Let's look at what the fighter actually has going for it now


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.
It's more of a pet peeve of mind with every guide I've read redmarking halfings for their speed when they have a freaking trait that speeds them up.

Honestly, small characters are the ideal go-to for mounted martials because there's essentially nowhere that the party is going to go that your mount doesn't go either, and believe me, halflings, goblins, and gnomes are awesome mounted.

Mounted combat is really, really strong in this game. A halfling with a bow riding on a riding dog or other mount is usually sporting a 40+ movement speed while making highly accurate full-attacks, and if they want to, they can burst stuff with a lance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
Okay, maybe that's just me, but I'll be damned if it isn't cool. And it's thanks to the fighter and all its feats I can do that. Something cool and fun. I'd say that's a huge improvement.

It's cool, but the point you loose me at is saying it's thanks to Fighter. I can think of at least three martials off the top of my head I would rather do it with than Fighter. (Without counting PrCs.)

Don't get me wrong, with archetypes the Fighter can be optimized through things like Eldritch Guardian and Mutagenic Mauler and gratuitous dipping and PrCs. But, the Fighter isn't really adding much to throwing at all. You could make a neat twin thrower build out of a Lyrakien familiar I suppose, but that's just a dip at high levels anyways.

We were pretty much given a Fighter for throwing in Swashbuckler. It's not even like Startoss is feat starved. You don't need the feats till you have a high enough BaB to make use of them and up till that point it's just weapon specialization.


Fair enough. I concede that a Swash can make use of Star toss and throw weapons really well, and startoss isn't great till higher BAB (Debateably it's fairly useful outside of just damage earlier on for non TWFing or multiple highest BAB attacks), but at the same time you also want all the other feats that make throwing good if you really plan on throwing things, like (imp) precise shot, possibly throw anything, deadly aim, two handed thrower, charging hurler, etc... not to mention the necessary point blank shot, quick draw and weapon focus. Also, as a Swash, you'd need a feat to even take ricochet toss, which makes throwing far more viable and stylish. Just as well, TWF is an alternative to startoss, or can be used congruently with it, the latter requires hella feats.

As a fighter, when you do get weapon training, startoss applies to ALL thrown weapons on the weapon training group (Looking at you random polearms and spears), including throw anything items (Not sure about things like greatswords lol), adding an enormous level of versatility to the fighter and its damage in a large variety of situations.

Also, the best thrown weapon IMO, Chakrams (Range and damage dice), can effectively be used in melee in heavy armor, which a core fighter will be wearing since armor training and high dex. Add to that things like the Fighters far superior AC, equal touch with the throwing Swash, and AWT to add to the fighter's will saves and reflex saves, the fighter has all around superior defenses.

So yeah, Swash can do a thrower, but it'd be much, much weaker than a fighter thrower in terms of damage, versatility, defenses and overall usefulness in throwing given the huge feat discrepancy.

P.S. I'm no Swash expert, so if I missed anything, please light me up lol.

Edit: Quoted my entire post and forgot how bold works.

Also, Swash weapon training doesn't qualify as regular WT, right?


Frosty Ace wrote:
(Debateably it's fairly useful outside of just damage earlier on for non TWFing or multiple highest BAB attacks)

I worded that poorly, Startoss Shower isn't needed until higher BAB so you can make use of it at all. Startoss Comet is fantastic, but only an investment of the first two feats most builds would already target and Startoss Style.

Besides that, I'm iffy on if Startoss Comet works with two-weapon thrower, charging hurler, and other such feats that require their own action. You definitely still get the damage buff so it's never a waste if you aren't using the style's action, but as far as I know these are all unique actions meaning you have to pick one or the other.

As much as I would LOVE to use Charging Hurler to open up some cool charge feat synergy as far as I know RaW it does not work.

Frosty Ace wrote:
P.S. I'm no Swash expert, so if I missed anything, please light me up lol.

Can do!

Frosty Ace wrote:
So yeah, Swash can do a thrower, but it'd be much, much weaker than a fighter thrower in terms of damage,

Level to damage at 3rd.

Frosty Ace wrote:
versatility,

At that same level you get your first of many +5 range increments. Deeds are not the best thing in the world, but they are versatile. If you wanted a truly versatile character a Warpriest would be nearly infinitely better at throwing builds.

Meanwhile, your purposed build has the kinda versatility it has been proven time and time again just doesn't work in Pathfinder. In theory, the Fighter can pick up any weapon and that's cool. I like that they can. But it's been shown many times that this doesn't help much in Pathfinder sadly. In certain homegames you can get some mileage out of it, but in general it will hurt.

Frosty Ace wrote:
defenses

Possibly, but it comes down to the finer points of the build. Your purposed build is actually really greedy on Str., so the Dex. bonus alone would mean Swash wins most stat methods.

Frosty Ace wrote:
and overall usefulness in throwing given the huge feat discrepancy.

Feats that have been shown to make for bad throwing builds and do not combine at all with Startoss' action. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice idea but impractical.

Frosty Ace wrote:
Also, Swash weapon training doesn't qualify as regular WT, right?

Yep, but the archetype I'm pointing at (Flying Blade) gets a lot more bonuses than WT and you still get effective Fighter levels. If you really need weapon training it's a 3-4 level dip, otherwise there is a feat for getting around WT for Weapon Mastery feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
More importantly to me, is that fighters don't teach you how to play the game.

Yeah. When are fighters going to get ac hp skills and saves like all the other classes?


You raise very good points. I wasn't really aiming for an optimal build or anything. Just fun lol. Seriously, you can kill someone with a dinner plate!

If we wanted pure dpr then we'd take the startoss feats and pre reqs, focus on chakrams with weapon specialozation, dump int for STR, blah blah blah snooze.

The point is is that you have the feats to play around if you want while still staying fairly competitive in damage. Wanna TWF? You got the feats and a lot of static bonuses. Wanna take weapon finesse and trained grace to be a really, really good switch hitter? Do it. Wanna throw anything and take skill focus in acrobatics for fun? Go for it. Want a killer will save? Never fall? TAKE DEM HEROIC FEATS!

Also, now keep in mind I may be totally of base here, but... I don't think the Swash comes close to a fighter in... any defenses save reflex. Certainly not AC. Hell with AWT it's not even a contest. Maybe reflex, but if the fighter wants reflex, he wins there with AWT. Obviously fort is better, and fighter has the free feats and less STR dependency to shore up that will save (+Armed bravery is badass). Hell you can dip into most of these options eventually.

The reason I was greedy with strength is because Weapon Specialozation and Training and Star Toss make strength mean a lot less than for most classes. Just enough to carry too many weapons really.

I know you can't take all these options, but even just half makes for a really strong, fun and versatile character. Yeah, versatility aint all that great, but as I said, you could just do it for flavor and still be up there in damage.

And, in the end, does that not make the fighter unique, and, dare I say it, GOOD?

Never mind that last part. Got caught in the moment there. Let's not get crazy.


hiiamtom wrote:
I would like to point out that this doesn't actually do much for what people complain about in regards to the fighter, and that these fixes are less than a year old. The less than a year old thing is a bit of a dig, but it's worth pointing out that they also bragged about the game being 15 years old so...
master_marshmallow wrote:
Advanced Weapon Training

9th level, and is very weak. Class features should be better than feats. The archetype options are typically better.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Combat Trick and Stamina

Much better, but entirely combat focused and immediately ignored post publication. I would be shocked if there is any follow through.

master_marshmallow wrote:
There are fighters with mutagens, spells, skills, the ability to buff allies, and pretty much every other ability that has even passably been mentioned on the forums.

Except out of combat utility.

I'm not saying the fighter isn't better off with any of these options, but the single best thing you can give a fighter to make them special is the automatic bonus progression unchained rules. Allowing a fighter to use UMD and spend their money on interesting magical items, use a couple of fighting styles, etc. are all better out of combat and these changes do little to make Pathfinder more tactically interesting.

I just realized that this is the third post in the thread and I haven't pointed out that you are dead wrong in Combat Stamina being ignored since publication, since the Weapon Master's Handbook includes all the combat feats from the non Core sources, meaning up to this point damn near every combat feat is accounted for.


Frosty Ace wrote:
The point is is that you have the feats to play around if you want while still staying fairly competitive in damage. Wanna TWF? You got the feats and a lot of static bonuses. Wanna take weapon finesse and trained grace to be a really, really good switch hitter? Do it. Wanna throw anything and take skill focus in acrobatics for fun? Go for it. Want a killer will save? Never fall? TAKE DEM HEROIC FEATS!

I find myself disagreeing and to a limited extend agreeing. I don't think Fighters are easy to build optimally. But, I do think they are a good starter class because even you critically mess up you won't be terrible. You even can swap out a feat every 4th level. You stay competitive on damage, but you never shine.

Frosty Ace wrote:
If we wanted pure dpr then we'd take the startoss feats and pre reqs, focus on chakrams with weapon specialozation, dump int for STR, blah blah blah snooze.

Actually, you got about all that wrong. :p Sorry, Chakram are really bad for Fighter because of Focused Weapon. Unless we are going with the Eldritch Guardian route we desperately want Precise Thrust from Learned Duelist which is a huge damage boost on crits and grants Int. to damage.


Ashiel wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.
It's more of a pet peeve of mind with every guide I've read redmarking halfings for their speed when they have a freaking trait that speeds them up.

Honestly, small characters are the ideal go-to for mounted martials because there's essentially nowhere that the party is going to go that your mount doesn't go either, and believe me, halflings, goblins, and gnomes are awesome mounted.

Mounted combat is really, really strong in this game. A halfling with a bow riding on a riding dog or other mount is usually sporting a 40+ movement speed while making highly accurate full-attacks, and if they want to, they can burst stuff with a lance.

And if they're the go-to for a really really strong ability then they aren't really the ones in need of help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
More importantly to me, is that fighters don't teach you how to play the game.
Yeah. When are fighters going to get ac hp skills and saves like all the other classes?

Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.

A Ranger for instance teaches circumstantial modifiers, the skills system more effectively, and eventually managing spells and an animal companion. So the player who plays a Ranger from even 1st to 5th learns a bit more about the game than the Fighter whose bonuses only went up and didn't gain anything new mechanically besides possibly combat maneuvers.


While we're at it, does anyone have a sneak preview of what we can expect from the upcoming Armor Master's Handbook?


UnArcaneElection wrote:

While we're at it, does anyone have a sneak preview of what we can expect from the upcoming Armor Master's Handbook?

Summon your avatar twin!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, I think with the static bonuses from Startoss thrown weapons might actually do more damage than bows for Fighters now. Would need somebody who likes math to verify that, though.

Considering it's in addition to str and it's a sizeable +6 total, yes it may.

2WF thrown actually compares reasonably well in damage potential with archery, but is a huge feat sink. (Startoss+2WF tree is 6 feats total)

The other problem is that Paizo absolutely hates the idea of throwing characters getting magical weapons and won't ever release a magic item similar to amulet of mighty fists for thrown builds.

Blinkback Belt

Require quickdraw, but if you are making a throwing build quickdraw is a must.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, I think with the static bonuses from Startoss thrown weapons might actually do more damage than bows for Fighters now. Would need somebody who likes math to verify that, though.

Considering it's in addition to str and it's a sizeable +6 total, yes it may.

2WF thrown actually compares reasonably well in damage potential with archery, but is a huge feat sink. (Startoss+2WF tree is 6 feats total)

The other problem is that Paizo absolutely hates the idea of throwing characters getting magical weapons and won't ever release a magic item similar to amulet of mighty fists for thrown builds.

Blinkback Belt

Require quickdraw, but if you are making a throwing build quickdraw is a must.

Not anymore.

But, you have to compare against Manyshot, Rapid Shot, and all those over bog standard feats.


Ricochet Toss seems to require Quick Draw anyway.


Scavion wrote:
Cavall wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
More importantly to me, is that fighters don't teach you how to play the game.
Yeah. When are fighters going to get ac hp skills and saves like all the other classes?

Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.

A Ranger for instance teaches circumstantial modifiers, the skills system more effectively, and eventually managing spells and an animal companion. So the player who plays a Ranger from even 1st to 5th learns a bit more about the game than the Fighter whose bonuses only went up and didn't gain anything new mechanically besides possibly combat maneuvers.

They teach you the game. Same as anyone else. Only in a clear uncomplicated way. That is ideal.

Also they don't grow mechanically falls flat in the face of the facts
A) you have me options available than any other class to tailor make it to be yours by feats. That's mechanical growth because a shield build and two weapon build are different. They grow how the player wants.
B) they are more than just feats. You get to choose what style of weapons and even how you'll grow into back up weapons (such as learning ranged attacks) because of that
C) increased new options (and as such the reason the OP made the thread) exist to offer even more options.
D) class options based on race allow for even more open builds, by way of favored bonus.

Fighters aren't just there to swing and wait a turn. They weren't really before but they are even less now.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Ricochet Toss seems to require Quick Draw anyway.

It does, but Blinkback unfortunately takes up that coveted belt slot so you are basically paying a feat to use 1,000 less GP for +2 Dexterity and the ability to buy better belts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.

So.... exactly what someone who's never played an RPG before needs to learn how to do and have proficiency in before they start messing around with conditional modifiers, spell components, and the like?


master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.
So.... exactly what someone who's never played an RPG before needs to learn how to do and have proficiency in before they start messing around with conditional modifiers, spell components, and the like?

Yes, they should play as it, for a few hours until they get the basics in a few one-shots. Not for a full campaign unless the new player wants to play a fighter.


The Mortonator wrote:
snip

I was just sticking to a core fighter really. When advanced armor training drops, it'll get to a point where, hopefully, if AWT is any indicator, a well built core fighter with AWT and AAT is likely gonna be just as good if not better than many archetypes.

Also, why are we talking about learned duelist? You bring it and focused weapon up, but the archetype gets three less opportunities for AWT (For for will, reflex, initiative, AC, skills, etc...) one of which doubles WT damage to thrown weapons. LD needs the vital Strike feats to use INT for damage, so that's less options for feats that likely aren't even that good for a thrown weapons build, that could have been used for better feat options (Unless you ignore it, in which case AWT would have been better in that case), and with that you need more INT at the expense of any other stat that matters for keeping you alive or killing things.

I guess it keeps up in AC, but it really is just a worse Swash, which is worse than a fighter with the build concept of throwing weapons.

Edit: Are we even on the same topic anymore?


Double post, sorry, but does trained throw stack with Learned Duelists better weapon training when in its Duelist Stance? You need throw anything, but damn, that's some fine damage right there.

Is that why you brought it up Mortonator? Well, that takes done wind out of my sails, I'll give you that.

Also, as far as thrown weapons, what actually is better than the Chakram for range and adjacent attacking?

Again, I'm no system mastery, so I'll hold that L so long as I'm learning something new. ;)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
"master_marshmallow wrote:
I just realized that this is the third post in the thread and I haven't pointed out that you are dead wrong in Combat Stamina being ignored since publication, since the Weapon Master's Handbook includes all the combat feats from the non Core sources, meaning up to this point damn near every combat feat is accounted for.

Not really true. It covers three books (ISG/ISWG/ISC), but it doesn't address every Combat feat in, say, all the Player Companions, or the rest of the Campaign Setting line. There's still a ton of Combat feats out there.

Still, the core of your point - that they haven't completely forgotten about Stamina - is accurate.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.
So.... exactly what someone who's never played an RPG before needs to learn how to do and have proficiency in before they start messing around with conditional modifiers, spell components, and the like?

Which is the equivalent of keeping someone in kindergarten when they shouldnt be.

Considering the # of encounters it takes to level up which is around twenty or more or less depending on the experience track you play on.

I should hope someone can understand the basic combat statistics in twenty encounters. Otherwise I would suggest a simpler game.

Unless the new players in question are 5 or 6 year olds. But I find most new players tend to be 10 and up.


Kalindlara wrote:
"master_marshmallow wrote:
I just realized that this is the third post in the thread and I haven't pointed out that you are dead wrong in Combat Stamina being ignored since publication, since the Weapon Master's Handbook includes all the combat feats from the non Core sources, meaning up to this point damn near every combat feat is accounted for.

Not really true. It covers three books (ISG/ISWG/ISC), but it doesn't address every Combat feat in, say, all the Player Companions, or the rest of the Campaign Setting line. There's still a ton of Combat feats out there.

Still, the core of your point - that they haven't completely forgotten about Stamina - is accurate.

Personally not a huge fan of Combat Stamina. Adds too much of a stress on editors.

A more elegant solution would be to fix the core issues with the Fighter.

AWT is half the problem, AAT is probably one quarter, all we are needing now is, well, some more features to pump skills and utility.

I'd love some "Fighter Talents" that let you poach stuff like Stern Gaze, Bardic Knowledge, Track, and so on.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like stamina, it sucks that it ends up being a list with no context, especially for feats ive never heard of. But the internet really picks up the slack there.

The weapon master's hand book has no staminina options for new feats they added. Which is really lame, no combat feat should be printed with out it (doubly so for the melee focused players guides) They didnt even have a stamina based AWT option.

We are running out of class features to replace. Maybe we can drop all but ~5 weapon proficiencies for a few fighter talents as we level, maybe one at level 3 and every 4 levels after?


I also feel like maybe Stamina should have some special deeds/stunts/whatever that are independent of your combat feats, like blowing a whole bunch of stamina in one go to do something REALLY impressive.


Frosty Ace wrote:

Double post, sorry, but does trained throw stack with Learned Duelists better weapon training when in its Duelist Stance? You need throw anything, but damn, that's some fine damage right there.

Is that why you brought it up Mortonator? Well, that takes done wind out of my sails, I'll give you that.

Yep! You get all the bonuses. Startoss also explisately says you get the bonus from Vital Strike on your first throw every round which is a very chunky bit of damage from that second ability. Mostly though you need AWT Focused Weapon to get thay damage which is why the damage dice of what you are throwing doesn't matter.

Science of the Blade and past sucks, but there are so many other classes you can dip into and those first two WTs are so much better I don't really think it can be overlooked.

Alternatively, you can build a two-handed throwing build relying on Str. for that you need the belt of mighty hurling and Learned Duelist and Focused Weapon kinda suck. I like this build concept more for Warpriest since you can make a nice switch hitter out of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I agree with arachno.

As do I.

Fighter, even with just the corebook, does nothing to hold a new player's hand, and since they are so many choices, you're very likely to screw up and have an awful time.

It's at least as bad to create as a Sorcerer or other spontaneous caster, if usually a little simpler to play.

Paladin, Ranger, and Slayer are all much better for a new player. Heck, a Gendarme Cavalier is better, too. So are lots of things.

I think everyone's experience is table specific including the GM and many other variables though.

I have a 10 and 8 year old playing CRB fighters (Archer build and Sword/shield) in my home game. Its the first RPG they've ever played, and I was converting from 1E/2E to PF. We play a game ratio of about 40%RP, 40% combat, 20% traps/puzzles/skill challenges/chases. The other two PCs are a Cleric/Sorcerer and Rogue. Played by my 12 year old and my wife - all first time RPGers.

Everyone is having a blast and participates fully every game in line with their PCs abilities, and I work to ensure there are unique things in each session that allow for each to shine. Sometimes not as successful as others depending on their choices though.

After working through about a 48 hour debate with Insain Dragoon (where I played the side saying "Fighters are fine thank you" to his "Fighters need tweaking" we worked it out to this - which I think is useful for both sides of the debate.

What Insain Dragoon and I Uncovered About The Fighter Debate:
Its a little of what Insain and I got worked through. Not necessarily dismissive, because it might just be you're both playing the same game, same classes, (maybe even the same type of adventures) but due to different styles actually see different things at your game.

Campaign 1: might be more mechanics focused. Even if you RP out a lot of things, at some point the PC has to pass a skill check or is doing a mechanic only they can do but requires a dice check. There might be a little more combat, again a little more mechanics focused. There are dice rolls and roleplaying interaction for everyone every session, but things tend to lean more heavily (not exclusively though) on resolving things with the dice.

Campaign 2: less mechanics focused. You roleplay out more things and maybe even just fewer "true" skill challenges. Players like to engage in story telling leaving a little less time for dice. Combats are still an integral part of the game. There are dice rolls and roleplaying interactions for everyone every session, but things tend to lean more heavily on player interaction and roleplaying (not exclusively though), than resolving things with the dice.

Those two groups aren't miles apart in playing style, but they are far enough apart that something in the mechanics may show up and be obvious to players in campaign 1, while maybe not showing up at all or at least not being noticed to the players in campaign 2. I think it could happen with the exact same class mix - but when you consider the more like scenario of both games having completely different class mixes (except each has a fighter), system experience, and personalities. Pretty easy to happen.

I think that's what leads to this topic being confusing, and normally spiraling quickly into flaming. Both people are reading what the other person says and thinking, "I play the same game, if that was a problem I'd have seen it!! You must be implying I'm a fool?" or "I play the same game, how can you not see this?? You must be implying I'm a fool?"

I tend to run more of a Campaign 2 style. I use skill checks, but often only if after all the role-playing what was going on its going to be useful to the story or potentially fun/funny if they fail. IE: After my son's fighter spent several minutes to convince his mother to attend the Maplefest bonfire that she'd skipped for 12 years since her husband had died, she finally asked him why it was so important. he said "because it reminds me of dad.". I could have said, Ok roll a diplomacy check with a +4, but if he failed it would have just sucked the air out of what was a pretty emotional IC and to a degree OOC RP moment (I was pretty proud of him, that's deep thinking for an 8year old.) So she went, it provided me a lot of RP enjoyment as a GM too, since the other PCs then had a chance to interact with her knowing a little of her back story.

That being said - my game style can obviously make some mechanical differences in the classes not show up at our table. A different player at my table might not be happy that they invested skill points in diplomacy and didn't get to try it.

What I Learned Some People Mean When They Say Fighter Gets Nothing To Engage Narrative:

I also figured out that when people say "none/never" its not saying the -player- does nothing (they obviously participate a lot in any game style). They also don't mean that technically the fighter class does nothing either, obviously if the -player- is getting equal play in any session then the PC is too.
Its more about the fighter specifically as a class not having very many unique game mechanic cool things that would be more useful, especially in a Campaign 1 style game where you are expected to succeed on more skill checks etc. As new books have come out things like grit-pools, etc have been created to give non-magical cool abilities to new non-caster classes, and the fighter would be more fun (my 2 players have fun with theirs right now) if the fighter had some uniquely cool things they could do in and out of combat to demonstrate they -are- the nonmagical masters of in your face actions or leadership.

To be honest, as pointed out I don't see a problem in my game. But I'm suddenly a little intrigued about giving fighters some new cool things to try in game.

For example - Dazzling Display as is uses a full-round, and then you make a CHA based Intimidate check. Fighter could get that as a bonus feat, only need move action, and get to use their BAB as the DC modifier not CHA, but use it only vs 1 active opponent at a time.


Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.
So.... exactly what someone who's never played an RPG before needs to learn how to do and have proficiency in before they start messing around with conditional modifiers, spell components, and the like?

Which is the equivalent of keeping someone in kindergarten when they shouldnt be.

Considering the # of encounters it takes to level up which is around twenty or more or less depending on the experience track you play on.

I should hope someone can understand the basic combat statistics in twenty encounters. Otherwise I would suggest a simpler game.

Unless the new players in question are 5 or 6 year olds. But I find most new players tend to be 10 and up.

My brother played his first D&D game (3.x) at the age of 4. It didn't take him long to understand attack rolls.

FOUR.


Ashiel wrote:
Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.
So.... exactly what someone who's never played an RPG before needs to learn how to do and have proficiency in before they start messing around with conditional modifiers, spell components, and the like?

Which is the equivalent of keeping someone in kindergarten when they shouldnt be.

Considering the # of encounters it takes to level up which is around twenty or more or less depending on the experience track you play on.

I should hope someone can understand the basic combat statistics in twenty encounters. Otherwise I would suggest a simpler game.

Unless the new players in question are 5 or 6 year olds. But I find most new players tend to be 10 and up.

My brother played his first D&D game (3.x) at the age of 4. It didn't take him long to understand attack rolls.

FOUR.

Ninja'd. my 4 and 6 year old want to play, but I know attention span wouldn't hold. I let them roll some monster attacks/damages during my campaign, and when I'm playing my druid in the 12yr old's first campaign as a GM, the 4 year old gets to roll attack/trips for my wolf as long as he stay's close by.

Its one of the really cool things about RPGs hitting their 2d or nearly 3rd generation now...gaming with your kids. :_)


GM 1990 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Which means Fighters don't teach you anything in particular...Y'know since all classes have those statistics. Tark meant that Fighters don't grow mechanically which means you learn as you put it "ac hp skills and saves" and nothing more. They simply have modifiers that go up. Without archetypes that is all that will happen from 1-20.
So.... exactly what someone who's never played an RPG before needs to learn how to do and have proficiency in before they start messing around with conditional modifiers, spell components, and the like?

Which is the equivalent of keeping someone in kindergarten when they shouldnt be.

Considering the # of encounters it takes to level up which is around twenty or more or less depending on the experience track you play on.

I should hope someone can understand the basic combat statistics in twenty encounters. Otherwise I would suggest a simpler game.

Unless the new players in question are 5 or 6 year olds. But I find most new players tend to be 10 and up.

My brother played his first D&D game (3.x) at the age of 4. It didn't take him long to understand attack rolls.

FOUR.

Ninja'd. my 4 and 6 year old want to play, but I know attention span wouldn't hold. I let them roll some monster attacks/damages during my campaign, and when I'm playing my druid in the 12yr old's first campaign as a GM, the 4 year old gets to roll attack/trips for my wolf as long as he stay's close by.

Its one of the really cool things about RPGs hitting their 2d or nearly 3rd generation now...gaming with your kids. :_)

Yep. Actually with your grandkids is totally a thing at this point. D&D's been a thing since 1974, so if you were an adult then, your children may have been playing it by the time they were breeding age in the 80s, 90s, or early 20s, and you may already be playing games with your 3rd generation.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

As for the stamina system...is there any stamina effect so cool that you would blow a feat JUST to get the stamina effect?

If there is...then you just doubled the complexity of making a fighter. Ugh!

===Aelryinth


My main problem with the stamina system is that since it relies on an specific list for every feat, it'll doomed to go the way of Word Magic and never get any further 1st party support...

IMO, it should give more general possibilities to characters, like getting an extra action, moving without provoking AoO, rerolling skill checks, or whatever.


Lemmy wrote:

My main problem with the stamina system is that since it relies on an specific list for every feat, it'll doomed to go the way of Word Magic and never get any further 1st party support...

IMO, it should give more general possibilities to characters, like getting an extra action, moving without provoking AoO, rerolling skill checks, or whatever.

Yeah, I see your point.

If there was a list of things independent of existing combat feats you could use stamina on, it'd be pretty easy to have a subsection in books on a regular basis that adds a few new stamina deeds or whatever to the mix. But the existing system tends to mean that adds a lot of stuff to remember onto it for the player and it's harder to add more to for developers.


Lemmy wrote:

My main problem with the stamina system is that since it relies on an specific list for every feat, it'll doomed to go the way of Word Magic and never get any further 1st party support...

IMO, it should give more general possibilities to characters, like getting an extra action, moving without provoking AoO, rerolling skill checks, or whatever.

It kinda already has gotten first party support in WMH. So, there is hope.


The Mortonator wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

My main problem with the stamina system is that since it relies on an specific list for every feat, it'll doomed to go the way of Word Magic and never get any further 1st party support...

IMO, it should give more general possibilities to characters, like getting an extra action, moving without provoking AoO, rerolling skill checks, or whatever.

It kinda already has gotten first party support in WMH. So, there is hope.

You're more of an optimist to than me...


Lemmy wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

My main problem with the stamina system is that since it relies on an specific list for every feat, it'll doomed to go the way of Word Magic and never get any further 1st party support...

IMO, it should give more general possibilities to characters, like getting an extra action, moving without provoking AoO, rerolling skill checks, or whatever.

It kinda already has gotten first party support in WMH. So, there is hope.
You're more of an optimist to than me...

Nope! I'm just a devilish advocate. I point out things I don't particularly believe in frequently! You should see the stockpile of build ideas I have that will never in a million years work. It's fantastic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like the stamina system was designed to be abandoned, though... (I know that's not the case, but it's not a update-friendly system):

1- It's depends on an specific list.
2- It's needlessly complicated (there is a different effect for each feat. Who'll remember all them?).
3- Due to point 2, it's annoying to make additions to the system... Every feat a designer creates would need a stamina-based variant-effect.
4- Due to point 3, it'd take too much space from books... Making them either shorter or more expensive. Possibly both.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Only combat feats have stamina options.
Honestly if just every new combat feat had combat tricks I would be happy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.

The tieflings have an option to make them better sorcerer. I think there is something for intelligence for some race.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Halflings also have feats to improve their damage, stacks with power attack.


Since the stamina system allows you to take Combat Expertise without the INT prereq, I would think any core class who wants that feat would take it.
I don't want to reestablish my rhetoric of "point buy is the devil" but writing abilities like this one odd definitely a step to making the game more tolerable in a game where point buy has become the standard assumption for play and the game is designed around that paradigm.

Most of the fighter's problems come from that exact issue, since the skill thing, Armor Training, and damage all rely on the fighter having optimal stats.

Oh, plus Will saves.

Imo, Advanced Weapon Training should be turned into a series of feats exclusive to fighters ala Arcane Discoveries. But again, not the point of the thread.


AWT is the way it is because for the majority of Fighters picking up Weapon Training groups after the first one is entirely worthless, since most people aren't investing in more than one type of weapon (the system penalizes you for diversifying your arsenal too much). So you replace those useless bonuses for some useful ones.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Btw! I meant what I said. Are there any stamina effects so good its worth grabbing a sucky feat? Has anyone done an evaluation of them?

==Aelryinth


^Or even worth grabbing a feat that's only okay?


Aelryinth wrote:

Btw! I meant what I said. Are there any stamina effects so good its worth grabbing a sucky feat? Has anyone done an evaluation of them?

==Aelryinth

...I kind of want to...as I kind of like the system.


I guess to start.

Combat expertise.

Basically every point spent to ignore the penalty is using the points for AC. Add on the ability to ignore the prerequisite and everything it leads to and it's actually rather good.


Aelryinth wrote:

Btw! I meant what I said. Are there any stamina effects so good its worth grabbing a sucky feat? Has anyone done an evaluation of them?

==Aelryinth

Combat Expertise sans prereqs is the one instance from the top of my head.

The Child of Acavna and Amaznen has a neat trick to extend the duration of Arcane Strike and reduce the action cost of Arcane Armor Training.

It's not in front of me right now.


TarkXT wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Btw! I meant what I said. Are there any stamina effects so good its worth grabbing a sucky feat? Has anyone done an evaluation of them?

==Aelryinth

...I kind of want to...as I kind of like the system.

I like the idea of the system, but haven't had the time or chance to play with it. Any feedback from someone who knows more would be nice.


Blind Fight.

Once you hit you can spend two stamina to ignore the concealment completely for a round.

101 to 150 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Let's look at what the fighter actually has going for it now All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.