What does a "non-wuxia" high-level fighter look like?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,366 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Those were also editions that single weapon fighter types got at best, two swings per round at the high end levels. And there were no such things as swift or immediate actions. Lets be aware of the apple/orange comparisons here.

You're forgetting 5E. Which, for all its flaws, does allow Fighters to make four attacks a turn at full bonus and move as well, and heal himself to boot. The most attacks any full caster can ever get is two. And in terms of spells, only Sorcerers can do Quicken Spell at all.

5E is by no means a perfect system (I actually quite prefer Pathfinder) but it did do some stuff about C/MD. Probably not enough in many ways, but it did some things.

5e has better ways for DM fiat to close the gap.

It also lets DMs make swimming in armor impossible.

And choose what casters can summon.

And dictate what skills do.

And decide if certain maneuvers are even possible.

5e is very DM dependent, but it's good at being DM dependent.


So aside from expanded skill unlocks, do you guys think there's any other minimally system invasive additions the game can use to create fantastic martials?

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
So aside from expanded skill unlocks, do you guys think there's any other minimally system invasive additions the game can use to create fantastic martials?

I've mentioned anti-magic stuff before. I think that's a good, workable, addition.

Action economy enhancers are also very possible. I have some fairly low impact movement enhancers for all martial classes in my House Rules, for example.


When you say anti-magic stuff would those be feats, traits, or something else that could be stapled on?


Insain Dragoon wrote:
So aside from expanded skill unlocks, do you guys think there's any other minimally system invasive additions the game can use to create fantastic martials?

I give my fighters free VCM, gives them abit more power doesn't force them to become magical unless they want to and makes fighters abit more variable.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
When you say anti-magic stuff would those be feats, traits, or something else that could be stapled on?

I'd probably have it be inherent to all classes without spell casting. Give them one ability at 4th and then another every 3 or 4 levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
So aside from expanded skill unlocks, do you guys think there's any other minimally system invasive additions the game can use to create fantastic martials?

I'd say just tie skill unlocks to certain class features and you'll be golden. Like X amount of sneak attack dice and a bluff skill unlock, or X group Weapon Training + acrobatics skill unlock. Make the new feature scale with along with the class feature and future unlocks, and you now have a niche ability limited to dedicated(ish) martials with a certain skill. Now what these be abilities are is up for debate. My suggestion earlier was an FF style Dragoon with Spear Weapon Training + Acrobatics skill unlocks. If most things rivaled that, the fighter becomes fantastic, wholly unique and far more versatile in combat.

Also, more Weapon based style feats. These are definitely a step in the right direction. Really, just more Handbooks centered on martials, possibly giving options to certain classes to get some Weapon Tricks and Weapon Mastery free, for more diversity fear wise.


Maybe tie skill-unlocks to main attributes ?

So someone with high Intelligence can get many Knowledge or Craft Skill Unlocks and someone with high Strength can get many Climb and Jump Skill unlocks ?

Let's say you can get a number of skill unlocks equal to 1 + Ability Modifier (minimum 1) in skills governed by this Ability. And you can get Feats that give you more Skill Unlocks. Add some prereqs for higher level Skill Unlocks and someone who relies on Intelligence will have a hard time trying to get physical Skill Unlocks.

Only big problem that I can see is magic items that grant ability bonus.

Liberty's Edge

Zoolimar wrote:

Maybe tie skill-unlocks to main attributes ?

So someone with high Intelligence can get many Knowledge or Craft Skill Unlocks and someone with high Strength can get many Climb and Jump Skill unlocks ?

Making ability modifiers figure in isn't a bad idea at all. Maybe combine it with the idea I had for how many differet Unlocks you can get for the same skill.

So a Rogue with Dex 20 could have more different Stealth unlocks per level of effect than a Fighter with Dex 12.

Probably wouldn't make it one for one in that case, though. Everyone gets one, then one extra for every two or three points of bonus? Something like that anyway.

Or not. The more I think about that the less I'm feeling it.

Zoolimar wrote:
Let's say you can get a number of skill unlocks equal to 1 + Ability Modifier (minimum 1) in skills governed by this Ability. And you can get Feats that give you more Skill Unlocks. Add some prereqs for higher level Skill Unlocks and someone who relies on Intelligence will have a hard time trying to get physical Skill Unlocks.

At 15 point-buy that's something like a minimum of 8 or 9 Skill Unlocks. That's a little unwieldy to get right off the bat. Or is that a maximum?

If it's a maximum that has its own issues...if I have Student of Philosophy on my Rogue (or whatever) does Diplomacy count as a Cha skill for this or Int? Still, much more workable that way. Con might need a compensating advantage or something, since it lacks skills. Or maybe not, Con's really good to start with.

Zoolimar wrote:
Only big problem that I can see is magic items that grant ability bonus.

Why would that be a problem? Either martials already need them or you're going to be using some sort of compensating bonus system anyway.


Well you still need some number of ranks in a skill to get a Skill Unlock, so even if you can have 6 of them you can't get even 1 at first level.

Let's say you get Skill Unlocks at 4/9/12/15 skill ranks and you need to have at least 1 Skill Unlock of lower level to get to high level Skill Unlocks.

So a rogue with Dex 20 can get 4 Skill Unlocks in one skill of levels from 1 to 4 and 2 Skill Unlocks in another skill of levels from 1 to 2. Not counting what he can get through Class Features (ignore needing lower level Skill Unlocks) or Feats.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why would that be a problem? Either martials already need them or you're going to be using some sort of compensating bonus system anyway.

Because they will need to track which Skill Unlocks are tied to their inherent Ability Modifiers and which are tied to Ability Modifiers that they get from magic items.

Liberty's Edge

Zoolimar wrote:
Well you still need some number of ranks in a skill to get a Skill Unlock, so even if you can have 6 of them you can't get even 1 at first level.

Depends on when you allow them. Personally, I drop the prerequisites on the current ones by 5 ranks to a minimum of 1, so I allow them at 1st level. I'd certainly advise the proposed system at least do the same. !st level casters have spells, 1st level Martials getting a single relatively weak unlock seems pretty reasonable.

Zoolimar wrote:
Let's say you get Skill Unlocks at 4/9/12/15 skill ranks and you need to have at least 1 Skill Unlock of lower level to get to high level Skill Unlocks.

That's a really weird progression.

Zoolimar wrote:
So a rogue with Dex 20 can get 4 Skill Unlocks in one skill of levels from 1 to 4 and 2 Skill Unlocks in another skill of levels from 1 to 2. Not counting what he can get through Class Features (ignore needing lower level Skill Unlocks) or Feats.

That's way less powerful than even the current system in some ways. As it is, you can have all the skill unlocks you qualify for in one skill (admittedly, only 4) as a single unlock. You can then have that in up to five skills as a Rogue. That's 20 Unlocks counting each individually. Almost nobody has that many points in stat bonuses.

That's an extreme example of the current system, but it shouldn't be for one that's designed to make up for lacking spell-casting.

In short, I don't think that gives people nearly enough Unlocks.

Zoolimar wrote:
Because they will need to track which Skill Unlocks are tied to their inherent Ability Modifiers and which are tied to Ability Modifiers that they get from magic items.

That does make the book-keeping a nightmare.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zoolimar wrote:
Because they will need to track which Skill Unlocks are tied to their inherent Ability Modifiers and which are tied to Ability Modifiers that they get from magic items.
That does make the book-keeping a nightmare.

Isn't that already the case? My headband of intellect +4 gives me my level's worth of ranks in two skills, which means that my eligibility for skill unlocks depends on whether or not I'm wearing that headband.....


Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's a really weird progression.

It's not a progression just some random numbers :)

If you want to start from 1 rank than 1/3/6/10/15 will be a good progression.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's way less powerful than even the current system in some ways. As it is, you can have all the skill unlocks you qualify for in one skill (admittedly, only 4) as a single unlock. You can then have that in up to five skills as a Rogue. That's 20 Unlocks counting each individually. Almost nobody has that many points in stat bonuses.

Hmm, you are right. Then maybe just tie a maximum level of Skill Unlock to Ability Modifier (Minimum 1)? Someone with Strength 20 can have unlocks up to level 5 using example of progression above (1-15 ranks).

Give 1 Skill Unlock per level without casting progression
1 Skill Unclock per 2 levels with 4th level caster progression.
Per 3 levels for 6th level casters.
Per 5 levels for 9th level casters.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Isn't that already the case? My headband of intellect +4 gives me my level's worth of ranks in two skills, which means that my eligibility for skill unlocks depends on whether or not I'm wearing that headband.....

You can pretty easily forbid skill ranks gained this way from meeting prerequisites. Or keep track of the max of three skills in question.

Zoolimar wrote:

It's not a progression just some random numbers :)

If you want to start from 1 rank than 1/3/6/10/15 will be a good progression.

That's still weirdly asymmetric. 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 would make more sense, IMO. Or 1/4/8/12/16/20. the highest levels in either case would probably only have one option per skill, and be super-powerful as a capstone of sorts.

Zoolimar wrote:
Hmm, you are right. Then maybe just tie a maximum level of Skill Unlock to Ability Modifier (Minimum 1)? Someone with Strength 20 can have unlocks up to level 5 using example of progression above (1-15 ranks).

That seems potentially workable. Cuts way down on the bookkeeping, too. Might be a bit overly restrictive to some concepts, though.

Zoolimar wrote:

Give 1 Skill Unlock per level without casting progression

1 Skill Unclock per 2 levels with 4th level caster progression.
Per 3 levels for 6th level casters.
Per 5 levels for 9th level casters.

Full casters shouldn't get any by default, and 6-level casters likely shouldn't either. Both should be able to Feat into them, and 6-level casters should maybe get some additional ways to pick up a few extra, but it shouldn't be free. That also seems a bit much for 4-level casters. I'd go one every 3 for them. Probably also starting at 1st.

The Feat should give 1 for every tier of unlock all in one specific skill in the progression line (so, a total of 6 at ranks 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 if that's the progression you go with). Keep it called 'Signature Skill' but allow it more than once.

You obviously need a Tier 1 unlock in a Skill before you can get Tier 2 and so on. You should probably be restricted to Class Skills in terms of those Unlocks you get from level (though a Trait gaining you the Class Skill would be enough). That enforces some class specialization.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's still weirdly asymmetric. 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 would make more sense, IMO. Or 1/4/8/12/16/20. the highest levels in either case would probably only have one option per skill, and be super-powerful as a capstone of sorts.

Well if you have Skill Unlocks getting their "capstone" at level 15 than you can add some "epic" feats at level 17 that have Skill Unlocks as prerequisites and allow for some really supernatural staff.

Let's take for example Acrobatics and top it with something else.

Jump Good Skill Unlock
Acrobatics 15 ranks

You can fly with perfect manoeuvrability up to your speed (double move, run all that works) but you must end your turn on a surface capable of supporting you or you will fall down at the end of your turn.

Perfect Balance Skill Unlock
Acrobatics 15 ranks

You can stand on any object that is more dense than air regardless of it's ability to support your weight. This includes liquids, thin branches and even gaseous substances.

Air Mastery Feat
Prerequisites: Jump Good, Perfect Balance

Flight: You can fly with perfect manoeuvrability with flight speed equal to your land speed.

Drag: Any time you take a double move, charge or run action you can make a free Trip,Bull Rush or Reposition attempt against anyone who is adjacent to you at any point in your movement. You can use your Acrobatics skill instead of your CMB. This attempts do not provoke attacks of opportunity, failure of a check doesn't stop your movement and you can use combat manoeuvrers in this fashion against targets of any size.

Tornado: You can create tornadoes with power dependant on time spent.

P.S. This Feat is still probably too weak for level 17 and should be spiced with some additional abilities.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Might be a bit overly restrictive to some concepts, though.

Make Skill Focus allow for higher level Skill Unlocks regardless of Ability Modifiers ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would help if the Skill Unlocks were lowered to a reasonable level first.

Even within the current system, "Jump Good" is something a 13th level Monk can do with a Feat (Cloud Step) and "Perfect Balance" is a 6th level Ninja ability.

As well, "Jump Good" (like Cloud Step) is just a crappy version of a 5th level Wizard ability (or a 7th level Cleric ability).

Perfect Balance should be bumped down to 5th, and Jump Good to 10th AT MOST.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

It would help if the Skill Unlocks were lowered to a reasonable level first.

Even within the current system, "Jump Good" is something a 13th level Monk can do with a Feat (Cloud Step) and "Perfect Balance" is a 6th level Ninja ability.

As well, "Jump Good" (like Cloud Step) is just a crappy version of a 5th level Wizard ability (or a 7th level Cleric ability).

Perfect Balance should be bumped down to 5th, and Jump Good to 10th AT MOST.

This is part of the reason I think skill unlocks could work really well congruently with martial clash features, so the skill unlocks open up with the expansion of your class. Imagine if jump good allowed a combination of Spring Attack and Fly By Attack that could be combined with Vital Strike and adds bonuses based on the height attained/distance traveled, and these features are added after successive Weapon Training levels. A full round attack is still better, but it offers lethality with mobility.

Though I agree on your point of having things earlier, so it'd be wise to have it scale appropriately as you level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Even within the current system, "Jump Good" is something a 13th level Monk can do with a Feat (Cloud Step) and "Perfect Balance" is a 6th level Ninja ability.

Technically - no.

Cloud Step allows a maximum of 50 feat of movement. At level 15 without some additional abilities movement rate of a monk will be 35 ft.

Light Step (Ninja) and Spider Step (Feat, Monk) still require to end movement on a surface capable of supporting characters weight.

But yeah, I may have been too conservative with level of abilities.


Maybe have specific class features lower the rank requirement on the abilities.

Anyone can jump good, but some can earlier than others.


That'd be pretty Simple. A rogue could 1/2 His class level when determining his effective ranks in disable device for the purposes of the skill unlock for example.


Frosty Ace wrote:
snip

Well the very nature of crunch heavy games is that they are not flexible when it comes to styles of narrative. Even massively abstract rules like in Pathfinder still move only in one direction. More free form systems have easier time involving in different selection of styles at the same time. As example, Shadowrun is really only good for running Shadowrun. If you wanted just cyberpunk, there are lot better options for purely cyberpunk.

Take the Dragoon Fighter for instance. Where do we put the limit how high can they jump? There is some ballpark answer. Where do you put the limit how much fall damage they can negate? More advanced question. "I am going to jump really high and jump attack this enemy" "Ok. *GM rolls dice* You kill both the enemy and yourself with a fantastic splat"

I tried to write a reply for long time because lot of responses I came up came to talking about the rules, but this was a question of beyond the rules. Why can't you allow the player to do what he wants?

So why did they enforce the idea that fantastic martial combat is just swinging sword better by releasing Weapon Master's Handbook? What is stopping Paizo from appeasing everyone in this thread by making their own Book of Nine Swords? Magic Item Mastery is almost a statement that it is only natural that you rely on magic items to do anything, all well and intended.

How "wrongbadfun" something is, is directly affected by how well the rules of the game support it. Wizards would also be instantly "wrongbadfun" if they were not given prestige by the rules. I guess I have just ran tired of the topic when I reach the "well what is Paizo gonna do about it" point of the conversation. I had my ideas which was make new classes that replace Fighter, you seem to want a system of skill unlocks that function as pseudo-archetypes for the Fighter to start having class abilities, anyway goes.

Ninja is very stylized class, Monk is appropriation of eastern kung fu, Barbarian is the old player of the hulk tropes. Like I keep repeating, it is how you dress it. If you say to people "Fighter can now jump really high by himself" people will find it clashing. If you introduce a new class by saying "Ok so it is the Dragoon from Final Fantasy series", the perception changes completely. The inspiration is made obvious. People understand that Dragoon can do the high jump ... because it is something that exists in Final Fantasy. But this is like warning sign made actual. You know those cases when Ninja becomes wrongbadfun because GM does not want that style in his game? Dragoon could face the same.

And Paizo did kinda forsake Ninja. Was it because Ninja was wrongbadfun and instead what they really wanted to do was a companion book full of style feats that let you do such thing as 10 foot step, "spears are now double weapons".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The answer to your questions Envall is, to prevent a clash in styles a Fighter must become fanatastic. This is the same answer I gave you esrlier because you keep bringing the same arguments and same support for said arguments instead of actually discussing opposing points.

When you compare level 6 and level 16 the only aspect of the game that doesn't get a "style clash" is the martial.

Enemies went from "Oh, it's a Worg. It drags you into the bushes and eats you." all the way to "You're fighting a Nascent Demon Lord capable of becoming a soul engine and it's up to you to keep him from taking his second step toward becoming a full deity"

Skills went from "those things that everyone wishes they had more ranks of" to "Don't worry, I have just the spell for this"

People you talk to went from "Mostly a bunch of town rabble and occasionally a Lord" to "You're now strong enough to have Kings and Queens requesting your company, you're buddies with the world's resident Sage of Time or whatever, and if the need be there's a Silver Dragon who owes you a favor and some brewskies"

Spells went from 'Oh I make that guy unable to move for a few rounds" to "this man will go on a quest for me and if he even thinks about disobeying me his body will be wracked in pain as he wastes away, or I can go and visit a God if I felt up to it, or I am going to create my own personal customized dimension!"

Fighters went from " I can hit you twice" to "I can hit you like 4 times or something"

The fact that everything else at high level play engages in "style clash" compared to low level play, expect for Fighters, is actually significantly more "suspension of disbelief breaking" than Fighters jumping like a FF Dragoon.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
The answer to your questions Envall is, to prevent a clash in styles a Fighter must become fanatastic. This is the same answer I gave you esrlier because you keep bringing the same arguments and same support for said arguments instead of actually discussing opposing points.

I did not reply to you because it is hard to reply to multiple people at the same time. And "discussion opposing points" is pretty vague, be more direct.

Everyone understands the disparity by now. Pathfinder itself is not in conflict with it since it is very much natural to it.

Direct question. Do you want to make Fighter into a new class? Because this seems like the easiest way to give Fighter class abilities that let them do fantastic things.
Or do you want to fix all martials at once with some one-size-fits-all solution that allows more free range powers in general for all players, nevermind the class?


See we both see the disparity very differently

You may be seeing it as something natural, intentional, and supported.

I see it as a consequence of the developers sticking close to 3.5 and an unwanted baggage on the system that the dev team doesn't know how to effectively combat without turning away from tradition and losing players.

As for the skill stuff. We already have spoken about how it would be implemented so all classes would not have equal access. We're still on that discussion topic.

It's easier to Expand upon a generic system introduced in Unchained as a staple on fix than it is for Paizo to create another core book of "class+"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
snip

About the fall damage, they wouldn't take any. If your body has the strength and endurance to propel you into the air that fast, and you can force yourself to, from midair to fall faster than terminal velocity, why would landing hurt you? The height and restrictions are minutiae that just boil down to simple stats. As you said, ball park. I'd say make high jumps 1 to 1 for acrobatics with an extra 1d6(?) per X amount of feet you fall into the enemy, and treat long jumps made as part of a charge as a mounted charge with a possible bonus maneuver thrown in.

No one is saying, "now the fighter can jump high," if you combine Weapon Training/Mastery with skill unlocks, the flavor makes sense. Barbarians work because rage. Monks work because ki. Wizards with because magic and studying. Oracles work because spooky mysteries. Fighters work because training. In a fantastic setting, any of these reasons for working should easily excuse superhuman abilities.

Seriously, a Dragoon is just a fighter that focused on spears and jumping, and got really good at it.

Also, I don't think the conversation is asking what Paizo will do. It, to me, feels like an honest attempt from several people to get fantastic elements for martials that work with the existing system, and making skills matter when spells exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jumping good, flying, pounce - or any other way you want to call full attack on a move all don't fix the issue with a fighter at high levels.

If the problem is 'I hit better with a sword' isn't enough - then no fix that involves weapons or attacks will fix the fighter - otherwise what you are saying is 'I don't think the fighter is good *enough* at fighting' which isn't what anyone so far has said.

The complaints are the fighter has no way to affect the narrative - they just hit really good. Any fix that involves hitting things really good (or even better) doesn't *FIX* that problem.

That is to say if you take Fighter A that went from 1 to 16 and 'hits really good' and give him the ability to jump and hit an enemy for more damage and all his attacks at the end you still have a Fighter that went from 1 to 16 and 'hits really good'.

Sadly I think any solution that does *anything* for the fighter personally involving damage or combat doesn't actually fix anything that is currently *wrong* with the fighter. Otherwise you just say 'fighters get pounce at level 10' and be done with it. Also skill unlocks or ways for a fighter to do what other classes do just makes those classes less unique. Take 'jump really good' - does that help the fighter shine against a flying monk? (because the monk still uses boots of flying and isn't restricted to his own muscles) - I don't see how a fighter being able to do anything another character can do really helps them shine or find the 'We need a fighter in this group' role. That will require abilities and or things the fighter brings to the *group* other than 'I hit something"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They don't fix all of them, but the fighter does have an issue delivering its damage, which is what fixes like that are aimed at.

Yeah, a big chunk of the fighter's issues are its lack of ability to alter narrative structure... but another one of them is that despite being "only good at combat" they aren't actually that great at dealing with any of the nuances of it. A melee fighter is borderline helpless against any CR relevant enemy standing ten feet away from him and you can't ignore stuff like that either.

Quote:
Also skill unlocks or ways for a fighter to do what other classes do just makes those classes less unique.

Only insofar as that the fighter is no longer uniquely terrible at everything that isn't hitting someone next to him with a sword.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the problem is that there are multiple classes that compete for the same niche. The fighter isn't allowed to be the true master of every or any combat style because that would be stepping on the toes of other classes.

In the case of the fighter his niche is fighting. But EVERYONE has to be capable of fighting in one capacity or another. So you run into the situation where anyone can step on the fighters toes but the fighter isn't allowed to step on anyone else because that's outside of the theme of his class.

Fighter can't be better than the ranger at tracking and woodsman stuff cause that's the Rangers job

Fighter can't be crazy acrobatic and wuxia that's the monks job

Fighter can't be a knight on horseback that's that's Cavaliers job

Fighter can't be a crusader against evil that's the Paladins job

Fighter can't be an unarmed hand to hand combatant that's the Brawlers job

All these classes have more clearly defined theme and get a bunch of cool abilities related to it. This of course is on top of being effectively equivalent to (or better than) to the fighter in terms of combat competency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zoolimar wrote:


Tornado: You can create tornadoes with power dependant on time spent.

Reminds me of Hoahmaru, throwing cyclones at people.

May be too wuxia, but cool as hell.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Reminds me of Hoahmaru, throwing cyclones at people.

May be too wuxia, but cool as hell.

Well, I think for monk or some other similar character it will just right.


Fighter really might be too generic for Pathfinder rules. The game grew in the direction of classes filling niches, and even the wizard has special powers based on school and bond that are head and shoulders above the fighter's options.

Maybe Pathfinder needs an archer class, a throwing weapon class, etc. to really maximize the benefit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
Seriously, a Dragoon is just a fighter that focused on spears and jumping, and got really good at it.

Spears and jumping? Not horsemanship and musketry?

I see this association between dragoons and jumping all over, but I'm at a loss as to why. Is there a Manga called "Dragoon" or something that features a lot of flying jumps? (Bear with me, I also had to ask what a berserk had to do with stoopidly oversized swords.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Final Fantasy, Kirth Gersen. In that franchise, Dragoons are spear wielding armored warriors with a strong emphasis on mobility. Their signature skill is jumping incredibly high into the air and landing spear first on top of an enemy.

They also sometimes have a dragon motif or dragonslaying theme to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah. Cue accusations of trying to turn Pathfinder into a video game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ah. Cue accusations of trying to turn Pathfinder into a video game.

Can't help but feel there's some irony to Final Fantasy drawing heavy inspiration from DnD, only to eventually have characters that are viewed as weak in Pathfinder (Dragoon/Fighter [Both individual classes in FF, but both really a basic fighter] and Monk) be amongst the most powerful classes in its franchise.

Also, a high level Underfoot Adept is already pulling Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance levels of over the top. Seriously, after deflecting its with Crane Wing, bite, a halfling can then just German suplex a Tarrasque.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems like skills were developed mainly for out of combat usage. Combat, including cmb stuff is designed solely for obviously combat. Only spells were developed for all aspects of the game. Spells are also developed to interact with the other systems but not the reverse. You have to change that inherent blind spot if you want a class that uses combat or skills for its power.

Spells and combat maneuvers both provoke if used in threatened range. Spells Coke with a built in level scaling check to avoid this for all spells. A fighter who wants to use cmb must take feats, expending limited class features to do so. This is the way of it for so many basic features. Want to move and attack? Sack half to three quarters of your output. Want to cast and move? Sack nothing.

But ignoring that for a second. Let's make basic combat maneuvers inherent to the fighter just like weapon and armor proficiency. Take a feat for greater stuff not simply the ability to grab someone. While we look at that, how about adding throwing to the basic cmb list? Grabbing your foe and throwing him into his own men is time honored martial combat in tv and film.

Also, on the current dragoon topic....Kain is the name of a famous dragoon from Final Fantasy 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Those were also editions that single weapon fighter types got at best, two swings per round at the high end levels. And there were no such things as swift or immediate actions. Lets be aware of the apple/orange comparisons here.

Wellll, not quite. In AD&D, a Fighter surrounded by opponents with less than one hit die (This was back before CR was invented, so this could happen) got their level in attacks against them, and I seem to recall BECMI edition has some neat weapon-mastery abilities at the high levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Those were also editions that single weapon fighter types got at best, two swings per round at the high end levels. And there were no such things as swift or immediate actions. Lets be aware of the apple/orange comparisons here.
Wellll, not quite. In AD&D, a Fighter surrounded by opponents with less than one hit die (This was back before CR was invented, so this could happen) got their level in attacks against them, and I seem to recall BECMI edition has some neat weapon-mastery abilities at the high levels.

12th level for Master and 16th for Grand Master, iirc. Of course it was expensive to train and, annoyingly, your chance to succeed wasn't high with the higher grades (we dealt with that by making the success chance cumulative). The extra attacks, bonus to hit, and damage were nice but it was the special effects you could get that I really enjoyed. Flourish especially. I always claimed that my character's Flourish was to stick her weapon in the ground and pull out some disco moves, thereby terrifying the enemy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
Can't help but feel there's some irony to Final Fantasy drawing heavy inspiration from DnD, only to eventually have characters that are viewed as weak in Pathfinder (Dragoon/Fighter [Both individual classes in FF, but both really a basic fighter] and Monk) be amongst the most powerful classes in its franchise.

But we should note that the "main campaign" of each FF game is all about combat after combat, and each character's stats have no say in the narrative, caster or not. Obviously, it meant that those warriors who pull off flashy attacks without spending any limited resource at all would shine all the time.

P.S. Maybe except FF6's Celestriad + Quick + Ultima * 5 combo. Well, magic was strong in that particular story...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Maybe except FF6's Celestriad + Quick + Ultima * 5 combo. Well, magic was strong in that particular story...

Not to mention that Magicite made everyone in the game a caster. Even the train suplexer and the "treasure hunter".


Lucas Yew wrote:
Maybe except FF6's Celestriad + Quick + Ultima * 5 combo. Well, magic was strong in that particular story...
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Not to mention that Magicite made everyone in the game a caster. Even the train suplexer and the "treasure hunter".

People keep mocking me for it, but I'm telling you, a rogue dual-path mythic archmage/heirophant, guys (with the minor magic talent). It's great! And has precedent! :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:

But we should note that the "main campaign" of each FF game is all about combat after combat, and each character's stats have no say in the narrative, caster or not. Obviously, it meant that those warriors who pull off flashy attacks without spending any limited resource at all would shine all the time.

Fair enough, but part of the problem with the Fighter is that it will fail to live up to its namesake. I think that's a fundamental issue that needs addressing. Even if it (It being superhuman feats of Weapon Mastery) only makes the fighter frightfully efficient in combat, that helps level the playing field a bit. In most FF games, combat utility is left to the magic users, since "martials" will be overwhelmingly efficient at killing things. I think if having a Fighter meant that, "Whatever we run into, (Insert Fighter here) is here and can wipe it out with extreme prejudice if need be," that would make the class more attractive.

At this point in the game, with Wish, demon binding, plane hopping and Simulacrum, it's almost impossible to have a martial match a casters utility and narrative options, but if given more fantastic abilities, superhuman martial abilities could impact the narrative on some scale with more creative use. The main problem is magic bring nigh unlimited in far too many contexts.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Talek & Luna wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

In any magical universe, accelerated physical training speed should be a given. Given how many hp you can heal a day back, recovery times, and so training times, would also be accelerated.

What I think is mindboggling is the idea that getting in shape really fast and to an incredible degree is nigh impossible, while levelling from 1 to 20 in a month is certainly possible.

Sure, physical training times take a while...for us. Now think how long it takes to become a world-class expert in a skill like, oh, quantum physics. DECADES for FIVE RANKS. You know, something about as hard as a 3rd level spell.

If mages can do it, fighters can do it on the other side. Eesh.

==Aelryinth

If that were the case then why have the warrior NPC class? Shouldn't all basic fighting classes be named fighter? If it is that easy to gain physical fitness and training shouldn't the average farmer be superhuman stat wise? If after all one of the big tropes in D&D is the farmer going on an adventure and picking up combat training. Then no, a fighter is not doing anything mind-boggling according to you.

You are saying that maintaining a strength in 18 to 20 range and constitution or dexterity in that range is no big deal? You are kidding yourself. Intelligence is inborn. After awhile, humans adapt and someone figures out how to do something. We are using the internet after all. I know a lot more people that are pretty smart, some of which use these message boards. I doubt that the majority of them maintain physical abilities to match their intellect.

This is another double standard argument.

Why have the adept NPC class? Shouldn't all basic casting classes be named Wizard? IF it's that easy to gain knowledge and learn spellcasting, shouldn't the average farmer be supermental statwise? If after all one of the big tropes is the common-born child going out and picking up spellcasting with no effort. Then, no a wizard is not doing anything exceptional at all, according to you.

You are saying that building up and maintaining a knowledge base or leadership capability or introspective ability is no big deal? You are kidding yourself. Intelligence is something people have to work at and develop, and keep constantly stimulated. Remove stimuli, and mental capability shrinks accordingly - that is why smart people talk to smart people, and why the Internet with the ability to talk with smart people EVERYWHERE is so beloved.
Go back 200 years and turn your attention from the intelligensia to the common man, who got by on physical labor. I doubt ANY of them maintained mental capability equal to their physical prowess, because being strong was a mandatory survival tool. The people who got by on brains were few and far between, or wealthy and didn't have to worry about work.
===============
The warrior is MILITIA.
The Fighter is the OLYMPIAN OF COMBAT.
Compare the weekend amateur to the MMA heavyweight champ, to the Olympic Athlete, etc.

That's the difference. High level warriors are nigh impossible to find, because if you're going to make a life choice to be high level like that, you might as well focus yourself on being a master warrior and not squeaking by with just the basics of combat. You'll retrain to fighter and start being serious about what you do for a living.

Fighters go out adn FIND TROUBLE. Warriors are people who fight when trouble comes to them, or are ordered to go out and deal with it. Fighters are the professionals, and head and shoulders above mere warriors, who likely idolize the heck out of people who actually make going out and getting into fights the reason for their existence.

*)&^)*& Double standards.

=++Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t6ov?Dispelling-Myths-The-CasterMartial-Dispar ity#1

Talek & Luna, you need to seriously read this link, because your arguments basically hit almost every single bloody trope that Jiggy linked to.

I'm amazed someone didn't just roll their eyes and link to it a hundred posts ago. I know you hit at least 1, 3, 4, and 7. Eesh.

Oh, and this one:

http://i.imgur.com/jNT6Ce6.png

And Kirth's Addendums:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t6ov?Dispelling-Myths-The-CasterMartial-Dispar ity#26

==Aelryinth

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,366 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What does a "non-wuxia" high-level fighter look like? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.