Know your Enemy' is better suited to rogue snipers and assassins.
The fighter can use this ability to help decide whether or not to call the bluff of a noble at the king's court, or to detect a trained assassin disguised as a humble servant. It can clue the fighter in that an NPC is more - or less - than they claim to be, or reveal that somebody familiar to the party has been replaced by a doppleganger, simulacrum, or other imposter. Know Your Enemy is not a combat ability; it's something that would mostly be used in social situations. And it's something useful that the bard and the wizard can't do.
Okay, point taken. It does have use for a Fighter character then.
More useful to rogue and assassins. Because they can use it as a combat and non-combat ability.
However, to be fair, it's a bit of an exaggeration (of Know your Enemy's result) that knowing if a noble has a higher class than your character (or more hit points), can help you determine if he or she is an assassin, doppleganger or imposter.
A Cleric (or Paladin) can already do this, only more effectively. A Detect Evil spell informs the player of HD, Class level and Caster Level more precisely and can penetrate barriers and can recognize if higher level enemies recently visited an area.
Know your Enemy would not be a unique ability for the Fighter, but a small (and welcome) expansion of his perception-related combat abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's so bad about fighters vs. wizards. Wizards suck. I couldn't even cast spells because I dumped my intelligence on my wizard. Stupid wizards. Not even capable of using their own class features. Reminds me of barbarians who can't do damage well because they have no strength.
the same number of feats.Rangers get the same number of feats as a fighter? Must have missed that part in the ranger entry. 5 bonus combat feats + endurance does not equal 11 bonus combat feats regardless of rangers being able to ignore prerequisites. Rangers are bound to a single combat style with their feats. A fighter has no such restriction.
A Cleric (or Paladin) can already do this, only more effectively. A Detect Evil spell informs the player of HD, Class level and Caster Level more precisely and can penetrate barriers and can recognize if higher level enemies recently visited an area.The fighter ability works vs. anyone. Detect evil/chaos/good/ law works vs. the specific description only. Evil/chaos/good/law.
Casting spells requires resources the fighter didn't spend. This reduces the overall effectiveness of a class to have to spend their resources on things like this when their spells provide better effect elsewhere. This is the problem with arguing spells win. Sure they can, but it's better to have used a spell for something more useful and let the fighter use his mundane trick. Much like the rogue picking a lock. Why waste a second level spell slot on knock if the rogue can do it and you can use that second level spell to use a scorching ray/mirror image/blur/anything more useful than knock.
So happy to see you taking things out of context and undercutting yourself again.
Note the sentence was used in CONTEXT. "What would you rather have, a bunch of F/4's or r/4's?" And funny enough, r/4's have the same number of feats as f/4's, + a spell a day, + can use healing wands, + get 6 skill points, + get a damage bonus vs an FE, + can grant FE or have a tough pet. Weird how that works. The fighter probably spent two of his three feats just so he has a useful damage bonus with one weapon!
Do you always snip posts and then take things out of context so you can make another irrelevant and erroneous point that is inapplicable? All it does is make you look petty. Please stop it.
And for practical purposes, a combat line of feats for the archer is exactly the same as a weapon spec line for the fighter. Except they are not tied to one weapon, and the fighter is (or at the best, one group of weapons). It's the fighter who is not only limited to one fighting style, but one weapon within that style, if they wish to stay relevant.
Too, the fighter takes those exact same feats for the exact same weapons...except for some reason the ranger ignores reqs and can get some of them 6 levels before the fighter can. Being able to skip feats is worth a feat all by itself.
And your 'spells aren't needed' argument also falls flat. It's because with spell resources, you don't need the rogue, and you don't need the fighter...the caster can perform both of those jobs, so get rid of the rogue and bring a caster using versatile spells who can ALSO perform any other role with a little preparation, and then get another caster that can either go into melee combat or summon in things to take over that role, and IN ADDITION perform other roles as needed.
Spells DO win.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The areas fighters are weak in:- Ability to influence events ocurring more than a bowshot away.
- Exploration and intelligence gathering
- Narrative-altering abilitiesBut who else isn't lacking narrative power like you say next to full casters. Not all magic gives you grandiose narrative power. Narrative power can come from role playing and making bonds with NPCs that will provide future benefits. Influencing people that doesn't have to always do with a diplomacy check if you make friends with someone.
A Wizard and a Cleric are Tier 1 classes.
A Fighter is a Tier 6 class.
I've never seen someone try to debate the validity of the Fighter vs. Wizard and Cleric Tier structure. It's common knowledge.
Low Int nitwits and players relying on the power roll are extreme examples. What is the average example: A Wizard flying round blasting enemies with his Wand of Fire Balls with 50 charges while the fighter character is surrounded by enemies on the ground getting the **** beaten out of him.
Or clock watching while the Wizard and Cleric are crafting magical items.
If you built your fighters with some defensive prowess to go along with their offensive prowess using his built in class features maybe they wouldn't be getting beat up so badly on the ground and would be the rock in the storm.
That wizard flying around also makes a great pin cushion by identifying himself as a threat and singling himself out of combat so anyone with a bow can attack without the need of precise shot.
Yawn. retreading invalid arguments again.
Stormwind Fallacy. The wizard and cleric can hobnob with NPC's and build bonds and change the story. The sorc, oracle and bard can do it, and have Cha as a primary stat so they are awesome at it.
AND they have massive ability to dictate the narrative.
Seriously, dude, when you talk about classes, kindly restrict yourself to the class features. ANYONE can roleplay. But full casters can roleplay and dominate the narrative.
---
And now you're assuming the fighter player is stupid and doesn't have defenses. Newsflash, the fighter can focus on defense and still get the crap kicked out of him. It's not like he has spells and class buffs to juice his defenses. His sole class defense buff is him actually getting to make use of his Dex while in armor, a buff pretty much every other class can get.
Another newsflash. A great number of the foes a party fights don't have effective ranged attacks.
Another newsflash. THe wizard knows he's a target. Mirror Image, Displacement, Blink, Wind Wall, Fickle Winds and Improved Invisibility are all fine ways of dealing with that problem. But you're also assuming the wizard is an idiot, as well, and doesn't have any defenses.
Please assume the other poster has a modicum of intelligence and knowledge of tactics...even if he is using a Fireball wand, probably to lay low an army of enemies whose bosses didn't equip them all with bows...which, you know, was actually pretty standard. Only in the modern day does every soldier have a ranged attack.
==Aelryinth
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you haven't got a problem with the fighter why don't you go play one, instead of arguing with people who do have a problem, and are trying to fix them on HOMEBREW section of the forum?
Aelryinth is no less guilty for the argument, but at least he is giving suggestions for OP, while you are just telling everyone: "Go home, nothing to see here".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
r/4's have the same number of feats as f/4'sFighter bonus feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Ranger bonus feats: 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 18
What am I missing? A f/4 has more feats than a r/4 and they always do and continue to gain more.
Do you always turn to insults and personal attacks when proven wrong and move the goal posts again and again because you don't like being wrong on the interwebs?
Stormwind FallacyLol. Stormwind Fallacy. It's the cry of the boards. Where did I say you can't optimize if you want to role play or vice versa. I said a fighter doesn't need a class feature to talk to people and develop relationships with NPCs to accomplish things. Sure, this is true of all classes so what's your point. Spells are NOT the only means of affecting narrative. The only fallacy is the argument that spells win all the time.
a buff pretty much every other class can get.What other classes get it? Where's the validation of your erroneous claims. Everyone gets a dex bonus while in armor. A fighter gets an even bigger one wearing the exact same armor. Not the same thing at all. Other classes don't get this. Stop trying to minimize what a class can do by making false claims.
And for practical purposes, a combat line of feats for the archer is exactly the same as a weapon spec line for the fighter. Except they are not tied to one weapon, and the fighter is (or at the best, one group of weapons). It's the fighter who is not only limited to one fighting style, but one weapon within that style, if they wish to stay relevant.And yet there's archetypes that trade out weapon training entirely. Sounds legit.
It's because with spell resources, you don't need the rogue, and you don't need the fighterAnd by using spell resources to mitigate tasks like climbing, unlocking doors, bypassing any scenario you've now reduced your...
Aaaand you can't add, either.
Technically, Animal companion is a feat under PF. Track is a feat under the 3E system. And nitpicking numbers is a sure sign of a lost argument. I'll weigh those two against the fighter's heavy armor prof and call it a wash. O, wait, I already did! Funny how people do think ahead like that.-----------------
As for insults, do you always assume the other posters are stupid and belittle them to prove your point? Because that is entirely your posting style. Being called on it seems to upset you.
----------------
And belittling the Stormwind Fallacy is the cry of people who don't know how the game works. Because it is TRUE. You lost the argument when you moved from class features to 'roleplay'. THe Stormwind Fallacy has covered that argument for TEN YEARS.
How does it feel to be bring up outdated arguments and think they are fresh and applicable, so much so that an entire Trope is named after their irrelevance?
-----------
Hey, look at that, taking things out of context again. Great, you're showing your snippiness again. Newsflash, every class can get their full dex bonus to AC in armor if they bother to try. You know, those DEFENSIVE PLANS you were saying the fighter should have. It's like you think other classes can't do the same. And we already showed what Celestial Armor can do. It isn't until the late late late game when you are looking at AC scores of 32+ that the Fighter's class features get him something other classes can't get.
So, yes, pretty much every other class can get that buff.
-----
And look archetypes that trade out the fighter's ability to do damage. Amazing how irrelevant they are to the argument. What was your point, here? That fighters are worse at their primary job, instead of secondary ones?
-----
And by using spell resources by the character who is TASKED TO DO THAT JOB, you are doing exactly what you should be doing. Except, of course, that caster can do other jobs instead of just combat and skills. Which makes the melee and skill monkey irrelevant.
You seem to think spellcasters should be all spell support. I think you need to learn how to play casters doing a specific job in the party, not just doing what YOU think a caster should be doing.
It's like you think there's a rogue or fighter in the same party, standing around. No, the party doesn't NEED them. In their place, you get a melee caster and a skill caster, and can get tons more versatility. Leave those two at the inn. After all, they don't even have the OPTION of having a second fireball prepared to hit the hoard of enemies, yet somehow it's better then having a caster that does?
----
I'm not assuming anything about the enemy, other then looking at published modules and the sheer variety of monsters and noting, hey, not many monsters have ranged attacks, bows and lots of archery feats aren't all the common, and wizards can easily prepare to bypass those things. And you don't see those things on non-humanoid monsters at all.
But you seem to think wizards aren't smart enough to take into account that the 20% of enemies who stand back and use ranged fire can be subverted. It's like you're playing idiot wizards, genius monsters. What game is that, now?
-----------
I haven't seen anything helpful from you, Flawed, that doesn't amount to 'Suck it up, Fighters suck, assign your stats so they suck at their main job, beg the GM for high point buy, and don't play the game until 15th level when you can have this massive int so you can have fewer skill points then the Barb does, still, and be nowhere as good in a fight."
Or maybe you think you're providing helpful advice when you're pouring on the derogatories and outdated arguments?
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Flawed,
You are baiting, a breach of the code of conduct of Paizo forums.
This is not the first time you have done this. Acting like the premier authority in past threads "why aren't you fixing the fighter" and "why don't fighters get epic at high levels."
You want to win an argument by any means. You even contradict past statements you have made just so you can try to dominate conversation.
Flawed stated "Arcane casters should be heavily restricted by the sheer number of spells available and the powers to be in tune with. If a wizard had to choose 4 schools and lose all access to other schools or suffer some reduced spell progression or number per day to access more things would be very different in terms of balance and versatility."
In this thread, Flawed stated "Casting spells requires resources the fighter didn't spend. This reduces the overall effectiveness of a class to have to spend their resources on things like this when their spells provide better effect elsewhere."
Homebrew threads is a place where people can get feedback for their homebrew rules and discuss and share ideas.
I may not agree with all the ideas that Aelyrinth, JoeJ, Malwing, and Keren propose, yet I respect their approach to game design. Game design intention is very subjective. We all want something different from the Pathfinder game.
Start your own thread, instead of trying to hijack others. Easily have a catchy title "Why Flawed is the only person who understands how to effectively build a character" or "Fighter Handbook for Dummies: Flawed's Fighter is more powerful than a Wizard."
D&D (3.5) Tome of Battle integrated skills with combat ability.
The Diamond Mind discipline relied on the Concentration skill to execute maneuvers. The Diamond Nightmare Blade maneuver needed a Concentration check (enemy AC= DC) to deal 4 times normal damage.
In Pathfinder, the only skills I think of that do this is the Bluff and Intimidate Skills.
The Dazzling Display feat relies on an Intimidate skill check and Improved Feint feat relies on the Bluff skill.
Firstly should the Bluff skill be a class skill for Fighters?
Secondly, to deal with Fighter OOC utility do we need to dig deeper into the mechanics of skills and combat ability.
IMO it's possible fighters are labelled as 'dumb fighters' because their class skills are less important to them as other classes. The Spellcraft skill is a vital skill to spell-casters and it can be used in combat and OOC.
Does this varied use (of the Spellcraft skill) also provide stronger role-playing hooks. Malwing brought up an interesting point that fighters have less flavor than other classes.
The old Stormwind Fallacy debate brought attention to non associated mechanics (or design choices) in character builds in contemporary rpgs like Pathfinder.
Aelyrinth has posted many times about static bonuses and how they don't contribute to the versatility of the fighter (the Weapon Specialization feat provides a bonus to damage, yet it doesn't expand the fighter's combat options).
Making weapon specialization kind of non-associative because specialization with a weapon should involve something more than just damage.
Does Pathfinder need more mechanics and options for fighters, which provides roleplaying hooks?
In addition to extra skill points, maybe you could let each player choose 2-4 other skills that count as class skills for their character. They could represent the character's upbringing or something they did before they started adventuring.
Like in D&D 5e? I was GM for a D&D next game, Murder in Baldur's Gate.
Great GM screen concept (map of Baldur's Gate), interesting NPCs and Roleplaying events. Read a review of a D&D 5e adventure apparently not to the same standard if Justin Alexander's (The Alexandrian) review is anything to go by.
Pathfinder's Adventure Path still dominates as the premier published adventure.
Back to the matter at hand, my players loved the D&D Next system that provides skills and bonuses separated from class. But will it work in Pathfinder? you would have to do it across the board and has potential to be abused by meta-gamers.
Although I do like the idea.
|
it'd be easy enough to replace Traits (as a system) with Backgrounds (as a similar system)
i cant remember if my complaint with Traits is that there aren't enough of them (!) or that there is no uniformity across them (some are way better than others!)
Currently, I give my players 3 traits (one must be a campaign trait) to start, and another at levels 2, 5, and 8 (and they can 're-train' a trait at those levels too), for a total of 6 eventually (max two traits per category).
traits are just like feats. Some are good, some are bad, and their power level is not consistent. Only if they are cookie cutters of one another is it relevant.
--------
JoeJ, here's a workaround for both skills and skill points for fighters for you.
A fighter gets 2 skill points per level.
His base class skills are Craft/Profession, Intimidate, and Athletics (Climb/Swim/Acrobatics).
If he starts the game as a Fighter, he adds any two skills of his choice to his skill list. This reflects the training in his school of combat.
No character receives armor or weapon proficiencies from class levels after level 1. This adds teeth to 'career training'.
Replace 'Bravery' with 'Resolve', an ability that reflects a warrior's mental fortitude and discipline.
One of the Abilities of Resolve is Skilled: The fighter gains an extra skill point per level, and adds another Skill to his class list. This bonus increases every time his Resolve increases.
So, he starts with less book learning...but always gets any two key skills he wants.
As he levels, he trains. He adds more skill points and Skills Known to reflect his needs of the moment (i.e. he can add nautical skills if going to sea, Ride if appropriate, Stealth or diplomacy in a city game, etc).
At level 6, he has as many points as the barb. At 14, the same as a ranger, with a skill list customized to the campaign. He ends with 7 skill points per level, more then the ranger.
And none of this is reliant on Stats. Freedom from the tyranny of stats!
==Aelryinth