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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has made one thing clear about their business model, and that one thing is that they listen to their players and are very involved in actual game play and play testing of their products. Even the most half-assed search on these forums will yield results of about a million fighter rebuilds that have been written over the years, but there's a catch. Paizo has been releasing stealth fixes to the fighter for a while now.

First, let's look at what the Core fighter gets, no archetypes, just the base fighter. There are Advanced Weapon Training options, which sacrifice extraneous Weapon Groups in favor of what people would call "real class abilities" and that includes the much coveted extra skill ranks option that has been on demand for a while. It's also accessible through a feat (although sadly that feat has more limits on it than it probably should as far as access goes). Then there is the Combat Trick and Stamina system alternate rules, which gives the fighter its much needed "boost to hit things at 1st level" that every other class gets, as well as expanded options for every single combat feat available in the game (or most of them now, anyway, new releases notwithstanding). This gives the fighter a pooled resource, and many options to use with it. Some of these are outstanding, some aren't. Within these alternate rules, you have access to Combat Expertise without meeting the 13 INT prerequisite, which has an entire anthology of internet posts (from myself mostly) about the philosophy of class parallelism in game design.

Both of those options are largely available to non-core fighters, save for the ones that give up Weapon Training. Within the multitude of archetypes the fighter gets, we have access to all of the things that we complain about, but never at the same time. 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.

Conclusion: Paizo is trying (diligently) to fix the fighter the way we want them to without having to rewrite the fighter, so we should stop b+@#&ing about it, and instead derive ideas for the Dev Team to apply to new books to give us more and better options that let us have everything we want from the class all at once. Also, Armor Master's Handbook is coming out soon, so hopefull there's even more pleasant surprises for us.

Liberty's Edge

Agreed. Mostly anyway.

I'm still using House Rules on Fighters in my games, but several are admittedly (and not precisely by design, since the House Rules predate Advance Weapon Training) 'Here, have a few Advanced Weapon Training options for free' more than they are fundamental changes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Read in another post about someone saying Fighters suck. I told them they are playing them wrong. Fighters are a simple class nothing seemingly special about them. That is part of their charm. A Base fighter is perfect for most new players since they are simple. That's not to say experienced players can't enjoy a fighter. Half our group love the fighter and pick that class over any other.
Pazio in my mind has done a good job with them. A combat feat every other level the ability to move in heavier and heavier armor. The feats very quickly stack up allowing you to do amazing things with the class.
I like fighters not my favorite class though. But I see nothing wrong with the base class or even some of their archtypes. To me it seems the issue is players and how they make and play them. Pazio in this case has done a good job considering issues I have about editing and wording of abilities of spells, feats and class abilities of other classes.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Haven't read the unchained rules. Glanced at classes really seeing no point in making them unchained honestly. So my opinion is going to reflect that. Base class fighters have a lot going for them and with a player who likes that class they will rock. I'm reading about people saying fighters suck they can't do anything. No it means they don't like fighters and are going to assume they can't do anything with them. I like fighters but it is not my favorite class. However I am playing a Barbarian Titan Mauler Fighter Tower Shield Specialist and am very impressed with how he is. I have a backstory that is detailed enough for our GM. I have abilities that make me good at what I do. High AC while able to kick out damage. Not too bad for a class I don't often play.
Now regarding Pazio's correction and changes I think more time should be dealt with regarding confusions over feats, spells and other problems I keep reading about. A fighter like most other classes are fine with how they are it's a player that makes them a problem when their really isn't.

Liberty's Edge

Advanced Weapon Training is available at 5th level, actually. Admittedly, it costs a Feat then, but it's available and usually worth it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Derek Dalton wrote:

Read in another post about someone saying Fighters suck. I told them they are playing them wrong. Fighters are a simple class nothing seemingly special about them. That is part of their charm. A Base fighter is perfect for most new players since they are simple. That's not to say experienced players can't enjoy a fighter. Half our group love the fighter and pick that class over any other.

Pazio in my mind has done a good job with them. A combat feat every other level the ability to move in heavier and heavier armor. The feats very quickly stack up allowing you to do amazing things with the class.
I like fighters not my favorite class though. But I see nothing wrong with the base class or even some of their archtypes. To me it seems the issue is players and how they make and play them. Pazio in this case has done a good job considering issues I have about editing and wording of abilities of spells, feats and class abilities of other classes.

On the contrary Fighters are all but simple as they require much more system mastery than say a Barbarian or a Paladin to work well. Having 20/21 feats means you have to build your character browsing from thousands of published feats. Other martial classes giving you far less choice are generally easier to build and optimize.


Fighter are easier for newer players since spells and class abilities can and often do get complicated. The massive number of feats are easier to deal with. Some classes require a bit of planning on playing. You can tell the newer less experienced players who play fighters charge, hit this creature and then roll damage.
I'm not saying fighters don't get complicated they do but a base fighter is easier to learn as a class then caster classes. I meant no disrespect.


Paladin is the easiest class to play by far. It's not even a question. Almost everything is predefined or easy to help a new player with, and the code is not as complex as some people like to make it.

Fighters are OK at combat and don't do much besides being OK at combat, that's what makes them hard for new players. With diving deep and digging through a lot of content your fighter can be good at combat and can't do much outside combat.

This is all relative of course, fighters are worse at combat than rangers, paladins, and barbarians but better than say rogues. Out of combat, rangers, paladins, and barbarians all have more niches they can fill than a fighter... but a fighter can do more than say a vow of poverty monk?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter can be a very simple class, if built that way. They can also be a very complex class, if built that way.

PF fighters have more options than the core fighters of 3.x, so there really are a lot of choices.

That is to say, both the opinion that they are more complicated and more simple to use are both correct, it's paradoxical.

I would argue that the Slayer is probably an easier class to play than the fighter for new players, since it teaches them all of the basics of combat, including the ins and outs of critical hits and what does and does not apply, while also giving them a fantastic chassis to work with.


Doot


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I would argue that the Slayer is probably an easier class to play than the fighter for new players, since it teaches them all of the basics of combat, including the ins and outs of critical hits and what does and does not apply, while also giving them a fantastic chassis to work with.

I would agree with this. I still think Paladin is the easiest to play as a new player, but most that want to be warriors either want to be darker (Slayer) or a knight (Paladin) so they are both great choices.


Derek Dalton wrote:

Fighter are easier for newer players since spells and class abilities can and often do get complicated. The massive number of feats are easier to deal with. Some classes require a bit of planning on playing. You can tell the newer less experienced players who play fighters charge, hit this creature and then roll damage.

...

Yep, fighters can be very easy to make. That's why I have seen these new players playing fighters who complain that they can't do anything besides make attack rolls. Both on these boards and IRL. Because it is easy for a new player to make a fighter who can smash things with a greataxe*, but hard to make a fighter who is competent in a decent array of out-of-combat scenarios. Being a class that is very easy to build in an unenjoyable way is not something that the Fighter gets points for. Besides, you want new players to get an opportunity to touch on most of the basic system elements over the course of the campaign, but not all at once. On that basis, a class that a can only hit things with a big stick (barring lots of op-fu) is terrible for new players. Suggesting the Fighter over classes that are actually good in this regard like the Ranger is a bad joke.

*Assuming they want to play thog the axe wielding half orc. God help newbies who want to fight with two weapons or be an agile duelist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rangers and Slayers are especially good for newbies because the combat style feat chains help bake in what you need to do what you want to do. "You like two-weapon fighting, huh? here's a list of the feats you might want if you're doing that." It's not perfect because the style feat lists aren't 100% desirable options but it's certainly better than the Fighter's "you have THIRTY GAJILLION CHOICES and like five of them are good".


Lore Warden Martial Masters are cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Role play doesn't require rolls, if they want to make rolls out of combat they shouldn't pick fighter.

Fighter is my favorite class by far, but then again I'm one of those "pour over 30,000 feats and make amazing tactical builds. I also don't GAF about dpr.

I've never once felt useless in a RP session on my fighters, I involve myself in conversations, and assist in rolls that are essential to group function.

When the party fighter pre occupies and locks down BBEG's without taking much if any hp damage while also whittling him to death, solidifies the role of that fighter as "powerful".


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.

Good one, bud. I'm in stitches. You take it at 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20. And it's absolutely and completely worth it.

Also, no one mentioned quick access to Weapon Mastery feats - for melee, that's the goodness that's Smash from the Air; for Lore Warden archers, Ace Trip and Disarm; for thrown builds, Ricochet Toss.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The skill AWT is a crude, arbitrary and jarring fudge trying to cover up for the fighter not having enough skill points. If it doesn't come in for 8 levels, it might as well not exist for most characters. Not to mention that you suddenly, out of the blue, get another 18 skill points at that level. Why? Where did that come from? Just give the poor sod the extra points at 1st level and forget this egregious hack.

Combat Stamina is certainly a step forward, but very shoddily balanced and rather lacking in flavour. And it helps only in combat, of course. Clue is in the title, but combat isn't really where the fighter needs the most help.


Yeah, I try to give my fighters so OOC things to do specifically. Maybe higher INT and knowledge skills if we are lacking those. Maybe socials. Maybe survival and so on.


I created a post on an unchained fighter and a lot of points were addressed with advanced weapon training. So while fighter still might not be my cup of tea, it is much better than before the Weapon Master handbook was released.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Good one, bud. I'm in stitches. You take it at 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20.

You cannot take it at 5th or 20th. You must already have Weapon Training to take it and it does not replace Weapon Mastery.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Mortonator wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Good one, bud. I'm in stitches. You take it at 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20.
You cannot take it at 5th or 20th. You must already have Weapon Training to take it and it does not replace Weapon Mastery.

You get it as a feat. At 5th level. When you get Weapon Training. And again at 10th, 15th and 20th, because you can take the feat multiple times, but no more than once/5 fighter levels.


Shisumo wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Good one, bud. I'm in stitches. You take it at 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20.
You cannot take it at 5th or 20th. You must already have Weapon Training to take it and it does not replace Weapon Mastery.
You get it as a feat. At 5th level. When you get Weapon Training. And again at 10th, 15th and 20th, because you can take the feat multiple times, but no more than once/5 fighter levels.

Ah, that's not what I was thinking about. I'm not sure if it's quite so good I would take the feat that much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Human fighters can start off with Int 13 and pick up Fast Learner at level 1. Yeah, both approaches cost a bit of combat prowess, but that's something fighters have in abundance - especially two-handed warriors start so strong that toning down a bit is actually party friendly.

With such a begin, you are at 5 ranks per level. Nothing forces you to max out every skill you start, the first rank is often the most powerful anyway. Especially when DCs are static or improve only half as fast as the party.

If you still feel not skilled enough, consider Improvisation and Improved Improvisation. You can retrain them later, if your GM (and your ingame time) allows it. Further options are an Int increase at level 4, and Headbands of Intelligence +X. But the more you move into skill monkey territory, the higher the price gets and the lower the additional benefit becomes.


The Mortonator wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Good one, bud. I'm in stitches. You take it at 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20.
You cannot take it at 5th or 20th. You must already have Weapon Training to take it and it does not replace Weapon Mastery.
You get it as a feat. At 5th level. When you get Weapon Training. And again at 10th, 15th and 20th, because you can take the feat multiple times, but no more than once/5 fighter levels.
Ah, that's not what I was thinking about. I'm not sure if it's quite so good I would take the feat that much.

A feat for 2 skill ranks? A feat for a scaling bonus to Reflex saves? Initiative? Thrown damage rolls? The ability to use teamwork feats without your allies having them? The ability to break a weapon in order to ignore DEATH several times a day? Scaling weapon damage dice for 1d4/1d3 weapons? This is not worth a feat?! What is?!


Secret Wizard wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
The Mortonator wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Good one, bud. I'm in stitches. You take it at 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20.
You cannot take it at 5th or 20th. You must already have Weapon Training to take it and it does not replace Weapon Mastery.
You get it as a feat. At 5th level. When you get Weapon Training. And again at 10th, 15th and 20th, because you can take the feat multiple times, but no more than once/5 fighter levels.
Ah, that's not what I was thinking about. I'm not sure if it's quite so good I would take the feat that much.
A feat for 2 skill ranks? A feat for a scaling bonus to Reflex saves? Initiative? Thrown damage rolls? The ability to use teamwork feats without your allies having them? The ability to break a weapon in order to ignore DEATH several times a day? Scaling weapon damage dice for 1d4/1d3 weapons? This is not worth a feat?! What is?!

I do like scaling weapon damage a lot. I suppose 2 skill points per level is amazing even if I suck at skills.

I'm never taking Lightning Reflexes in the first place, but I suppose x2 is okay for consideration. Trained Throw? Bleh, please no. I am not a Knife Master Rogue. Teamwork? I could get down with that, but situational to your build and an incentive to use your feats on things other than Advanced Weapon Training. Destroying my heavily enchanted weapon? I think I would rather die. Initiative? Why? there is this thing called an initiative big and spoiler: BSF goes at the bottom of the totem pole.

It's a great class feature, but after you have picked up the best of the bunch why keep going? If I'm taking Fighter's Reflexes or Trained Initiative I'm already at level 13 and working on something that was a lost cause for the past 13 levels.

I can see a dex build taking all the advanced weapon training they can. But for anyone else it's the same holding pattern death trap of not going for anything new and shiny at a high level that Fighter already suffers from. Quite frankly, doubling a feat I'm not going to take as a fighter in the first place isn't the kinda thing I should be doing at high levels. I should be doubling or one and a halfing feats I would always take.


Remember you only damage the weapon for Weapon Sacrifice. Not destroy. And you can always break a random ass weapon or your gauntlet if you wear full-plate.

Also, Knife Master rogues suck at throwing. You know who rules at throwing? Fighters, with a million feats and access to Ricochet Toss at 6.

My ALWAYS HAVE AWTs are:

5. Versatile Training for skills

9. Armed Bravery for Will saves.

10. If TWF, Focused Weapon. If 2H, Defensive Weapon Training. If Thrown, Trained Throw.

13. At this point, Fighter's Reflexes equates to +5 reflex (with gloves), Weapon Sacrifice is avoid death 5 times a day, Abundant Tactics + Greater Shield Specialization is negating crits 6 times per day (sweet)...

After 13, it's rare to continue playing, but you can top off with Weapon Mastery feat and so on.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter looks fun to play now. That's all we really needed in the first place.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Also, Knife Master rogues suck at throwing. You know who rules at throwing? Fighters, with a million feats and access to Ricochet Toss at 6.

And pretty much no inherent benefit to doing so when they could just use a bow.

I don't see a reason to spend feats being mild at something you are normally bad at when you could just be spending feats to be amazing at something you are good at. I love Weapon Master fighter (or Learned Duelist) as a dip for Ricochet Toss, but otherwise this is a square peg with a round hole.

EDIT: Wait, what am I talking about? Martial Focus exists. Why would I ever not take +1d8 every 2 levels aside from a Brawler dip?


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.


The Mortonator wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Also, Knife Master rogues suck at throwing. You know who rules at throwing? Fighters, with a million feats and access to Ricochet Toss at 6.

And pretty much no inherent benefit to doing so when they could just use a bow.

I don't see a reason to spend feats being mild at something you are normally bad at when you could just be spending feats to be amazing at something you are good at. I love Weapon Master fighter (or Learned Duelist) as a dip for Ricochet Toss, but otherwise this is a square peg with a round hole.

RE: Throwing

The inherent benefit is access to TWF or Two-Handed Thrower (the latter for higher levels), as well as the ability to threaten in melee when flanking and such is needed. Archery is the strongest martial focus out there, so it is hard to make it have a run for its money...

There's some side benefits though - you can have a keen throwing weapon but not a keen bow, for example.

RE: Weapon Master dip

I'd rather just take the Martial Focus feat to qualify for Ricochet Toss.

RE: Knife Master

It's really bad for throwing though, sneak attack max range is a b@$+@. I'd rather make a barbarian thrower - they get access to Sharpened Accuracy, freeing up the need for 19 DEX to get Imp. Precise Shot - or a throwing Monk.

RE: Being mild vs. being lousy

This is mostly a preference I guess. I honestly think that Fighter with Fighter's Reflexes saves a lot of potential HP though, because you can buy a Ring of Evasion too.


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.


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.

That's going to be one hell of a math puzzle because Startoss requires too much investment to be a backup weapon and you will never be as good at it as Flying Blade or Knife Master. Honestly, you might as well be comparing it to Zen Archer at that point.


*blink*


I'm giving a dwarven mutation warrior/eldritch guardian a shot and I'm assuming the free combat stamina feat.

so let's see what happens there.


TOZ's Wandering Eye wrote:
*blink*

*peck*


TarkXT wrote:
TOZ's Wandering Eye wrote:
*blink*
*peck*

*secretly casts*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
TOZ's Wandering Eye wrote:
*blink*
*peck*
*secretly casts*

*4d6+22*


The Mortonator 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.
That's going to be one hell of a math puzzle because Startoss requires too much investment to be a backup weapon and you will never be as good at it as Flying Blade or Knife Master. Honestly, you might as well be comparing it to Zen Archer at that point.

You use daggers, and take the warpriest focus weapon AWT. Your TWF investment is like TWF/ITWF and TWRend. You startoss throw with a blinkback belt until something gets into melee then full attack it with the daggers.


AWT is worse than most class features and equivalent to feats.

You get it so late that fighters are still best for dipping for a few feats.

It enables different combat styles, but too late to be useful.

AWT is only more combat ability and not utility, except for a couple skills which is not a huge boost - especially when they are dictated to you.

Fighter was tier 4 already, I guess it pushes a core fighter that high. And yes, it's a tier comment. It's still a good measure of out of combat utility.


hiiamtom wrote:

AWT is worse than most class features and equivalent to feats.

You get it so late that fighters are still best for dipping for a few feats.

It enables different combat styles, but too late to be useful.

AWT is only more combat ability and not utility, except for a couple skills which is not a huge boost - especially when they are dictated to you.

Fighter was tier 4 already, I guess it pushes a core fighter that high. And yes, it's a tier comment. It's still a good measure of out of combat utility.

First a tier comment. Then says you get it late (how late is 5th level? Are wizards bad because they get 3rd level spells late?). Then he says it's equivalent to feats... when all the AWT options offer benefits that are STRICTLY better than feats, overwhelmingly so when you get Gloves of Dueling - some of them even imitate class features entirely, like Solo Tactics/Fighter's Tactics.

C'mon, bro, either roll a damn Fighter or say "it's not my favorite class". But don't pretend that just because you don't like something it means it's broken.

The Fighter's only sin is requiring from too many splatbooks to be viable, but they are well viable.


The first 5 levels aren't the fighters problem anyway, they generally handle those challenges just fine.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:
AWT is worse than most class features and equivalent to feats.

No it isn't. It's very solidly better than Feats at the things it does. +2-4 AC for one, two skills per level for another, eventually +4 to Will Save, possibly +6 to Reflex Save and so on.

hiiamtom wrote:
You get it so late that fighters are still best for dipping for a few feats.

You get it at 5th if you want. That's the same time you get Weapon training at all and perfectly valid.

hiiamtom wrote:
It enables different combat styles, but too late to be useful.

Uh...not really, no.

hiiamtom wrote:

AWT is only more combat ability and not utility, except for a couple skills which is not a huge boost - especially when they are dictated to you.

Fighter was tier 4 already, I guess it pushes a core fighter that high. And yes, it's a tier comment. It's still a good measure of out of combat utility.

Eh. The skills are no more pre-decided than a Bard's Versatile Performance. Bluff and Intimidate are also always available.

It's still Tier 4, I don't disagree, but it used to be Tier 5, so that's a net gain, and lots of Tier 4 Classes are fun and playable (Barbarian and Paladin leap to mind).


Someone remind me, how does AWT interact with archetypes that ditch normal weapon training? I know it's really weird at least.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Someone remind me, how does AWT interact with archetypes that ditch normal weapon training? I know it's really weird at least.

Depends on the archetype.

The first type gets WT on a specific weapon but trades all other WTs. This means you can get the AWT feat but not the WT replacements. This applies to Two-Handed Fighter, Drill Sergeant, Learned Duelist, Dragoon, etc.

Then there's other types that don't really get WT but get a similar feature - like Brawler or Shield Fighter. They get zilch.

Liberty's Edge

HyperMissingno wrote:
Someone remind me, how does AWT interact with archetypes that ditch normal weapon training? I know it's really weird at least.

If they replace weapon training, they don't get it. Sucks for them. That's pretty much it.

If they get Weapon Training with only a specific group, like a Dragoon with spears, they obviously can't get it by trading in other groups at 9th, 13th, or 17th level, but could still buy it as a Feat at 5th and every five levels thereafter.

EDIT: Ninja'd, ah well.


Secret Wizard wrote:
The Fighter's only sin is requiring from too many splatbooks to be viable, but they are well viable.

This isn't a "the fighter can now fight" conversation. This is a "the fighter could fight before, has different sub systems to fight now, but still can't do much else" which is and has always been the conversation. Everything is viable besides the comical trap options like Vow of Poverty or Ragechemist which just end up with dead players.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
No it isn't. It's very solidly better than Feats at the things it does. +2-4 AC for one, two skills per level for another, eventually +4 to Will Save, possibly +6 to Reflex Save and so on.

AWF is better to terrible feats that doesn't mean they are great abilities. Just because it's better than Dodge doesn't mean it's some magnificent improvement over a feat, you don't get to pick the skills, the will save thing is better than the static bonus feat but is still not good compared to similar abilities, and reflex is honestly a non-issue that you are picking because it's level 17 and why not.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

You get it at 5th if you want. That's the same time you get Weapon training at all and perfectly valid.

Uh...not really, no.

5th level is not a dip, and you'll be hard pressed to find a class in the game that isn't trucking by level 5. At this point the throwing weapons fighter starts his throwing weapon career (with the right magic items of course).

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's still Tier 4, I don't disagree, but it used to be Tier 5, so that's a net gain, and lots of Tier 4 Classes are fun and playable (Barbarian and Paladin leap to mind).

Fighter has been tier 4 for a long time is all; it's just more ways for it to be tier 4. I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options... and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.

EDIT

I need to add that I don't care that the fighter isn't great. It's a lost cause for the most part with all the better fighters out there.


Ehhh...If that's the case than I still have very little interest in a PC fighter. The archetype that has my attention is polearm master and that's only because I can be a reach fighter without needing charisma, which honestly doesn't seem all that beneficial compared to the crazy stuff an aberrant bloodrager gets.

Meanwhile shielded fighter never really interested me. If I want to sword and board I'll stick with either the cheating ranger or the warpriest. One skips feats and the other has just enough along with spells.


hiiamtom wrote:
I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options... and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.

Why on Gozreh's green earth would anyone want DEX-to-damage?!

Liberty's Edge

hiiamtom wrote:
This isn't a "the fighter can now fight" conversation. This is a "the fighter could fight before, has different sub systems to fight now, but still can't do much else" which is and has always been the conversation. Everything is viable besides the comical trap options like Vow of Poverty or Ragechemist which just end up with dead players.

That's not correct. It has significantly more non-combat options than it did previously.

hiiamtom wrote:
AWF is better to terrible feats that doesn't mean they are great abilities. Just because it's better than Dodge doesn't mean it's some magnificent improvement over a feat, you don't get to pick the skills, the will save thing is better than the static bonus feat but is still not good compared to similar abilities, and reflex is honestly a non-issue that you are picking because it's level 17 and why not.

Iron Will isn't usually considered terrible. Nor is Toughness. Nor Dodge, for that matter. They aren't great, but doubling or tripling their effectiveness sure makes them so.

hiiamtom wrote:
5th level is not a dip, and you'll be hard pressed to find a class in the game that isn't trucking by level 5. At this point the throwing weapons fighter starts his throwing weapon career (with the right magic items of course).

You were the one talking dips, not me. My point was (and is) that the Class is now valid for more than a dip. It's not the best Class ever, but it does okay.

hiiamtom wrote:
Fighter has been tier 4 for a long time is all; it's just more ways for it to be tier 4. I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options...

Eh. They have as many interesting options as a Barbarian or even Slayer in most ways. Slayer's a much better skill character, but not really one with more options.

hiiamtom wrote:
and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.

Uh...Fencing Grace is a thing. And easy enough for a Fighter to get.

1 to 50 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.