Flawed, you obviously do not understand what 'affect the narrative' means, because skill points have little to nothing to do with it at all.
But I'll allow Kirth to define it, since he was the person who first recognized the problem for what it was, and put a name to it.
Suffice it to say, out of combat utility and affecting the narrative are very different things, and you seem to have confused them totally. Given the nature of your arguments, I'm not surprised. You seem to seize on tiny little irrelevant points and explode them into major non-applicable arguments.
Kirth, if you might chime in on what 'affecting the narrative' actually entails. Oh, and restrict to 'class abilities', please, because Flawed doesn't understand the Stormwind Fallacy, either.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see all the fuss about fighters. I've seen them effective in and out of combat. I don't need to use houserules. Most of the fighter class skills don't need to be maxed out. They are capped with easy to hit DCs. This allows the fighter to put points in other skills. It's easy to get 4-5 points per level without much fuss. 2 for being a fighter. 1 for being human. 1 for Intelligence 13, 1 for favored class.
What, specifically, does the fighter need to do out of combat that you can't do? Is that something that is really a class option or is it something that you can do with any class? Is it really that much of a hindrance or can you figure out how to make it work with minimal effort?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, if you might chime in on what 'affecting the narrative' actually entails. Oh, and restrict to 'class abilities', please, because Flawed doesn't understand the Stormwind Fallacy, either.
Thanks for the credit, but in this case it's been done to death in zillion other threads, and always gets pooh-poohed with "Well, the DM is just supposed to let you do that because roleplaying." Just as you pointed out. So there's no profit to be gained in providing an explanation, because the worn-out canard of a "rebuttal" has already been posted.
I don't really see all the fuss about fighters. I've seen them effective in and out of combat. I don't need to use houserules. Most of the fighter class skills don't need to be maxed out. They are capped with easy to hit DCs. This allows the fighter to put points in other skills. It's easy to get 4-5 points per level without much fuss. 2 for being a fighter. 1 for being human. 1 for Intelligence 13, 1 for favored class.
What, specifically, does the fighter need to do out of combat that you can't do? Is that something that is really a class option or is it something that you can do with any class? Is it really that much of a hindrance or can you figure out how to make it work with minimal effort?
Bob, first of all, you're doing the classic redirect...all three of them, in fact.
Traits, FC bonus AND stats? Come on, those have nothing to do with class features. Make the same changes to the barbarian and the barb comes out ahead.
Skill points covers a lot of out of combat utility. The fact is, the fighter does not have or use magic. He should have something, as part of his class, to make up for that. Logically, that benefit should be skill points. It makes complete sense that a class without magic should rely more and know more mundane things then a class with magic ....irrespective of things outside class confines.
Affecting the narrative is something built into the class that affects the direction and capabilities of the campaign. The fighter has nothing like this...it's pretty much all spell casters.
In the fighter's case, since he has no magic, it should involve working with people as a class feature. The classic is leadership in battle and in war.
The Fighter sucks at any kind of organizational improvement or leadership position. At the very best, he's in the boat with all the other non-primary spell casting classes.
Look at what the Kirthfinder fighter does, and you can get an idea of what Kirth is talking about.
I went the 'training' route. Fighters train others better then any other class, allowing them to buff up followers and NPC's the way casters churn out magic items. That means fighters will always have the best and strongest followers of any class. Give them a morale bonus when leading them, improvements to morale scores, and you're doing well.
==Aelryinth
I sometimes feel that, if we simply returned Leadership to being a fighter class feature (as in 1e) instead of a feat, it would be a step in the right direction. Add the fighter's bravery bonus to social skill checks and to his Leadership score, and allow Intimidate to scale up to something like frightful presence in effect, and we're even further along in the direction we want to go.
Those aren't my preferred solutions, but they're simple and serve, to some extent, to ameliorate some of the fighter's problems.
I sometimes feel that, if we simply returned Leadership to being a fighter class feature (as in 1e) instead of a feat, it would be a step in the right direction. Add the fighter's bravery bonus to social skill checks and to his Leadership score, and allow Intimidate to scale up to something like frightful presence in effect, and we're even further along in the direction we want to go.
Those aren't my preferred solutions, but they're simple and serve, to some extent, to ameliorate some of the fighter's problems.
I agree.
Summon Monster spells (and the druid equivalent) and animal companions give cause for the Leadership feat to be a Fighter and possibly a Barbarian only feat.
A summoned Babau Demon or Shadow Demon makes a cohort only a small boon for the Fighter Class. Better than nothing, definitely necessary and the Teamwork feats become more beneficial to the Fighter (and his cohort).
Already being used in my campaign. Plus hirelings for the Fighter at low levels (becomes followers at the appropriate level).
Making the Fighter more democratic might not be the right design choice (social skills). Having more Constitution and Strength based skills could open interesting opportunities for the Fighter. And some Knowledge class skills that supports an Int Fighter build.
I don't see the Paizo designers fixing the Fighter class anytime soon. They are making the same mistakes as WOTC, more classes, more feats, more spells, and the broken, unbalanced things are mounting up pretty high (the disastrous ACG is a pertinent example).
It's just us and our house rules.
Pathfinder is imploding, becoming more steampunk as its running out of ideas.
Sadly, maybe D&D 5e will win out in the end and we will all be rolling 2d20's for advantage/disadvantage and remembering the good old days when we needed our intellectual minds to play roleplaying games.
Ixnay on this -- edition wars are decidedly uncool.
Sadly, maybe D&D 5e will win out in the end and we will all be rolling 2d20's for advantage/disadvantage and remembering the good old days when we needed our intellectual minds to play roleplaying games.Ixnay on this -- edition wars are decidedly uncool.
I'm not edition warring, well that wasn't my intention.
I play Pathfinder and want to continue to play Pathfinder and have no issue with people who play D&D 5e. I do love many things about D&D 5e, scaling spells being one of them. Many of their design principles are well thought out.
Just forecasting about the state of Pathfinder its looking grim with its progression of problematic hardcover additions. There are enough APs to keep playing with a reduced and mostly great ruleset for a lifetime.
Okay a few things;
In this thread we're trying to come up with ways for a fighter to be useful out of combat without moving out of the realm of being a fighter right? From what I gather this means he should be more charismatic, tactical or cunning. So this means that things that are combat oriented are off the table because the fighter can do enough damage and that's not the topic at hand right? Also I feel like I have enough 3pp that handle combat options well enough. I'm also assuming that we are not talking about Paizo and it's decisions because they know how much we complain about these things so they have reasons for not doing anything about it whether we agree with their reasons or not.
Now a fighter does not get as much flak as a cavalier, so my next question is why? From a caster v martial argument it suffers the same problem of not having spells and a bad will save. I'd argue that it has actual abilities as opposed to numerical bonuses that aren't as relevant. Also 4+int skills per level and some 'knightly' class skills like diplomacy helps.
So another question; do we want to sacrifice class features or add class features on top of the fighter?
Okay a few things;
In this thread we're trying to come up with ways for a fighter to be useful out of combat without moving out of the realm of being a fighter right? From what I gather this means he should be more charismatic, tactical or cunning. So this means that things that are combat oriented are off the table because the fighter can do enough damage and that's not the topic at hand right? Also I feel like I have enough 3pp that handle combat options well enough. I'm also assuming that we are not talking about Paizo and it's decisions because they know how much we complain about these things so they have reasons for not doing anything about it whether we agree with their reasons or not.
Now a fighter does not get as much flak as a cavalier, so my next question is why? From a caster v martial argument it suffers the same problem of not having spells and a bad will save. I'd argue that it has actual abilities as opposed to numerical bonuses that aren't as relevant. Also 4+int skills per level and some 'knightly' class skills like diplomacy helps.
So another question; do we want to sacrifice class features or add class features on top of the fighter?
Define parameters as to what you think the fighter should be able to accomplish that it can't right now and work towards those ends. Just be aware of what it can accomplish already.
Also be aware of archetypes that will do exactly what you want the base fighter to do like more skill points(Lore warden, Tactician), social class skills(Tactician), more roguish skills (CAD), ability to buff others(Tactician, Shielded Fighter), debuff(CAD, Brawler), be a knowledge guy(Lore Warden), Have good DR(Armor Master). If it's more ties to the magical world there's traits/feats/races that grant SLA's to qualify as a magical crafter. An option to gain a familiar which using another feat is just as powerful as any other full casters and can allow you to break action economy using wands. The viking archetype can get rage powers...
I was the one asking the questions. Personally at the moment and at the actual game table, Fighters do okay enough. I know Feats are weak class features but condensing only a few feat trees and allowing 'martial action' feats from another product helped immensely in the combat master role leaving room to not focus on all STR all the time. As long as I'm playing an INT fighter I have have no problems playing one. My questions are for you guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could give the fighter an expanding area of influence that would represent the fighters legend. This could even impact low level enemy nations such that grunt soldiers are automatically shaken in your presence.
I'm not terribly comfortable with the core assumption for fighter being military leader. I was under the impression that this was the cavalier's job and that fighters just occasionally leak into that territory.
If I do anything I'm more likely to run Fighters with The Talented Fighter rules and make some extra fighter talents along the lines of what I posted earlier. (or just make them into fighter only feats.
Not military by necessity, just badass by default. If a guy has a reputation like Beowulf, then you hear about it. He's the badass normal.
Earlier I suggested giving bravery to diplomacy and intimidate or be able to cause opponents to 5ft step using intimidate.
And that's fine for what it is, I just haven't seen the diplomacy skill pay out in actual games. GM's i have played with don't like the skill and make sure that the skill points are wasted for the most part. I like class abilities that are a little more codified than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go right over to the WoTC boards where Tempest Stormwind still posts, Flawed. "You don't have to be good at x because role-play and the DM will give it to you." is still one of his huge pet peeves.
And that's what the Stormwind Fallacy also represents...which ties it to Oberoni, where 'there's no problem because rule o' means exactly the same thing.
You are arguing that you'll roleplay and get the character whatever he needs and 'affect the narrative' that way.
Meanwhile, the wizard is teleporting around the globe, the cleric is summoning servants of the divine to multiply his power , the sorcerer is creating masterwork armor out of raw comps and making a fortune, and they are doing so using class abilities and not really caring what the DM will give them with 'roleplay'.
Which, they can also do, and so double their money. Stormwind. Oberoni. The DM does not solve your problems. Roleplay does not solve mechanical issues in a comparison between classes.
-------------------
And lo, Flawed, you are attempting to move the conversation again.
We are talking about the Fighter class. NOT a character who happens to have fighter levels.
As soon as you bring in traits, stats, race and FC, you are now outside the confines of the class. YOu are attempting to make this about a character, and refusing to accept the boundaries of what we are studying this through.
Traits, stats, race and FC can all be applied to ANY class. Thus, they are inherently neutral and mean NOTHING in a comparison. The only difference become what the classes itself bring to the table.
Any of those things you give to a fighter you can give to a ranger, barbarian or paladin and end up with a better CHARACTER...because they have a better CLASS.
Your refusal to accept this simple point of comparison is why your opinion is basically not being taken seriously.
And as for the million threads of fighter hate, I think of them more as a million threads of fighter love. Because we love the fighter and want him to be what he should be, instead of what we are stuck with.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not terribly comfortable with the core assumption for fighter being military leader. I was under the impression that this was the cavalier's job and that fighters just occasionally leak into that territory.
If I do anything I'm more likely to run Fighters with The Talented Fighter rules and make some extra fighter talents along the lines of what I posted earlier. (or just make them into fighter only feats.
The cavalier is a subclass of the fighter, and is not core.
He is not intended to be the leader of armies. He was built with the ability to lead small groups...that's a major difference and a big leg up from a fighter. A cavaliar is basically a noble-born warrior who adheres to a code, with slight exceptions on birth. He is simply a fighter variant. Ideally, he shouldn't even exist...he should simply be a fighter with a different flavor to him.
The Fighter is the professional, full time combatant, the Olympian of the melee classes. Military leadership is one of the primary jobs of any fighting man, and the fighter should be SUPERB at it...soldiering is basically the only one of the classic six jobs he's actually good at.
Instead, he suckeths.
==Aelryinth
I'm not terribly comfortable with the core assumption for fighter being military leader. I was under the impression that this was the cavalier's job and that fighters just occasionally leak into that territory.
If I do anything I'm more likely to run Fighters with The Talented Fighter rules and make some extra fighter talents along the lines of what I posted earlier. (or just make them into fighter only feats.
The cavalier is a subclass of the fighter, and is not core.
He is not intended to be the leader of armies. He was built with the ability to lead small groups...that's a major difference and a big leg up from a fighter. A cavaliar is basically a noble-born warrior who adheres to a code, with slight exceptions on birth. He is simply a fighter variant. Ideally, he shouldn't even exist...he should simply be a fighter with a different flavor to him.
The Fighter is the professional, full time combatant, the Olympian of the melee classes. Military leadership is one of the primary jobs of any fighting man, and the fighter should be SUPERB at it...soldiering is basically the only one of the classic six jobs he's actually good at.
Instead, he suckeths.
==Aelryinth
I'd argue that military leadership should be optional mostly because of diverging ideas of what a fighter is. For me fighter is the 'badass normal' Ideally I would hope that the fighter has advanced physical prowess or advanced personal tactical abilities. More specifically I expect the fighter to be better at physical skills and abilities or be able to control combat. It takes me out of that concept if Leadership is hardwired into the class.
As I said before combat is not a problem in my games. I have enough tools for fighters to be a battle beast. I'd love third party material that brings in the D&D 4th edition concept of shifting opponents or allies but I'm good for the most part.
Out of combat I do agree that popularity from being a badass should be an option but something along the lines of a fighter talent than straight up a part of the class, otherwise I'd rather have a class that replaces the fighter that centers around positioning and specific rules on advancing cohorts a la animal companions. A talent/feat that boosts to diplomacy and makes it a class skill would be enough for me. 4+INT skill ranks per level would do it for me.
mmm.
I see the fighter as the guy who trains. He out-trains all the other classes, who rely on other things...rage, magic, faith, whatever.
The Fighter trains.
As an offshoot of that, the fighter is good. Damn good. At everything he chooses to train with. He's an expert in what he chooses to be an expert in if it's a martial skill.
As an outgrowth, he trains others up to his standards. That involves giving orders, that's a position of leadership. As an outgrowth, he commands, and people follow. It all ties together.
leadership is simply people coming to him and wanting to learn what he knows, and trusting in someone who takes seriously the pure job of being a martial combatant. They want to be like him.
And if you limit the cohort to a fighter or rogue character, adding in a character at level -2 isn't all that much better then a grizzly bear, you know? It's when you get to tack on the free spellcasting that everyone wants the feat. Getting the followers should only happen if the fighter chooses to set down roots...exactly like in the old days, where he actually had to set up a keep and the like.
==Aelryinth
I feel as though the leadership thing is totally valid, but I'm not sure its the only way to go. If the fighter simply altered the perception of people they interacted with( no skill roll necessary) then you may have something. Imagine your running the local shop and Gilgamesh walks in to buy a new sword. How would your perception of Gilgamesh impact the following sale? Would you even care if you made money? I mean, "I outfitted Gilgamesh from this very store!" Has got to have some impact on your sales.
If I was guarding the gate to a city and this literal man of myth walks up to gain entry, I ain't hassling him, I don't care what you pay me.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I think about an expanding influence mechanic. You just need to make it explicit in text that people within the fighters area of influence are absolutely impacted so that the grognards don't just kill the ability right out the gate.
I'm leaning more towards Trogdar's idea than straight leadership, mostly because I feel like such an ability adds to a fighter's combat ability and represents his ability to affect the world rather than actually effect narrative.
I wouldn't want leadership to be the only option for Fighter, either. I do want some sort of unique ability that is the shtick of the class, but leadership? I have never once allowed a player to take the feat, and I have rarely seen the feat in play. Not everybody wants the hassle of dealing with cohorts and followers, and fighters owning territory or commanding a unit of underlings doesn't fit every character or campaign concept.
I feel as though the leadership thing is totally valid, but I'm not sure its the only way to go. If the fighter simply altered the perception of people they interacted with( no skill roll necessary) then you may have something. Imagine your running the local shop and Gilgamesh walks in to buy a new sword. How would your perception of Gilgamesh impact the following sale? Would you even care if you made money? I mean, "I outfitted Gilgamesh from this very store!" Has got to have some impact on your sales.
If I was guarding the gate to a city and this literal man of myth walks up to gain entry, I ain't hassling him, I don't care what you pay me.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I think about an expanding influence mechanic. You just need to make it explicit in text that people within the fighters area of influence are absolutely impacted so that the grognards don't just kill the ability right out the gate.
Maybe tie ability into the Bravery bonus? I've seen that floated around a bit.
Another good idea would be to create alternate abilities that replace bonus feats or Armor/Weapon abilities (or, if you have Talented Fighter, write talents) that make use of Int and Cha in battle. This gives the Fighter an incentive to be smarter or more Charismatic. Add in 4 skill points, make Perception a class skill, and let Bravery apply to some social rolls, and Fighters should be more useful outside combat.
I feel as though the leadership thing is totally valid, but I'm not sure its the only way to go. If the fighter simply altered the perception of people they interacted with( no skill roll necessary) then you may have something. Imagine your running the local shop and Gilgamesh walks in to buy a new sword. How would your perception of Gilgamesh impact the following sale? Would you even care if you made money? I mean, "I outfitted Gilgamesh from this very store!" Has got to have some impact on your sales.
If I was guarding the gate to a city and this literal man of myth walks up to gain entry, I ain't hassling him, I don't care what you pay me.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I think about an expanding influence mechanic. You just need to make it explicit in text that people within the fighters area of influence are absolutely impacted so that the grognards don't just kill the ability right out the gate.
Maybe tie ability into the Bravery bonus? I've seen that floated around a bit.
Another good idea would be to create alternate abilities that replace bonus feats or Armor/Weapon abilities (or, if you have Talented Fighter, write talents) that make use of Int and Cha in battle. This gives the Fighter an incentive to be smarter or more Charismatic. Add in 4 skill points, make Perception a class skill, and let Bravery apply to some social rolls, and Fighters should be more useful outside combat.
The problem I'm trying to point at, with limited success, is that things that affect diplomacy and charisma are both the best and worst features of the game. They are the best in that the game gives diplomancers incredible power and they're the worst because no game master on the planet actually let's you use that power. I don't think skill points and diplomacy bonuses will have any real impact upon the fighter class for that reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership is a means of affecting the narrative, of determining the direction of the campaign and influence of the player. The casters summon and Call on magical beings, and you have an Army and a skilled lieutenant.
With your army, you can Drive the Story. This gets more impressive if you can train commoners to warriors or experts, and train warriors into fighters and experts into rogues. Suddenly your followers are just better then everyone else's.
And then you train them up in levels, so now you really have broad, low power that nobody else has.
That's affecting the narrative of the story. Sure, you may only really do this once you 'retire' and settle down, but you know? That's right there in the rules.
Having leadership so you automatically get a rogue or fighter cohort is no different then getting an animal companion, except yours is smarter. As long as they don't have spellcasting, you're basically not doing nothing a druid doesn't get at level 1.
What you're basically talking with above is an Aura of Menace type effect, where you can feel how deadly this guy is if he wants you to.
Which sounds like an effect that works more off of Intimidation then anything. You are radiating danger. I'm not sure that's a 'Fighter' thing, either. It sounds more like a high level character or high level melee thing. Being able to feel the rage bubbling below the surface of the barbarian, the whispers of the forest following the ranger around, and the raw arcane power kept leashed by the wizard are all pretty viable for this 'aura' thing.
But, yeah, Bravery's bonus to all checks that use a mental modifier should be a given. Make it a competence or morale bonus so it doesn't stack unduly, and you're good on abuse.
==Aelryinth
The problem I'm trying to point at, with limited success, is that things that affect diplomacy and charisma are both the best and worst features of the game. They are the best in that the game gives diplomancers incredible power and they're the worst because no game master on the planet actually let's you use that power. I don't think skill points and diplomacy bonuses will have any real impact upon the fighter class for that reason.I feel as though the leadership thing is totally valid, but I'm not sure its the only way to go. If the fighter simply altered the perception of people they interacted with( no skill roll necessary) then you may have something. Imagine your running the local shop and Gilgamesh walks in to buy a new sword. How would your perception of Gilgamesh impact the following sale? Would you even care if you made money? I mean, "I outfitted Gilgamesh from this very store!" Has got to have some impact on your sales.
If I was guarding the gate to a city and this literal man of myth walks up to gain entry, I ain't hassling him, I don't care what you pay me.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I think about an expanding influence mechanic. You just need to make it explicit in text that people within the fighters area of influence are absolutely impacted so that the grognards don't just kill the ability right out the gate.
Maybe tie ability into the Bravery bonus? I've seen that floated around a bit.
Another good idea would be to create alternate abilities that replace bonus feats or Armor/Weapon abilities (or, if you have Talented Fighter, write talents) that make use of Int and Cha in battle. This gives the Fighter an incentive to be smarter or more Charismatic. Add in 4 skill points, make Perception a class skill, and let Bravery apply to some social rolls, and Fighters should be more useful outside combat.
And that's why you make these things class features instead of 'I roleplay gimme this.'
==Aelryinth
Intimidate and its ilk have an overall negative connotation where I was implying that the characters legend travels faster than he does. The fighters influence is such that you don't even have to be in a place to have an effect upon it. Its more powerful in that its effect is explicit where the power of skill checks are implicit... Anyway, its just a fairly vague idea.
Leadership is a means of affecting the narrative, of determining the direction of the campaign and influence of the player. The casters summon and Call on magical beings, and you have an Army and a skilled lieutenant.
With your army, you can Drive the Story. This gets more impressive if you can train commoners to warriors or experts, and train warriors into fighters and experts into rogues. Suddenly your followers are just better then everyone else's.
And then you train them up in levels, so now you really have broad, low power that nobody else has.
That's affecting the narrative of the story. Sure, you may only really do this once you 'retire' and settle down, but you know? That's right there in the rules.
Having leadership so you automatically get a rogue or fighter cohort is no different then getting an animal companion, except yours is smarter. As long as they don't have spellcasting, you're basically not doing nothing a druid doesn't get at level 1.What you're basically talking with above is an Aura of Menace type effect, where you can feel how deadly this guy is if he wants you to.
Which sounds like an effect that works more off of Intimidation then anything. You are radiating danger. I'm not sure that's a 'Fighter' thing, either. It sounds more like a high level character or high level melee thing. Being able to feel the rage bubbling below the surface of the barbarian, the whispers of the forest following the ranger around, and the raw arcane power kept leashed by the wizard are all pretty viable for this 'aura' thing.
But, yeah, Bravery's bonus to all checks that use a mental modifier should be a given. Make it a competence or morale bonus so it doesn't stack unduly, and you're good on abuse.
==Aelryinth
The idea of a 'threat aura' is more in the combat realm. Out of combat I still don't like the idea of leadership hardwired. (I'd love to give Squire or something as a fighter only feat or something but not exactly a class feature. The reason why I'd rather there be a baseline if it were was that NPCs are varied and dependant on what kind of game the GM is running. I'd much rather see such a feature like take cohorts of specific classes and specific stat arrays.) I just don't always picture a fighter with a mind for having cohorts. This is probably an extension of my hatred for mandatory pets for any class but I think most of the fighters I make would not be compatible in concept to an assumed leader or trainer.
The reason why I go back to being better at social skills or reputation is that if I were to choose a schtick for a fighter to run with it would be Bravery because out of all the concepts of what defines the class I think courage would be it, and it serves as an excuse, flavor-wise, for any of the extraordinary abilities to work.
just because you have a lieutenant and and army doesn't mean you have to bring them on every adventure. they could technically help things behind the scenes, but i beleive class comparison is more important than individual build comparison, both the base class and any archetypes, alternate classes or hybrid classes the base class can take. but you have to compare more than just damage numbers or skill ranks, but some things can't really be measured, but the problem i see with builds is that builds show nothing of the classes or archetypes merits, what builds show is the skill of the builder and strategic means of working around wealth by level, such as the use of partially charged wands to get multiple cheap combat buffs for harder encounters without wasting lotsa money.
Okay so let me add some more meat along the bravery front. Perhaps some sort of favorable condition could be chosen from a pool at each bravery interval. An example might involve any interaction with people within your area of influence treat you as though your reputation deserves respect and offer more favorable conditions in any bargain. That's pretty vague, but I'm trying to impart some agency on both sides.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one thing to discuss about how you don't like somebody's ideas, or their interpretation of the rules—it's quite another to turn it into a personal attack. Part of having a useful discussion is distinguishing between the two. Please keep it civil to each other, thank you!
To the subject at hand, earlier I responded
With 14 CHA I go straight to Eldritch Heritage and use one of my traits to get diplomacy as a class skill. I'm not a bard but at a certain point I don't need that much diplomacy.
To expand on that, Diplomacy is often a god skill or your GM insists that your own roleplaying has more merit. I tend to lean more to the former because sometimes someone not very charismatic makes a charismatic character, so I'm assuming decent charisma and diplomacy as a class skill is enough to count as 'a face' and that it is okay to not be 'THE face'.
Now I said that my go to is Eldritch Heritage but that's because I don't have all that many opportunites and to play a fighter so that's as far as I've gone. Persuasive and skill focus can up that and if you're playing certain styles of fighting you can leave a lot of normal feats. So any feats out there that take advantage of charisma?
(side note: Why don't people like Antagonize? It seems like the only real tanking ability in the game.)
Since this is in Homebrew I'd like to come back to the 'aura of threat' I was talking about earlier. Maybe fighter only feats that are mild versions of Antagonize. For example, perhaps one that requires 13 CHA and causes threatened creatures to take a penalty on attacks against anything other than you. This sounds familiar so might exist, I don't know, but things along those lines. Sound good?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was on Reddit's r/rpg sub and the discussion of Pathfinder came up. One of the frequent stated reasons for jumping ship on Pathfinder was the 'toxic' attitude of the community. The general feelings was that the crunchiness brings out optimizers and a sense that you are wrong for 'this option', 'this class', or 'this opinion'. These problems do not exist at the table until the online rhetoric leaks there and outright destroy games because having a fighter/rogue that is a valuable member of the party suddenly becomes WrongBadFun.
Now those aren't my words but I do see things are too far. Before attending these forums I had been playing for a year with no mechanical problems with the game but judging from the forums the system is so flawed and complex and generally hated that I wouldn't understand why people are still playing it if I had zero of those problems at my table. I am very happy that I did not research these forums before my first purchase.
To tie this to the subject; How much help does the fighter REALLY need? We admit that it does not have a DPR problem and people are happily using it so what do we fix? What is the 'fun' that's missing? Are these just biases talking? I know that I HATE playing a Paladin because most of the abilities happen too few times a day. I enjoy spamming my schtick so I am biased against Paladin. My hatred of powerful abilities a few times per...
Discussion on fighters does not center on niche players who want to spam attacks all day, Malwing. Such players have fine times with Rogues and Monks and 3.5e Warlocks. If the DM can cater to that playstyle, have fun, great, enjoy yourself.
What you're having to face with for the rest of us, is that we want the Fighter to be as viable at the complex level as at the utterly simple level.
And at the complex level, there are very few reasons to play the fighter. It just has too many shortcomings, especially when compared with other classes that comprise the same role.
I am not sitting in judgment of your playstyle. But for many people, the argument that the fighter can 'go all day' is very, very empty.
The fighter can go as long as he has healing. Once he runs out of hit points, he's done.
The ranger can heal himself, the barb has DR, and the paladin can REALLY heal himself. They will all outlast the fighter from an endurance standpoint.
The fighter is good with his chosen weapon all day.
The barb, ranger and paladin are good with any weapon. The Ranger is good all day against his FE's. The barb and paladin can nova against bosses, and plug away reliably the rest of the time.
The fighter is good with armor.
The ranger gets barkskin, the barb gets DR and uncanny dodge, and the paladin gets swift action heals and spells to buff armor class.
The Fighter gets bravery.
I'm not even going to try to find another class feature so weak. Even trap sense is better.
The fighter gets a bunch of combat feats.
Combat feats are over-priced and over-emphasized. Comparing the average combat feat to an average class feature tends to resolve poorly...combat feats just don't measure up. They also have very little defensive benefits compared to a class feature, AND they have no utility usages.
The power in feats is with General Feats. With combat feats, you can make a very good melee combatant with Power Attack...it's really all you need.
So...Pathfinder tends to attract intelligent, imaginative players who've been around for thirty-plus years of their favorite gaming system, if not longer.
We can see the holes for what they are. And as people grow into the game, they start seeing the holes, too. This can be very easily driven home by a skillful player using a strong class to basically do the job of the rest of the players on their own whim (cleric or druid excel at this).
Quite frankly, if your play style is happy with fighters and rogues and monks and you think wizards are weak and clerics can't do much, then there's no reason to even read these arguments...you are playing a much different style of game.
But you'll find that many of the people who post here know the rules, know them cold, can optimize to beat all out...and simply don't PLAY that way, because they know it wouldn't be fun to do so.
As a matter of fact, on threads like this, I can pretty much guarantee that most of the posters love to play fighters, rogues and monks.
They just want to be able to do with their characters what the other classes can do, even if it's in new and different ways.
So, it's less a case of telling you you're not having fun, then us complaining that we're not having the fun we could with our favorite classes. We DO want something more then spam, and reliance on spellcasters, and equitable defenses, and the like.
----------------
In the end, this is a game, and it is a game with rules. It is very simple to be mathematically superior at this game. Gamers tend to want to be good at their games. We can now pick apart the math behind game mechanics and make our own judgement calls, instead of being dictated to or glossing over weaknesses...we can actually see them for what they are.
Role-playing is fun, but it only makes up for weak mechanical effectiveness if you've got a forgiving DM who caters to you. These boards assume equality and unforgiving DM's who adhere to the rules. That's the default paradigm of these boards. If your game is not like that, then we simply aren't talking to you, and you can safely ignore us and have fun with your game.
Anyone can have fun role-playing. But the things discussed here are about mechanics, and we can see and acknowledge the math.
==Aelryinth