Out of combat stuff is key. More AC, more damage, better saves and so on while an issue are a very minor one comparatively. The Path of War classes the 137ben listed above are a good start though. Honestly, I'd just kill off the Fighter class since it's theme is absurdly broad. I'd prefer to refocus the Rogue as a Thief, but give them Supernatural abilities at higher levels like Steal Luck and Steal Life. Monk, I'd replace with a Meditant Psychic Warrior and be perfectly fine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are already useful and competent. Ample playtesting has shown this out repeatedly. In-combat things are not the area they need help in. Buffing them up, or replacing them with a set of classes that just further exacerbate rocket tag and bring the levels that it's active at much lower won't help as much as working in logical out-of-combat abilities, and that's where you should focus your attention if you want to be successful.
Make an archetype for Rogue/monk that allows them to act like a Shadowdancer...
For monk, if you could stack it with the Monk Of the Seven WiNds. Having the shadow dancer.ability to bounce around and get bonuseS for moving and attacking (you get from Monk.of the Seven Winds) wpuld make for a cool mobile fighter...
Actually thinking about it...
Monk of the Seven Winds with a dip into SD would be pretty cool.. or Monk Of the Seven winds with the dimensional dervish chain...
I agree with those who say they need more narrative power. These classes seem to do fine in melee...aside from the corner cases where everybody is expected to have wings.
Rogues should be able to access a spy network and gain info,more than what's provided from skill checks.
Fighter should be replaced with a "Warlord" type class that can gain holdings and noble standing...be a figure in the "empire".
Get a castle as a class ability...that's what I'm talking about.
What if you want to be Clint Eastwood, Fighter (Trench Fighter) 20? Maybe you could trade your castle for a squinty gaze attack that causes paralysis?I agree with those who say they need more narrative power. These classes seem to do fine in melee...aside from the corner cases where everybody is expected to have wings.
Rogues should be able to access a spy network and gain info,more than what's provided from skill checks.
Fighter should be replaced with a "Warlord" type class that can gain holdings and noble standing...be a figure in the "empire".
Get a castle as a class ability...that's what I'm talking about.
It would have to be a trade of narrative abilities....once you introduce the ability to exchange the classes narrative powers for increased fighting ability....the narrative choices become "sub-optimal" and secondary to the pursuit of "Murderhobo 2.0"
I could see trading away the castle for a "Mysterious stranger" or "hero of the people" narrative type ability.
Stop doing things like this.
Nimble Climber (Ex): Whenever the rogue fails a Climb check by 5 or more, she can attempt a Reflex save (using the same DC as the Climb check) to catch herself and avoid falling.
... The opportunity cost for this is not converting it into a feat. Why on earth wouldn't someone just take the damned +3 from skill focus and not miss by 5 or GASP, actually make their check. The probability of making your refelx save at the dc equal to the drops the usefulness of this talent below +2.
Compare that with the UC barbarian
Raging Climber (Ex): The barbarian gains a climb speed equal to 1/2 her base land speed, taking into account her fast movement class feature. She can't use this climb speed to climb any surface with a DC higher than 20. She also gains a +8 enhancement bonus on Climb checks.
Expert Leaper (Ex): When using the Acrobatics skill to jump, a rogue with this talent is always considered to have a running start and adds her rogue level to the check result. Whenever she deliberately falls, a successful DC 15 Acrobatics check allows her to ignore the first 20 feet fallen. For every 5 by which she exceeds the DC of this check, she can ignore an additional 10 feet of distance fallen.
Raging Leaper (Ex): The barbarian is always considered to have a running start when attempting an Acrobatics check to jump. In addition, she gains a +8 bonus on Acrobatics checks to jump. Finally, if the barbarian falls, she halves the total distance fallen for the purposes of determining damage taken from the fall.
This is particularly glaring in unchained, which was supposed to stop this dross. The UC rogue seems to be a 3-5 level dip class because all you do after that is swap out talents for feats.
Narrative power is tricky and tends to come with an entire train of baggage.
What would Valeros even do with a stronghold? In what campaign would an army of low level mooks be useful that doesn't already use the kingdom rules?
Even back in the first edition days Sturm and Caramon never got strongholds. Raistlin didn't get a tower and apprentice until he left the party and became a villainous NPC.
What I think is both needed and possible are ways to attack other defenses and debuff.
I'd suggest a complete revamp of alchemical items. Save DC is 10+1/2 crafter's raw skill+users dex mod. The damage should scale with the crafter's base skill as well, though I'm not certain how fast. Crafting price adjustments are the same as for firearm ammunition. Maybe the wizard crafts them, but he's lousy at using them because they tend to have ranged touch attacks that are actually difficult for him and his dex may not be great. And they'd be useful enough that the party would probably want more than one person crafting them. That offers useful attacks against reflex and fortitude. Attacks against will would still be the domain of casters, but it's a good start and expands mechanical options without crossing any realism lines.
I like the idea of giving martials ways to attack saves directly. There are lots of ways to fluff it too...you could even get will save type effects with fear and demoralization based abilities.
The castle or stronghold was just an example. Obviously you would want some choices so you could determine your characters niche. there should be some attention given to non-combat considerations.It's not simple...or easy, but there is design space left to add out of combat abilities to purely martial characters. It could be implemented any number of ways. Social templates...Class based social traits that can be expanded upon in supplements etc..whatever.
Fighter is kind of antiquated as a class....I mean, everyone fights. It's not like there's Spellcaster: The class.
I agree with those who say they need more narrative power. These classes seem to do fine in melee...aside from the corner cases where everybody is expected to have wings.What level are you calling corner case? There comes a level where pretty much everything flies.
Usually you don't face nothing but flyers...there are encounters like that, but most GMs I've played with tend to mix it up.
Ranged attacks are useful as well. It's no replacement for flying ofcourse...but it helps.Committed melee specialists with no ranged attacking ability are the most affected by such situations.
So I guess those types of characters are the corner case....rather than a certain level.
I will say that I don't think every class needs access to personal flight. I could definitely see flying mounts for high level martials across the board.
Rogue on Dire bat...yes please.
Bring on the Gryphons and pegasii.
A raging barbarian on a Pterodactyl is far cooler than one who gets so mad he grows wings (to me).
I like the idea of giving martials ways to attack saves directly. There are lots of ways to fluff it too...you could even get will save type effects with fear and demoralization based abilities.
The castle or stronghold was just an example. Obviously you would want some choices so you could determine your characters niche. there should be some attention given to non-combat considerations.
It's not simple...or easy, but there is design space left to add out of combat abilities to purely martial characters. It could be implemented any number of ways. Social templates...Class based social traits that can be expanded upon in supplements etc..whatever.
Fighter is kind of antiquated as a class....I mean, everyone fights. It's not like there's Spellcaster: The class.The issue with demoralize using will saves is that the scaling between skills and saves don't match. I think the game would be better if they did so that skills could substitute for saves, but that's a big and far reaching change to make.
It's really hard to give the fighter narrative power without making him a skill monkey because that's where narrative power comes from for non-casters.
Monk's an even harder challenge because at least a lot of narratively potent skills like diplomacy, intimidate, and knowledge:nobility/history/local can be thematically fit onto a fighter. Making friends and influencing people and a monastic upbringing do not go hand in hand.
It would take a major overhaul. Your right about that. There's only some much you can tack on....it would have to be cleaned up.
Fighter's greatest problem is, when the fight music isn't playing, you're playing a Commoner. Also, Fighters kinda suck in combat.
Rogue's greatest problem is that they don't get high-level abilities, only low-level dross. Seriously, Getaway Driver, Rumormonger and Master of Disguise? Where's the ability to play the Stealth minigame against level-appropriate opponents? The impressive alpha strikes? Also, Rogues totally suck in combat.
Regular Monk is a cool 1 or 2 levels dip. Unchained Monk looks fine, for a generous definition of fine.
Regarding the supposed "bottom 3" classes: Rogue, Monk, and Fighter, how would we make them be able to stand their ground and actually be useful and competent? The bar set here is at Barbarian and Paladin, not at Wizard.
If we're setting the bar at Barbarian then, I feel the premise of your initial post is flawed. I've never seen Wizards and Fighters actually have an issue in game when it comes to combat. Wizards can (assuming they beat SR, assuming the monster craps it's save) take out enemies one at a time (we ban the overpowered metamagic feats as a matter of routine). The fighter can deal a bajillion damage that, assuming all attacks hit, kills the monster. Even in all of these "fighters are awful" threads we're consistently seeing it granted as fact that fighters are fine in combat.
So here we look at out of combat uses. Except the barbarian isn't exactly a versatile class when it comes to out of combat utility. Give the fighter 4+int mod skill points per level and give them diplomacy as a class skill and call it a day.
CRB Monks suck. CRB+APG+UM+UC are a beast if we're setting out expectations to barbarian. They get a lot of moving parts which keeps them interesting, and if you take the right combination of archetypes and feats, with some teamwork, a group of monks (plus 1 cleric) can absolutely murder published adventures. They get 4+int mod skills with some interesting class skills so there's nothing you need to do. They're fine as published.
CRB Rogues suck. Unchained Rogues are a significant upgrade. At this time I'm not comfortable saying rogues need anything beyond the unchained rogue until I see it in play over a period of time. So I'd leave them as is for now.
The problem isn't bringing up the "crappy" classes up to a reasonable level. Paizo have produced enough supplements that rogues and monks are fine. The problem is partly in bringing the god classes down to a more reasonable level.
The other major part of the problem is people wanting certain classes to do what they aren't designed to do. The fighter class is the class for people who want to play like it's 1989! The fighter class is for the theoretical timid person who doesn't want to have to track very much in combat (I've never seen this person play Pathfinder. All new Pathfinder players I've seen seem to go for rogues, wizards and sorcerers). People complaining about "boring martials" actually want to play the Cavalier. Or the Swashbuckler. Or the Brawler. A few of these people want something that goes beyond what even these classes provide. They want to be playing the Martial Spellcaster. Pathfinder has been deliberately designed to NOT cater to that playstyle in order to keep things comfortable for those who find this playstyle so alien that they cannot play a game where it is present. That hasn't stopped the people wanting Martial Spellcasters from making a bajillion threads on the issue though.
I like the idea of giving martials ways to attack saves directly. There are lots of ways to fluff it too...you could even get will save type effects with fear and demoralization based abilities.
If only there was a major fantasy roleplaying game that had been produced to cater to this very specific desire.
The fighter needs an ability that works similar to animal focus in its permanent form. A flexible buff he can change as a swift action that mainly helps out of combat but can give little bonuses in combat, too.
Call it soldier's focus or something like it but have it be like the animal focus options. Giving either a bonus to perception (scout), climb (pioneer), swim and acrobatics to jump (sailor), stealth (infiltrator), land speed (messenger) etc. I would include some of the vermin focuses, too. Cockroach and worm for example.
With that the fighter would get some form of versatility without spells, could do some things out of combat despite having few skillpoints and could regain hitpoints out of combat without being a drain on party resources.
I would add a strong will save and the fighter would be a competent class without being too powerful.
The fighter needs an ability that works similar to animal focus in its permanent form. A flexible buff he can change as a swift action that mainly helps out of combat but can give little bonuses in combat, too.
Except fighters were designed to have the least number of moving parts possible. So that necessitates that this ability either be a feat or an archetype that replaces bravery (who the heck has ever found bravery useful? Seriously!?)
For monks with their ninja-like abilities, stuff like invisibility and teleportation make a lot of sense. Ninja in some legends can do that, so why not Monks?
For rogues, it's clear that rogue talents need to be seriously upgraded. Lots of rogue talents offer really cool abilities, but they're tiny, and not remotely on the same level as a feat. And even feat-level abilities wouldn't be enough to get rogues on the same level as barbarians or rangers. So give all the small rogue talents for free, maybe one per level, maybe even more than that. And on the levels where you should get an actual rogue talent, you get a big upgraded version that's more in line with barbarian rage powers or something a magical class could do. Climb speed, movement that's effectively a short-range teleport, that sort of stuff.
Fighters primarily need more staying power, I think. Some extra skill points would be nice too, but primarily, fighters should be the backbone that simply will not go down. They shouldn't be so vulnerable to domination, for example. Maybe they should get a similar boost to saving throws as the one Paladins get, but based on Con or Str (depending on how generous you want to be).
So that necessitates that this ability either be a feat or an archetype that replaces bravery
This is exactly what's keeping the fighter weak. He needs something that is neither a feat nor does it replace something. If it is a feat every class and their grandma can take it, too.
Edit: If the glass is only half full, just replacing something will never make it full.
I actually think that Fighters are weak, not boring. Any character can be interesting, but a mechanically disadvantaged class can't be as strong as a superior class (assuming equal levels of optimization, lets not get into strongest fighter>weakest wizard garbage here, I _could_ kill you with a toothpick, but it's very unlikely you would let me).
I personally would be perfectly happy with increased numbers. It might further pigeonhole the class, but at least they could truly SHINE sometimes.
In every game I have played, casters at higher levels are able to consistently contribute more to combat than the fighters.
Mirror Image and similar spells make the casters better tanks...
Ugh.
I do like the idea of a floating bonus that the Fighter can move around, that's a neat idea.
Ultimately, guys, we should all just realize that the base Fighter clas can be ignored. There are so many other options now, we don't need to FIX this one, just play something else!
I, too think that fighters are weak. For me they are the weakest class. In combat they are boring and can just do hitpoint damage reliably, out of combat they can't do shit because they lack the skills and class abilities to do so and they have no narrative power at all.
Rogues are only slightly ahead but they are because the amount of out of combat stuff they can do is further ahead than the combat abilities lag behind the fighter.
Monks can be viable in and out of combat but mainly because of the Qinggong Monk who allows them to do magic stuff.
The fighter needs an ability that works similar to animal focus in its permanent form. A flexible buff he can change as a swift action that mainly helps out of combat but can give little bonuses in combat, too.Except fighters were designed to have the least number of moving parts possible. So that necessitates that this ability either be a feat or an archetype that replaces bravery (who the heck has ever found bravery useful? Seriously!?)
i would agree with this but when i swapped over to the feat using DnD stage, i stayed away from fighter since it had so many bonus feats. PALADINS now they, they have the least amount of moving parts.
PALADINS now they, they have the least amount of moving parts.
Except for, you know, preparing spells every single day if you get to a high enough level.
PALADINS now they, they have the least amount of moving parts.Except for, you know, preparing spells every single day if you get to a high enough level.
still less than the number of bonus feats i had to choose from at the time.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
I'd actually like to bring the playtest into the discussion with the Avenger. When I first saw the Avenger, I saw him as a fighter replacement.
What the Avenger loses vs the fighter
1) No bonus feat at level 1
2) No bravery
3) No armor mastery
4) No weapon mastery
5) Doesn't have the boatload of archypes to customize class abilities
6) D8 HP instead of D10
What the Avenger gains over the fighter
1) 6 skill points instead of 2
2) Social Identity and Social Traits
3) More varied in class skills
4) Talents at even levels are combat feats OR even better things
5) Good Reflex/Will saves instead of fort
6) "Appearance" abilities to start fights at an advantage
So the question is...does the Avenger fit the fighter role some people are looking for better than the fighter does? More diversified out of combat at the cost of some combat ability.
The other major part of the problem is people wanting certain classes to do what they aren't designed to do. The fighter class is the class for people who want to play like it's 1989! The fighter class is for the theoretical timid person who doesn't want to have to track very much in combat (I've never seen this person play Pathfinder. All new Pathfinder players I've seen seem to go for rogues, wizards and sorcerers). People complaining about "boring martials" actually want to play the Cavalier. Or the Swashbuckler. Or the Brawler. A few of these people want something that goes beyond what even these classes provide. They want to be playing the Martial Spellcaster. Pathfinder has been deliberately designed to NOT cater to that playstyle in order to keep things comfortable for those who find this playstyle so alien that they cannot play a game where it is present. That hasn't stopped the people wanting Martial Spellcasters from making a bajillion threads on the issue though.
I don't think that Paizos' fighter class design philosophy is what you say it is. To be totally honest, I'm not really sure what you mean by playing like it was 1989, so I could be wrong. I would want to see something from the developers that backs up your statement.
It seems to me that fighters were designed to be a blank canvas for building a combat character. Everything about the class was left open including changing out feats, and there is nothing about the class you could drop to be better at combat. If you wanted things that made you better outside combat, dipping into other classes worked great, the way dipping into fighter to be better in combat also worked great.
My impression based on 3.5 then Pathfinder evolution, is that fighters were intended to be so good at combat from their bonus feats that they could use their regular feats for other options. They could also spread out their ability scores a little to be charismatic, intelligent/skilled, etc. and still kick ass in combat. Unfortunately, to keep up with caster characters, or what people on the internet say, many players felt forced to put all their ability scores and feats and equipment into combat. The "average" fighter stopped looking like Miyamoto Musashi, and ended up like Falchion Fred.
I can build a 10th level fighter with the ability to do decent archery, 2 handed combat, grapple, keep a good AC, AND still have feats and skills left over for diplomacy, will saves, etc. So I don't really see why people complain about the fighter being so bad, especially when they compare it to rogues, barbarians, rangers without animal companions, or other classes that seem to have the exact same claimed issues.
If people just stopped forcing mundanity on them they'd be just fine.
Even where my tastes aren't everyone else's, it does not require cartoonish, animated, or Oriental methodology to simply let martials, in an already fantastic setting, stop being constrained by the concerns of less exuberant, 'mere' mortals. The sort of things martials survive and endure should have more than just bicep-bulging results. Action hero glint should be in their eyes. Mission Impossible levels of stealthiness and cleverness should exude from the rogue. Monks should NEVER be mundane, from the most Shaolin-expy to the brewers of sacred wine as part of a theological pursuit of enlightenment to the Siddhartha Gautama would-be.
I stand by my supposition that too much of the ingrained martial/caster disparity is revenge-fantasy for nerds. And I say that AS a bloody nerd for Zod's sake.
That being said, give fighters options on the narrative related to feats of either strength or renown, without being constrained to bull-excrement 'realism'. Ditto feats of skill and guile for rogues, while allowing for acts of spontaneous amazingness from the monks. Stop trying to shoehorn them into some box of designated meat targets because you can't keep your RAW-interpretation free of Enforced Mundanity. If you can imagine Casters getting away with all manners of horse manure 'because magic', you should have trouble imagining what it looks like when a martial of suitable heroic stature gives the caster their comeuppance, unless you are that emotionally invested in 'lol caster wins always'.
Though I think a big part is that where people encounter Auto Success with magic, it's treated as the best of all possible results, and I personally think that magic should be the equivalent of taking 10 or 20, while the martial should always be able to get comparable to better results through effort. Magic can certainly work in general for ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, but I hold that magic works best in tandem with the results of actual physical labor. Thus why masterwork crafting as the chassis for enchanted arms and equipment, and why artisans at their craft are highly sought after for such craftings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, dear, I'm so sorry to have missed this until now.
Congratulations! Your thread has exceeded ten posts, and has been added to the Index! For now, it is in the Creative section, though this will have to change if arguments take over too badly. I trust you've closely examined your predecessors already so as to avoid retreading old ground.
Currently, this thread is actually fairly unique in being purely productive, so let's keep it that way.
I stand by my supposition that too much of the ingrained martial/caster disparity is revenge-fantasy for nerds. And I say that AS a bloody nerd for Zod's sake.
And I establish a new supposition that that's completely absurd. I'm not after a revenge fantasy—I really like martials. I like a martial who gets by without "cartoonish" stunts, is all. I really dig characters like Boromir and Boba Fett—"ordinary" warriors thrust into battles with magic-users. The fact that both of those characters died quickly notwithstanding.
That's not to say martials should stay as they are, of course. Most of your suggestions are fine by me. But most people talking about "mundanity" are actually not trying to enforce the disparity. The people trying to "enforce disparity" (and while I call it that, I'm aware that they generally see it as enforcing a current state of equality) don't care about mundanity—when they post in threads like this, it's purely on a meta "This thread is unnecessary" level.