Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daniel Yeatman wrote:
I don't know, I've only ever played in one campaign where there was a Fighter and he did just fine, all the way up to level 16. I do always find it funny that so much effort is focused on one class, though. Imagine if there was this much debate about the Medium, or the Cavalier, hah.

A lot of it can come down to your game group, play style, and the type of encounters the GM sends at the group (and the number per day potentially). Our campaign is about 14 months running, I have 2 fighters (archer build and sword-board) played by my daughter (10) and son (8). Party also has a Cleric/Bard, and TWF Unchained Rogue. everyone has a ton of fun, the fighters shine pretty well in combat, but my daughter's archer build definitely is cream of the crop with 18 STR bow and Rapid Shot. Playing about 4hr every other week, they just hit level 5, and absolutely no one was complaining nor was I seeing the two fighters failing to pull their weight in or out of combat (probably a 50% RP time at the table) with my style of GMing (home-world in progress).

That being said, I got into a long debate with Insain Dragoon counter-arguing some of his points, as I just wasn't seeing it at our table and didn't understand what he was getting at with some of his arguments. Once I understood what he was seeing and getting at, I started looking at what other classes had vs fighters. Its not necessarily that fighters stink (it isn't the case in my game). However, every other class seems to get some cool things that allow player choice to make it a more interesting class to play, in and out of combat in most cases. Ki Pools; Rogue Talents; Rage Abilities; Animal Companions, for example. Additionally, most of the other full BAB classes (as Ssalarn points out) get abilities in combat that are either free-feats (looking at you Ranger..and Wizard :-0 ), or just better than most feats (Paladin Smite; and mercies for example). Yes they get lots of feats, but when you actually look at those other abilities that were added to other classes to make them unique or cool or just free-bonus feats other classes get, its not really as many as it appears. Maybe 5 extra feats over 20 levels, even Wizards get 5 bonus feats. So the one thing that's often looked at as "the fighter's thing", isn't really as exclusive in the whole mechanics of the game. Weapon training and Armor Training are ok, but it doesn't do anything out of combat, and again, other classes have things like DR or ability pools which are arguably better -and- the player gets to pick what they want. The lack of skill points and relative lack of logical class skills also hurts them out of combat if the GM requires lots of actual rolls to confirm certain skill checks (I personally play a little more loose with those, but not all GMs do and its a real problem for them). Maybe there is a logic argument that Ranger and Barbarian's "wild-nature" is why they get more feats - I realize the 1E Barbarian (from U.Arcana) was a skill monkey...they also leveled up around 1/3 the rate of Fighter. Also, having spent close to 30 years in the military I don't understand how they don't get perception and some of the other str/dex skills as class skills.

So, even though I have 2 fighters, having lots of fun, pulling their weight, I decided to make a house-rule variant to give them more unique abilities in and out of combat. My reason wasn't because it was a problem in our game, but that I wanted them to be even more enjoyable and comparable in their abilities to the other classes, which based on my looking over even the CRB was left out of their design in the CRB.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:
I agree although I think some playing styles and tables suffer more from this than others. Some GM's may either not be able to (PFS?) or feel less inclined to tweak the encounters by making monsters a little tougher (APs?) or add encounters per day to reward spell-casters being conservative. If players start to realize that they're only going to need 6 rounds worth of fire-power per adventuring day, it would be foolish not to lead with your 6 hardest hitting things, whether it be SLA, per-day extra-ordinaries, or actual spells. Conversely, if its more typical for your group to have multiple encounters per day (not always but during difference sections of the story arc), then everyone would be smart to keep things in reserve early, especially those AoE or encounter changers from the casters.

My experience has been, and I understand this isn't necessarily true of everyone, that when I try to tweak the difficulty up to compensate for casters trivializing encounters, it's actually the non-casters who suffer more. Beyond that, there's only so much tweaking you can do; you can't make the contributions of one class useless just because someone else is underperforming.

For my home game, we actually kind of cut out the upper and lower edges of the game by replacing or patching the most problematic classes and subsystems. We dropped the standard Vancian casting mechanics of core Pathfinder and swapped in the spherecasting system from Spheres of Power for our casters. This reined in a lot of the "win button" spell issues, and shifted casters onto similar advancement tracks as martials, so everyone kind of grows at the same pace.
I've got a series of patches for the Fighter available in my games, including some feats specifically designed to help ramp him up a notch on the versatility front. He generally gets passed over now in favor of some of the other options that have a naturally more well-rounded and...

All good stuff. I have the Battle Lord :-). Haven't used it in game yet though.

Any thing you can point to on ramping up making the non-casters suffer more? Just trying to visualize what it would be. I can see some cases with things like terrain hurting anyone using melee, while the caster/archers shine, but I try to combine those things as well as near/far targets so everyone has something to use their abilities on.

I agree with your point (earlier up the thread - or maybe on another?) about HPs kind of being a limited daily resource for fighters. I gave mine an ability to use stamina to gain back some HPs (similar to barbarian renewed vigor). But really, a house fix for some of the cool things another martial can pick, but nothing comparable in fighter's class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can actually find a lot of nasty things to say about the Cavalier too, don't worry.

But at its core I think a lot of the Cavalier's problems are still systemic ones. Feat trees make it very hard for a Cavalier to generalize or build outside of its intended box as you're realistically waiting until level 7 just to get your regular tools off the ground. 11 if you want to be a dex based cavalier.

Worse, in some ways, because the Cavalier's core design is so narrow that those first three feats (mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge) are more or less something you need to assume every baseline cavalier will take, so the class seems to be in many ways designed with those abilities in mind, which can often make it feel like the class just doesn't get its first feat until level 7.

Incidentally, this ties back into 'bonus feats are a dangerous drug' because human gendarme cavaliers get spirited charge at level 1.

Cavalier has other problems, like being one of the most narrowly defined classes in the entire game other than maybe the Gunslinger and not having much of a personal identity and basically no one remembering it exists most of the time.

Now as a slight aside, I did mention CM/D in the OP and it is relevant to this thread, but not all the issues trace back to it. Even if every single martial class was just as effective as every single caster class in every way, having to sink half your feats into a combat style and being so hopelessly at the mercy of magic item availability and so on would still be awful mechanics. If casters sucked and were borderline useless and Martials ran the entire game they'd still be terrible mechanics too.


People should understand this. At higher level Fighters and ALL martials are about loot and buffs.
Fighters cannot fly for example. Unless you have a potion of flying, Boots of flying, a Flying carpet, Leadership feat and a flying monster companion or animal training etc. Fighter cannot go invisible, unless he has a ring or potion.
Before anyone say fighter be change ask how is this going to effect a well equipt well buffed fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuthel wrote:

People should understand this. At higher level Fighters and ALL martials are about loot and buffs.

Fighters cannot fly for example. Unless you have a potion of flying, Boots of flying, a Flying carpet, Leadership feat and a flying monster companion or animal training etc. Fighter cannot go invisible, unless he has a ring or potion.
Before anyone say fighter be change ask how is this going to effect a well equipt well buffed fighter.

I don't disagree, its pretty intuitive. For us it was more about giving fighters a set of abilities similar to monk's ki-pool, barbarian's rage abilities, rogue's talents that they can pick from and gain more as they go up in level to do more things with their character. My players can pick from a growing pool of stamina uses, including ability to pick a different one (and more at higher levels) daily to give them some flexibility.

In a desert? Use your Adaptive Stamina slot to take Drive One stamina ability and ignore heat, reduce the water you need, and help your allies do the same as long as you have 1 stamina point left. Have an archer buddy? Take Fire Coordinator to shout commands allowing them to gain flanking when you are flanking a foe in melee. Have a glass-chinned buddy? Take Walk it Off, and motivate them to ignore damage for a round when they'd normally be knocked unconscious. Worried about a magical flier? Take Dispelling Strike and knock out the creatures ability with a successful hit and failed save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Cavalier

Ooooh, don't even get me started.

If you just hold up Cavalier level progression next to Fighter their problem should be abundantly clear. Other classes have skinny levels, they have +1 damage on challenge and 1/d uses. That's increadibly unimpressive next to any Sneak Attack class. Most if not all of the power a Cavalier has comes from a limited selection of phenomenal feats that make the class work and drive them into a suboptimal fighting style. Which means that Snakebite Striker can just take the feats to do you gimmick better than you by having always on Sneak Attack while mounted.

Oh, and you can just take Horse Master after having the best parts of the class and throw it out the window.

So the class is worthless right? Except there are three orders that are heads and tails above every other! On top of which the Dwarf FCB is just absurd and Half-Orc Huntmasters are just plain stupid in terms of companions.

*rips hair out* GAAAAAAAH!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jader7777 wrote:
Fighters are pretty dependable though, even being surprised and flanked they can out step and stab anything that tries to stronghand them. Spell flingers are useless in that situation...

There's a thematic disjunction there. It feels like the skillful combatant ought to be the best person in that situation, but actually in an emergency you don't usually want reliable-go-all-day. You want nova, to stop things being an emergency. Really, the person who can go all day is the person you entrust the average encounters to. Which makes the fighter the person you entrust fighting to, until it gets too hard and you need to call in specialists.

Ssalarn wrote:
Quote:
but the group is time-crunched, down to 1 potion of healing and trying to rescue their cleric. No time to stop, but they're going to make a quick stop at apothecary to try grabbing a couple more potions before making the final push through smuggling tunnels.
This kind of underscores my point to a certain extent. In a high stakes, time crunch situation, the Fighter should be shining. He is the "go all day" class after all.

It ceases to be a factor once healing wands are everywhere, but if a game is using scarce resources to heal then there is no "go all day" class, because the longest anyone can go is until the healing runs out, plus maybe one fight.

(This is a familiar situation, because it used to come up all the time in a linear larp I played.)

In this situation, if there were a class that used resources but ended encounters with less damage sustained, then it would be better than a no-resource class as long as they didn't run out before the healing did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Shaman wrote:
Daniel Yeatman wrote:
I don't know, I've only ever played in one campaign where there was a Fighter and he did just fine, all the way up to level 16. I do always find it funny that so much effort is focused on one class, though. Imagine if there was this much debate about the Medium, or the Cavalier, hah.

The medium and even to a point the cavalier are generalists with wider areas of expertise. The medium is basically choose you own class every day (DM permission needed), and the generic cavalier is a sort of spellless paladin with a mount, pseudo-smite and team buffs. The fighter can just fight, and s/he isn't that great at it. You can be "decent" compared to barbarians, rangers, paladins or slayers, most of whom bring a heckof a lot more else. You do not even outclass them significantly at the one thing you do.

I really, really wish Unchained had put the fighter there instead of the barbarian or even the summoner.

They did put the fighter there. They introduced the stamina system, pointed it at the fighter, and wrote all those combat tricks. there you go, fighter is fixed.

As for dependable fighters, Lucy has it right. You might call off the advance if your fighters are hurting, but you're a bloody fool to keep going if your Novas are down. When the casters run out of juice, the party stops, even if the fighters are full. That's just smart play. And at higher levels, the fact is your casters are Novas for EVERY SINGLE FIGHT, for a long long time, which overshadows the fighters who can't Nova at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuthel wrote:

People should understand this. At higher level Fighters and ALL martials are about loot and buffs.

Fighters cannot fly for example. Unless you have a potion of flying, Boots of flying, a Flying carpet, Leadership feat and a flying monster companion or animal training etc. Fighter cannot go invisible, unless he has a ring or potion.
Before anyone say fighter be change ask how is this going to effect a well equipt well buffed fighter.

I'd like you to meet my friend, Smashy McFace. Smashy can Fly or Burrow, Dispel Magic, gain partial True Seeing, Ghost Touch rocks they find on the ground, gain Scent, ignore hardness, and many many more!

Meet Holy McSmite and his ability to go full angel.

Meet Aragorn and his woodland friend, a flying mount granted by the class.

You might be able to debate Paladin and Ranger (though they're barely casters), but Barbarian is about as martial as you can get. And they still fly, dispel magic, and punch ghosts. Because that's what you need to do to survive in a world with dragons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pizza Lord wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
Bad feats are prerequisites. Bad spells are just ignored.

Oh yes. You've given me such a wonderful idea for when the next world-changing comet passes... Spell trees.

"You want summon monster III? You don't have summon monster II."
You want fireball and lightning bolt? You need to have burning hands and shocking grasp respectively."
"Oh, you suddenly can't cast beast shape IV anymore because you trained away beast shape (thus also losing access to beast shape II and III) and then a comet came by and it doesn't work. That's rough!"

Might take a little wording to make sure it's fair and balanced gamewise and clear how it works amongst wizards and sorcerers and between clerics and magus. Also how it works with directly granted spells, like some domains or innate, specific spells a class gets. Good idea, GeneticDrift. Shackle those pesky casters with the Yoke of Tyranny 'Fairness'!

2E option called Paths of Power or Roads of Magic or something like that.

Instead of hunting for spells individually Wizards learned Paths. Each Path was centered around a Theme and contained spells that fit with that Theme. You still had to roll to Learn each individual spell but you did so automatically for every path you knew instead of having to hunt down spellbooks and scrolls for the. Failing to learn a particular spell on a path could Dead end the path for you but you could also branch off one road and onto another.

System had it's ups and down. There were rewards for mastering every spell in a Path and it made for more interesting forms of Specialization than the 8 schools we go by now. But you had what were essentially Feat chains of spells. Overall it wasn't a bad system and it added a lot of flavor to a game setting.

Probably wouldn't be too hard to adapt to Pathfinder.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:


2E option called Paths of Power or Roads of Magic or something like that.

Instead of learning spells individually Wizards learned Paths. Each Path was centered around a Theme and contained spells that fit with that Theme. You still had to roll to Learn each individual spell and Failing to learn a particular spell on a path could Dead end the path for you.

System had it's ups and down. There were rewards for mastering every spell in a Path and it made for more interesting forms of Specialization than the 8 schools we go by now. But you had what were essentially Feat chains of spells. Overall it wasn't a bad system and it added a lot of flavor to a game setting.

Probably wouldn't be too hard to adapt to Pathfinder.

I mentioned it earlier, but Spheres of Power basically does this. You choose a sphere (Life, Death, Illusion, Destruction, etc.) and gain its base powers, then you can spend talents to either get the base abilities of other spheres, or gain more options for a sphere you already know. Very modular, very well balanced, and a great tool for curbing spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure that the figher is quite at the level I would want it to be with, even with combat stamina. It did help a lot, but I would rather it became available to all full BAB classes and fighters would get extra stuff that builds on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

;-:


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
;-:

YOU! KOBOLD!

You have been accused of heresy! It is said you gave up Caster Levels to be a level 4 Fighter. And thus are part of every problem within Pathfinder. How do you plea?


So, the C/MD is actually only about Fighters, not all Martials? Or is this thread not serious? I can't tell anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a serious note:

Just wondering if anyone played through 2E to 3E to 3.5 and then PF and has any insight about class design during those years. I was doing MUDS, not TTRPG so missed that transition. But in 1E when something like UA came out with Cavalier, Barbarian and some rule additions at least Fighter was one of the few who could specialize (thus gaining bonus attacks and + to hit/damage), they were better at fighting because they had class abilities others didn't, and those who got additional things like Barbarian paid for it in slower leveling up.

Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?

What else do you call combat feats that say fighter level X?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Shaman wrote:
I am not sure that the figher is quite at the level I would want it to be with, even with combat stamina. It did help a lot, but I would rather it became available to all full BAB classes and fighters would get extra stuff that builds on it.

Here's a link to our house fighter, which can select from a list of stamina abilities only fighters get access too. Our stamina points grow using fighter level, not BAB so dipping gives you access, but such a small pool to hardly make it worthwhile.

A couple teasers:
Deft Movement (Ex): By expending 1 stamina point, a fighter may make an additional 5’ step during their turn, which doesn’t provoke AoOs. Additional 5’ steps beyond this may be taken at a cost of 3 stamina per 5’ step. These steps follow normal rules for 5’ steps. Alternately, by doubling the stamina costs, a fighter may shout coordinating instructions to an ally within 30’ allowing them to take additional 5’ steps rather than themselves (an immediate action when used this way).

Quickened Maneuvers (Ex): A fighter may expend 3 stamina points to make a combat maneuver as a move action, this provokes attacks of opportunity normally unless the fighter has the appropriate feat. A fighter with improved feint can make a feint as a swift action when using this ability.

Link

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My current Pathfinder Society fighter 5/student of war 2 has the following total skill modifiers, which are (except for a +2 bonus for masterwork thieves' tools and his armor check penalty) solely the result of skill ranks and feats:

Bluff +9, Climb +6, Diplomacy +9, Disable Device +13, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +16, Knowledge (history) +15, Knowledge (local) +22, Knowledge (nature) +15, Knowledge (planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Knowledge (other) +10, Linguistics +8, Perception +13, Survival +4

But that's cool, I know fighters have nothing to do out of combat, so I'll just be over here, making the wizard cry when we are both rolling knowledge checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:

My current Pathfinder fighter 5/student of war 2 has the following total skill modifiers, which are (except for a +2 bonus for masterwork thieves' tools and his armor check penalty) solely the result of skill ranks and feats:

Bluff +9, Climb +6, Diplomacy +9, Disable Device +13, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +16, Knowledge (history) +15, Knowledge (local) +22, Knowledge (nature) +15, Knowledge (planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Knowledge (other) +10, Linguistics +8, Perception +13, Survival +4

But that's cool, I know fighters have nothing to do out of combat, so I'll just be over here, making the wizard cry when we are both rolling knowledge checks.

Now post your ability scores and an attack routine.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Snark aside, anytime I see anyone post about "a fighter" I want to roll my eyes hard enough to do damage to my sinuses. Fighters don't exist in the abstract. Between archetypes, continual feat expansion, new class abilities and so on, you can't say anything about what a fighter is or what he can do until the actual character is sitting on the table in front of you.

For example:

Cuthel wrote:
Fighters cannot fly for example. Unless you have a potion of flying, Boots of flying, a Flying carpet, Leadership feat and a flying monster companion or animal training etc. Fighter cannot go invisible, unless he has a ring or potion.

Except that there are feats and archetypes that permit fighters to both fly and turn invisible. And expand their skills/rank, get the equivalent of a good Will or Reflex save, become immune to mind-affecting effects, and so on, and so on, and so on. My next fighter character will, by 8th level, be able to basically ignore displacement and mirror image at will, thanks to feats. "The fighter" is now as much a Schroedinger's creature as the wizard is, but somehow the fighter seems to always *not* have the things he might want whenever someone talks about him...

Liberty's Edge

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

My current Pathfinder fighter 5/student of war 2 has the following total skill modifiers, which are (except for a +2 bonus for masterwork thieves' tools and his armor check penalty) solely the result of skill ranks and feats:

Bluff +9, Climb +6, Diplomacy +9, Disable Device +13, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +16, Knowledge (history) +15, Knowledge (local) +22, Knowledge (nature) +15, Knowledge (planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Knowledge (other) +10, Linguistics +8, Perception +13, Survival +4

But that's cool, I know fighters have nothing to do out of combat, so I'll just be over here, making the wizard cry when we are both rolling knowledge checks.

Now post your ability scores and an attack routine.

Why? Am I somehow obligated to "validate" my character to your standards? My whole point is there's not actually "one true way" to build a fighter, so why do I need to prove that it's somehow good enough for a random dude on the internet? Particularly when I know that the likely outcome of doing so will be to start critiquing my character rather than actually addressing the point at hand?

Spoiler:
Although actually I really don't care, so sure.

+1 elven curve blade +14 (1d10+12, 18-20/x2) or
+1 elven curve blade (1d10+10, 18-20/x2), plus a move-action option to get another +1 to attack and damage against a specific opponent.

Str 19, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 8


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Snark aside, anytime I see anyone post about "a fighter" I want to roll my eyes hard enough to do damage to my sinuses. Fighters don't exist in the abstract.

So? They don't need to exist in the abstract. They exist as a class and I'm talking about the class.

Quote:
you can't say anything about what a fighter is or what he can do until the actual character is sitting on the table in front of you.

On the contrary, the opposite is true here. When talking about class designing, discussing one individual character who might be able to contort the system into behaving is largely irrelevant or even beneficial to my argument given the effort required to accomplish those goals in the first place.

Shisumo wrote:
Why? Am I somehow obligated to "validate" my character to your standards?

Well I mean, given that you were just gloating about your character breaking the mold it doesn't seem that unfair for someone to ask for the whole picture.


why did you stat out the same weapon differently?

Liberty's Edge

swoosh wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Snark aside, anytime I see anyone post about "a fighter" I want to roll my eyes hard enough to do damage to my sinuses. Fighters don't exist in the abstract.
So? They don't need to exist in the abstract. They exist as a class and I'm talking about the class.

You're talking about the class backwards. They can only exist in the abstract, because the definitive characteristic of the fighter's design is its lack of definition. The only classes that match the fighter in sheer breadth of character options and builds are 9h level casters.

The general argument against fighters' class features is that feats suck. As a generalization, I don't really disagree. But there are literally thousands of feats out there, and every time a new one comes out it has the potential to raise the bar on what fighters can do. It doesn't even have to be a fighter-only feat, because there is no other class (again, excepting 9-level casters) whose class features so thoroughly encapsulate what the class is supposed to be able to do without need to reference anything else. You can build a devastating DPR machine out of nothing but the fighter's bonus feats, BAB and weapon training, with no need to even glance at the fighter's skills or non-bonus feats - and the fighter's role, as it is generally accepted around most tables I've played at, is to be a DPR machine. And that leaves a whole lot of room open for customization.

So now, when you've got things like the mutation warrior (hello flight and self-healing!), the item mastery feats (flight, dimension door, see invisibility), advanced weapon and armor training (better saves, better skill points, broadening the benefit of single-weapon feats, built-in DR), and so on - hey, I can cut any targeted spell cast on me literally out of reality as long as it allows a save! - saying "this is what a fighter can so" is laughable at best and actually deceptive at worst.

Liberty's Edge

M1k31 wrote:
why did you stat out the same weapon differently?

Two-handed fighter archetype. He does more damage with a single swing than he does per hit on a full attack sequence.

Dark Archive

To the OP:

D20 game design is the source of like every problem in Pathfinder.

It's not a class that's failed, it's an entire system.


Shisumo wrote:


You're talking about the class backwards. They can only exist in the abstract, because the definitive characteristic of the fighter's design is its lack of definition. The only classes that match the fighter in sheer breadth of character options and builds are 9h level casters.

The general argument against fighters' class features is that feats suck. As a generalization, I don't really disagree. But there are literally thousands of feats out there, and every time a new one comes out it has the potential to raise the bar on what fighters can do.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the systemic design choices associated with it. Better archetypes are great, but that doesn't fix the problems with the core fighter. Better feats are great, but unless they plan on completely obviating the CRB with new feat they aren't going to fix those core problems either. Obviously the more they do in that direction the better things are, but they aren't hard solutions and that doesn't make it 'laughable' to talk about and personally I think it's pretty grotesque to mock one's opinion in such a way simply because it's dissimilar from your own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:

On a serious note:

Just wondering if anyone played through 2E to 3E to 3.5 and then PF and has any insight about class design during those years. I was doing MUDS, not TTRPG so missed that transition. But in 1E when something like UA came out with Cavalier, Barbarian and some rule additions at least Fighter was one of the few who could specialize (thus gaining bonus attacks and + to hit/damage), they were better at fighting because they had class abilities others didn't, and those who got additional things like Barbarian paid for it in slower leveling up.

I have sporatically played Advanced and 2nd Edition Dungeons & Dragons since 1979: ranger, monk, druid, rogue, and cleric. But it wasn't until 3rd Edition that I played regularly, because The Family Game Store in Savage, MD, opened up two blocks from my house. I still have not played a fighter myself, though I have observed three fighters in games I ran.

My memories of the early editions are fuzzy, but 3rd Edition tried to unify the game more and use arithmetic rather than tables. It was built around three unified systems shared by the classes: skills, feats, and spells. Rogues had emphasis on skills, fighters had emphasis on feats, and spellcasters had access to the spells. Some classes, such as bards, were a mixture of all three. I recall that two-weapon fighting had been a ranger ability exclusively in AD&D, so a ranger/rogue multiclass was quite common, but D&D 3E made two-weapon fighting a feat chain instead, which nerfed a lot of interest in the ranger. Pathfinder restored interest in the ranger by improving archery.

GM 1990 wrote:
Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?

The Pathfinder fighter gained bravery, armor training, and weapons training over a D&D 3E fighter. I remember a Paizo developer commenting in these forums that fighter was meant to be the best at melee combat outside of limited-use iconic abilities such as barbarian rage, ranger favored enemy, and paladin smite. Thus, the Pathfinder improvements to the fighter class focused on making the fighter better at combat, not more versatile.

swoosh wrote:

Take a class. Give it nothing to do but hit things, but put it in a combat focused game so everyone has to be good at hitting things. Make it your baseline martial class for balancing.

Bam. There's your C/MD.

Take a class. Make it 'simple, but modular'. Its main class feature is having tons of feats. But how are you going to justify giving someone that many feats when you realistically don't need that many different combat styles?

Bam. There are your feat trees and narrow feat focuses.

the list goes on.

Swoosh's first paragraph is an accurate description. However, D&D 3E had much less emphasis on balance than Pathfinder. Instead, the party was built out of roles: a party needed a good hitter like a fighter, a healer like a cleric, a battlefield-control spellcaster like a wizard, and a trap-spotter like a rogue. So long as a class was good at its role, it did not need to be as good as classes in other roles. Paizo, in contrast, is good at balancing the new classes they invent, so the legacy backwards-compatible classes from D&D 3E stick out as bad examples of imbalance.

The fighter is good at fighting. Its "modular" design of a choice of feats is not simple, since mastery requires reading several rulebooks of feats. Nevertheless, good feat design ought to make the fighter versatile. But Paizo later pursued versatility through archetypes, and did not address new feats that could fix the fighter's narrow focus.


GM 1990 wrote:

On a serious note:

Just wondering if anyone played through 2E to 3E to 3.5 and then PF and has any insight about class design during those years. I was doing MUDS, not TTRPG so missed that transition. But in 1E when something like UA came out with Cavalier, Barbarian and some rule additions at least Fighter was one of the few who could specialize (thus gaining bonus attacks and + to hit/damage), they were better at fighting because they had class abilities others didn't, and those who got additional things like Barbarian paid for it in slower leveling up.

Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?

Different XP charts for one By the time the Party Wizard was 5th the Fighter was like 7th.

Every Class had a different XP chart. I think 2E even had some rules for making up a class from scratch and calculate it's XP chart from the modifiers.

Rogue and fighter leveled the fastest and easiest. Wizard was powerful but took forever to get there. Druid actually had to go around bumping off higher ranking Druids before he was allowed to advance.


Shisumo wrote:

My current Pathfinder Society fighter 5/student of war 2 has the following total skill modifiers, which are (except for a +2 bonus for masterwork thieves' tools and his armor check penalty) solely the result of skill ranks and feats:

Bluff +9, Climb +6, Diplomacy +9, Disable Device +13, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +16, Knowledge (history) +15, Knowledge (local) +22, Knowledge (nature) +15, Knowledge (planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Knowledge (other) +10, Linguistics +8, Perception +13, Survival +4

But that's cool, I know fighters have nothing to do out of combat, so I'll just be over here, making the wizard cry when we are both rolling knowledge checks.

How are you doing that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another big difference between AD&D and 3rd fighters, in AD&D the fighter's saves (they were percentage based) scaled better to the point that they would eventually have some of the best saves at higher levels. Thus they were more likely to survive many events. Additionally, in AD&D the ability to gain multiple attacks in a round as a function of leveling was a fighter ability. They would first improve to 3/2 (three attacks every two rounds, which functionally meant an extra attack every other round), moving eventually to 2/1 (two per round), and I believe 5/2 at best. It's also important to remember that AD&D didn't have the "stand still to fight" dynamic. The fighter could move their full amount and use those attacks. This made them unquestionably good for combat. The fighter lost both of these in the changeover to 3.0.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:

On a serious note:

Just wondering if anyone played through 2E to 3E to 3.5 and then PF and has any insight about class design during those years. I was doing MUDS, not TTRPG so missed that transition. But in 1E when something like UA came out with Cavalier, Barbarian and some rule additions at least Fighter was one of the few who could specialize (thus gaining bonus attacks and + to hit/damage), they were better at fighting because they had class abilities others didn't, and those who got additional things like Barbarian paid for it in slower leveling up.

Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?

This is really the big question. The primary reason why things got broken (my opinion here) the conversion to a standardized d20 system. Its a little convoluted but I will try my best to break it down why it all broke down. I think...I know why the martial and skill based classes from older systems suck in 3e+(3.5, PF, etc).

1st and 2nd ed had many built-in controls. Here are a few for classes:
- Stat requirements
- various xp charts, they were all over the place at later levels but at lower levels some classes advanced pretty fast (using 2nd ed here).

Older XP charts:
Fighter vs. Paladin/Ranger was not very pronounced.
To get to 2nd level F: 2,000xp, P/R: 2,250xp
To get to 4th level F: 8,000xp, P/R: 9,000xp (more pronounced difference)
To get to 7th level F: 64,000xp, P/R: 75,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 250,000xp, P/R: 300,000xp

But then throw the Rogue in the mix:
To get to 2nd level R: 1,250xp
To get to 4th level F: 5,000xp
To get to 7th level F: 40,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 110,000xp

So it was very common to have the Rogue as the highest level character in the group.

Priest:
To get to 2nd level R: 1,500xp
To get to 4th level F: 6,000xp
To get to 7th level F: 55,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 225,000xp

Wizard
To get to 2nd level F: 2,500xp
To get to 4th level F: 5,000xp
To get to 7th level F: 60,000xp
To get to 9th level F: 135,000xp

So its a little all over the place, but there several factors. Pallys and Rangers really had to pay for their abilities. To stress on the casters - leveling up a 1st level wizard to 7th or 9th level without cheating was hard. It was a class with incredibly low chance of survival. Priest (clerics) fared well, though restrictive weapon use - as in you cannot use it at all - meant that there was not much in common magic weapons.

Spells and spell casting:
The two big changes here that broke the game.
In older editions saves were internal. If you were low level the saves were hard, as you went up and acquired some magic items they got better. But the critical thing here - the save difficulty was on your character, not controlled by an external source.

Ex: if a high level wizard cast disintegrate on your low level fighter, he made a save vs. disintegrate. A number value generated by his level and his modifiers. In 3e+ the number is generated (and spiked/meta manipulated) by the source. So if you build a very specialized caster you can easily get your save values out of expected challenge level.
That is huge one. Meta value manipulation + binary save system is a recipe for disaster. I'm of the mind that the DC should come from the spell level - and that's it. The higher the spell, the harder the save - no caster stat addition, feats, or any other meta mechanic to inflate the DC out of its fixed value.

Spellcasting Part II:
In older editions there were action speeds and some spells took longer to cast than others. And if you were hit - you lost the spell. No checks, no rolls - just gone. These were huge breaks on casters - removed in 3e+.

The other thing was the increase in total number of spells per casting level based off of prime stat. Just too many more spells per day allowing for combinations and the ability to intrude on other class functions. More is not always better. Especially if we are talking about powers that have no drawbacks.

On top of that, AC for Wizards in older editions were brutal. Without PB, dex was not guaranteed to be high, crafting was incredibly difficult and if you had Bracers of Defense they probably brought you into the range of Studded Leather armor. Again - low hp, and if you are hit - spell is gone.

So now the 2nd string fighters (ranged attackers, rogues) needed to watch the casters back while trying to take out the same on the other side. Aka - job protection.

Protected class abilities and built-in class skills:
Rogues had climb, move silently, find/remove traps, etc - as exclusive abilities. When 3e+ came along someone thought it would be a brilliant idea to take one classes abilities and put them out there for any other class to grab. If they were going to go this route they probably should have just eliminated the Rogue class entirely. But I am confidant that they had no idea of the ramifications of what they were doing when they did it. They were too proud of their "universal d20 mechanic" to see that they had gutted a class.

Something similar happened with BAB. In other editions - with specializations a low level fighter could get 3 attacks every two rounds - with no penalty. 2 on the 1st round and 1 on the second. And it just got better. All this at 1st level with full mobility.

Hit point inflation. This has several parts:
Removing the hit die cap on classes/PCs/NPCs.
Fighters had a HD cap of 9 (d10) hit points. After that the got +3 hp per level - with no Constitution bonus
being applied after 9th. Wizards capped out at 10 (d4) hit points, gaining +1 hp every level thereafter. Priest at 9(d8) hit points, getting +2 per level thereafter and finally Rogues at 10 (d6), getting +2 hp after 10th level.

Monsters did not have a Con score, so as such their hit points were based on their hit die which was a fraction of what is in 3e+ games. 1st ed monster HD was very low with minimal bonuses, but in 2nd ed the HD went up because specialization and increased player melee damage output increased in the latter part of 1st ed and so HD went up as an assumption to maintain the challenging aspect of the game.

In 3e+ games, once monsters start getting to 4hd or more, their hp inflate exponentially due to arbitrary assignment of Con values. Fighters can do more damage with all the right feats, but they get less attacks than their old edition counterparts - and when the do get multiple attacks it is at -5.
So hp increased around 150% in 3e+ games, while damage output did not. Average damage per attack may have gone up in 3e+, but with less attacks our lower level martial classes were doing more damage.
Also, weapons had rates of attack built-in and they improved if you were specialized. Bow - 2 attacks per round - no penalty, darts 3, etc.

Removing HD caps and adding in CON bonuses x HD exponentially increased hit points for players and creatures. Problem is - damage output didn't scale and casters don't trade in hit point currency (besides evokers) to turn off encounters. They use inflated, binary saves to deal with threats.

More HP all around = Bad for characters that deal with HP to overcome challenges.

Spells vs Skills:
In 2nd ed they introduced Non-weapon proficiencies. These were attribute based skills. So if you had Armorer - you check may have been rolling under your Intelligence -2. They didn't have ranks, but they were grounded to a stat and as such - were not subject to meta manipulation.

These NWP were in addition to built-in class "skills". A wizard in older editions of AD&D could cast spells that stepped on other classes skills - but they were so difficult to use that it would have made more sense to cast it on someone else in the party to maximize use.

Except from 2nd ed Spider Climb.
A spider climb spell enables the recipient to climb and travel upon vertical surfaces as well as a giant spider, or even hang upside down from ceilings. Unwilling victims must be touched and are then allowed a saving throw vs. spell to negate the effect. The affected
creature must have bare hands and feet in order to climb in this manner, at a movement rate of 6 (3 if at all encumbered). During the course of the spell, the recipient cannot handle objects that weigh less than a dagger (one pound), for such objects stick to his
hands and feet. Thus, a wizard will find it virtually impossible to cast spells if under a spider climb spell. Sufficient force can pull the recipient free; the DM can assign a saving throw based on circumstances, the strength of the force, and so on. For example, a
creature with a Strength of 12 might pull the subject free if the subject fails a saving throw vs. paralyzation (a moderately difficult saving throw). The caster can end the spell effect with a word.
The material components of this spell are a drop of bitumen and a live spider, both of which must be eaten by the spell recipient.

So there was hard coded class and skill protections. It was very hard for a cleric to "emulate" a fighter via a few spells as compared to 3e+. A wizard could not synthesize the skill and proficiency of a Rogue with spells that gave you +10 to perform a skill.

Fighters didn't need a ki pool or War pool points because a fighter in older editions had a distinct advantage of having: best attacks, best number of attacks, best saves, best AC, best weapon, best chance to find a magic weapon that they could use.
The most important thing though - the they were needed, just like rogues were needed (due to the fact that they owned specific skills).

I am running an AD&D game without a wizard in the party - they are doing well. I couldn't say the same if the did not have the fighter in their group.

--

All that was longer than what I wanted it to be, but I think the above breakdown illustrates the major changes as to why Fighters and Rogues are not as good.

I wasn't kidding when I posted earlier that the d20 system broke the fighter and any other class that did not have unique class abilities. Everything but casters got broken, just to different degrees as the various changes impacted their core function and role in a party.


Marshmallow Fallacy is real.

Fighters have the potential to have the most skills in the game. If you retain your feats using the fighters core feat swapping mechanic, and make sure to employ the combo of Warrior's Spirit and a Training Weapon then you have access to literally any skill you want at max ranks, any combat feat you can dream of, and backwards access to all of the fighter options.

There's so many options b one doesn't even have to use all of them to get a class comparable to the others.

Also, Warrior Spirit opens the door for almost literally every single Magic Item Mastery feat without investing in UMD, which means fly, Dimension Door, and all those other fun options can become available via a class feature.

Plus there's the free ranks in craft, free master craftsman, and free craft magical armor which gives the fighter so many options if only through the virtue of making it himself and not even having to waste any feats or skill ranks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is warriors spirit and training weapon? Not doubting just interested.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Rogues had climb, move silently, find/remove traps, etc - as exclusive abilities. When 3e+ came along someone thought it would be a brilliant idea to take one classes abilities and put them out there for any other class to grab. If they were going to go this route they probably should have just eliminated the Rogue class entirely. But I am confidant that they had no idea of the ramifications of what they were doing when they did it. They were too proud of their "universal d20 mechanic" to see that they had gutted a class.

I don't like tying such behavior to class. It means not only means that to solve certain problems, you need a specific class (which is alright in concept), but also means a lot of character concepts become impossible. I like having more customization beyond class related behavior (feats, skills, etc) to better build a character.

But, this also has a flaw. Basically, 1) what is the differences between classes, 2) how do you represent that in a way that keeps classes 'balanced' but feeling unique? As an example, a barbarian with rage can smash objects apart. Should a fighter with appropriate feats be able to do the same? Should he be able to do so as well / reliably? If so, what's the difference between a fighter and barbarian? If no, what does the fighter have that offsets the barbarian's advantage in this field? Sundering may not be the best example, but I hope it gets the idea across.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Covent wrote:
What is warriors spirit and training weapon? Not doubting just interested.

It uses the new Weapon Training options from Complete Intrigue?

New AWT: Weapon Bond: Gain +1 weapon bond/4 levels for 1 minute, WT times/day. Or Equivalent.

Training: Gain a combat feat, +1 Weapon Equiv. New weapon enhancement.

So, take AWT for 2 skills dependent on what your weapon is, or take AAT for a single skill (might be invalid cause I think you have to give up Armor Training to gain).

Big problem, takes at least 9th level to come online to do, and you must keep one of your AWT slots 'empty' to satisfy the max # of AWT feats you can have.

It's basically a Paragon Surge for combat feats that can be exploited. Even if it's nerfed, it doesn't address the issue well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:

I don't like tying such behavior to class. It means not only means that to solve certain problems, you need a specific class (which is alright in concept), but also means a lot of character concepts become impossible. I like having more customization beyond class related behavior (feats, skills, etc) to better build a character.

But, this also has a flaw. Basically, 1) what is the differences between classes, 2) how do you represent that in a way that keeps classes 'balanced' but feeling unique? As an example, a barbarian with rage can smash objects apart. Should a fighter with appropriate feats be able to do the same? Should he be able to do so as well / reliably? If so, what's the difference between a fighter and barbarian? If no, what does the fighter have that offsets the barbarian's advantage in this field? Sundering may not be the best example, but I hope it gets the idea across.

Yes, that's why I said that once the separated out 90% of the Rogues abilities from 2nd to 3rd they should have just dumped the class instead of saying - "but, but the Rogue can climb walls so much better because of.... numbers!!!!"

Numbers which other spell casting classes can manipulate better than the Rogue.

This is the thing though - if you want that level of customization - where anyone can pick and choose skills and powers based on what they like or think they will need, then why have a class based system? You can't have it both ways - heavy customization but with poorly delineated borders on which trick or responsibility falls onto which class. Currently casters - for all the reason I listed in the other post - run the game. With little to no restriction on duplicating abilities, or crossover power the spell casting classes are too flexible, too modular (spell load out) and as such to powerful when compared with others who are actually playing a different game.

If there was a different design consideration going into 3e maybe things wouldn't be that bad. Something were fighters and rogues own most of the skill system or gain specific benefits over other classes for some kind of niche protection for their team function then things might be different. They didn't to that, they took away (attacks, class abilities), gave away (class abilities), shifted the save paradigm (self to an external that can be manipulated) and shifted the goal post for baseline success of martial classes (super inflated hp for everything).

So I get your point - each class should have a "thing" and it shouldn't just be +X more than another class who can do that "thing" and 5 other "things". A class power that is unique to each class. Casters already have it for their classes.

-

The whole of 3e+ is a kludged-together, poorly thought out system. On almost all levels.

The martial classes should have had inherent features that they own and other classes couldn't steal. Singular feat fixes and silly combos don't get to the core of the problem - that there are multiple mini system/problem resolution options in the game (Skills, binary spells, utility spells) that martial classes currently do not exclusively own. Unless this core problem is resolved it will always be a band-aid type solution.


Auxmaulous wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:

On a serious note:

Just wondering if anyone played through 2E to 3E to 3.5 and then PF and has any insight about class design during those years. I was doing MUDS, not TTRPG so missed that transition. But in 1E when something like UA came out with Cavalier, Barbarian and some rule additions at least Fighter was one of the few who could specialize (thus gaining bonus attacks and + to hit/damage), they were better at fighting because they had class abilities others didn't, and those who got additional things like Barbarian paid for it in slower leveling up.

Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?

This is really the big question. The primary reason why things got broken (my opinion here) the conversion to a standardized d20 system. Its a little convoluted but I will try my best to break it down why it all broke down. I think...I know why the martial and skill based classes from older systems suck in 3e+(3.5, PF, etc).

1st and 2nd ed had many built-in controls. Here are a few for classes:
- Stat requirements
- various xp charts, they were all over the place at later levels but at lower levels some classes advanced pretty fast (using 2nd ed here).

** spoiler omitted **...

Interesting points. I started in 1E and have all my books down on shelf. I'd stopped playing when 2E's Complete Book A Week program came online. I really only picked up PF because with my 11/9/7 year old wanting to play after a couple sessions I was THAC0'd out trying to help them figure if they hit or not.

My favorite class in 1E was the UA Barbarian...but 6k xp for 2d level...and it just went slow from there. Although lots of weapon and non-weapon proficiencies...but you paid for it.

I love skills, but agree it's hurt niches, so I only allow Rogues to find certain traps and only rogues can disable and pick-locks.

It just seems strange with all the thought that went into the Core classes and giving out things like rogue talents, rage powers, ki pools, and classes like Ranger (and even Wizard) getting enough bonus feats that they're not that far behind fighter, that someone didn't realize a base-line Fighter was really going to be only margionally better. And when you add on a significant magic/equipment based mechanic for them to have to keep investing in it someone should have saw it coming. It seems like the only class that didn't get something coming out of 1E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mortonator wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:
Any idea why it was decided to create sets of abilities like Ki Pool, Rogue Talent, Rage Abilities, and Companion rules, and then not have something similar for fighter?
What else do you call combat feats that say fighter level X?

Tools a fighter can buy but a brawler can rent to a much greater effect. Other classes have been stealing fighter only feats for a long time, and only recently have they made it harder. A magus of the right archetype can still get them, but its at least harder now. But most fighter only feats are either only useful in increasingly rare situations (spellbreaker line, penetrating strike) or are rather boring, increasing numbers and doing little else (weapon slec, greater shield spec, etc.) Other feats seem fighter-only because of a pile of prerequisites (TWF line, Whirlwind Attack, etc) but the problem with this is two-fold. Fighters wishing to take these almost exclusive trees now must give up a nice chunk of versatility and in the meanwhile other classes get these sans prereqs while making better use of them. Finally there are the most recent fighter-only feats which have prereqs which fighters can ignore but other classes can pay. These (the mastery feats) are the best type for fighters because they do open options fighters are genuinely better at obtaining. Hopefully they will be reprinted in a hardback book that offers further support.

I'm going to give advanced armor/weapon training a special section because they were clearly an attempt to give fighters class features. In a way they did well, because they gave fighters more skills, better saves, DR, and magic item creation. But they come at a cost. You have to wait a good bit for this to come online. Some of it won't work till level 9 or later, and it narrows your weapon choice down even further than the game already does.

soilent wrote:
Meanwhile a smart player can find a good build to play with, for Fighter, as long as they're willing and able to put in the research.

Perhaps, but the same can be said about any class. The difference is that other classes don't all make you play PF as a hobby with homework in order to work well.


No seriously, who actually used more than one weapon group?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mortonator wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
;-:

YOU! KOBOLD!

You have been accused of heresy! It is said you gave up Caster Levels to be a level 4 Fighter. And thus are part of every problem within Pathfinder. How do you plea?

I plead Guilty of being completely useless to my party, even by the low standards set by other martials. I will accept the punishment bestowed upon me, as I have no skills with which to argue my case and my pointy stick offers no actual options that might allow to escape this trial. Perhaps my wizard friend will be along shortly to save me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread has been added to the Index. It's been a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
No seriously, who actually used more than one weapon group?

Anyone who wanted to be a switch hitter, I'd assume...it just took them too long to be good at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
No seriously, who actually used more than one weapon group?
Anyone who wanted to be a switch hitter, I'd assume...it just took them too long to be good at it.

I also feel like that's more a failure of the system. It's not that having multiple weapon groups of weapon training is bad per se, but that since subsequent weapon groups have lower strength, and weapon focus / specialization only apply to single weapons, the game system itself is stacked against encouraging a player to have multiple weapon groups, which I think is a flaw.


Which is why AWT feats are actually liked, instead of being seen as the swapouts that they are. They are getting rid of a fairly useless class feature for something that is actually useful.

The fact is that AWT and AAT feats should just be straight feats that reference Armor adn Weapon Training levels, and a fighter could just TAKE them, instead of having to swap anything.

Oh, and if weapon training applied to basically every weapon, all the time...it still wouldn't overpower the fighter, just diversify him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
No seriously, who actually used more than one weapon group?

Fewer people than wanted to, because switching weapons can be fun and having a giant pile of feats and money invested over the course of a game so that you the player have fewer valid options in combat is not fun.

51 to 100 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.