That is exactly the feat I would need in the undead scenario presented in that book. Hopefully I can have a feat for every situation; I'm sure fighter builds work like that- or whatever.A big thing about fighters is being able to pick and choose through all the feats.
From the DM side of things, those other feats work great on NPCs that are meant to be weak by comparison or only have niche versatility.
That's actually the purview of Brawlers and a few specific Fighter archetypes.
Brawlers are truly Schrodinger's fighter.
We shouldn't bring that class up, because they're appallingly self-sufficient, and dwarf most other martial classes by comparison in a bad way.
So, should I start writing a fighter guide?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say for the other side that I don't feel a fighter should have to use UMD or class features which copy magic. This is not he balance I would want.
I even agree that at higher levels Fighters should get some crazy cool abilities. (maybe not direct combat abilities You would have to buff monsters too) Just creative Exalted/superhero-esk type stuff at higher levels. start around 10 get super cool at 15 and I don't know about cutting mountain in half (and to be fair that story is very poetic so you would expect embellishment) but maybe something close. Also keep in mind any class without amazing spells would need this buff too. I think we are really talking about changing the system more then simple unchained at that point.
Dude what?
Master Armorer can be taken at 3rd level, which starts the process of obtaining the items... as I said.
Crafting the items yourself makes them cost half price, you can have the armor by 7th and both the armor and shield by 8th and it'll cost about half your wealth. By 9th or 10th you can have them no problem, even after the 25% wealth inflation.All spells from items are cast at the minimum caster level, since Overland Flight is 5th level spell, it must be cast at 9th caster level.
honestly this makes me just want to level dip fighter a bit more than i already do maybe, rather than go full fighter.
The fighter is good at fighting, but it's hard to give them something else to do in other situations. Rogues, barbarians, bards, and rangers are good problem solvers because of their skills, and spellcasters can expend resources to cover almost any area where the party comes up short. One of the unfortunate things about the fighter is that the move to the new Pathfinder skills system hit the fighter pretty hard. In 3e and 3.5, fighters may only have had 2 + Int skill ranks per level, but the x4 multiplier at level 1 meant that a fighter could spread some ranks around. A Pathfinder fighter, however, at 1st level is essentially stuck with two useful skills, or three if human, maybe four if it's a human who goes the Combat Expertise route.
The fighter is good at fighting, but it's hard to give them something else to do in other situations. Rogues, barbarians, bards, and rangers are good problem solvers because of their skills, and spellcasters can expend resources to cover almost any area where the party comes up short. One of the unfortunate things about the fighter is that the move to the new Pathfinder skills system hit the fighter pretty hard. In 3e and 3.5, fighters may only have had 2 + Int skill ranks per level, but the x4 multiplier at level 1 meant that a fighter could spread some ranks around. A Pathfinder fighter, however, at 1st level is essentially stuck with two useful skills, or three if human, maybe four if it's a human who goes the Combat Expertise route.
well you can still spread them around a bit in 3 levels with no bonus from human or INT you could have 6 skills all at +4 at least as long as they are class skills. I don't think that was the problem. Plus people complained about fighters way more in 3.5 believe it or not. In 1st edition The differences were even more intense by 6th-10th level thew wizards was untouchable by the fighter class without magic assistance.
I really feel There has been improvements made since then. If all the fighter needs is some more skill points you don't need a book or errata you can house-rule that easily enough. The problem of no SUPER-Cool actions that would require something more major.
I still think the same arguments get made over and over We should start always starting these kinds of thread with a quick summation of everything that came before just so we are not perpetually repeating ourselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, should I start writing a fighter guide?
honestly yes, because maybe then these various options might become an actual staple and not niche things that probably 95% of players will never remember off the top of their head. like make sure you have a section for specific very good swap-inable feats.
honestly yes, because maybe then these various options might become an actual staple and not niche things that probably 95% of players will never remember off the top of their head. like make sure you have a section for specific very good swap-inable feats.
So, should I start writing a fighter guide?
I need to go back and take a second look at those fighter things you made Bandw2 If I can find that post again.
The thing about "giving up class features" is that at the same time you call it a tax, we have to remember that 11 bonus feats is in and of itself a class feature, and in this very thread we've covered that most of the time weapon groups beyond your first are close to useless, unless you plan on switch hitting because the numbers aren't there to support it.
It can't be both sacred and inalienable and also extraneous and useless, that doesn't make sense to me.
Sure, the Fighter gets 11 combat feats. Name any that compare to Strength Surge, Superstition, or Spell Sunder. Name any other than AWT or AAT (which are thankfully actually combat feats) that provide significant narrative power. Most of the good stuff you can get with AWT or AAT are not combat feats. If you're taking AWT or AAT with bonus combat feats then it's most appropriate to compare them to rage powers on the Barbarian (about the same volume and frequency) which does not turn out well for the Fighter. Of course, if you're giving up weapon groups or armor training it's more appropriate to compare them to a couple rage powers, which is even worse.
There's also legacy to bring up here. The barbarian in the past was taxed skill ranks to learn to read. Fighters didn't. Fighters had a lot more crazy feats in 3.x that more or less duplicated spells (slashing flurry and weapon supremacy come to mind.)And barbarians had shock trooper lion totem death from above frenzied berzerkers. So? We're not talking about 3.5.
Cavaliers need those skills for ride and handle animal. Really, they only get 2 skills per level when you consider the skill tax required to use their other class features, unless those rules are hand waived.Unless they're not a mounted cavalier, in which case they only need Handle Animal. Only three of their class features require them to be mounted, all three also require charging and are basically just "bigger damage". They...
Weapon mastery feats count as
combat feats for all purposes, including which classes
can select them as bonus feats
Reading is your friend.
Improved Bravery compares to superstition, and Shatterspell is Spell Sunder for fighters.
Making statements like "the fighter has no access to magic and can't do anything against magic and can't fly but the barbarian can!!!!" is so largely disingenuous that it turns my stomach. People keep doing it, and I keep pointing it out, and I ended up naming a fallacy after myself years ago and whether or not you wanna take personal shots at me, I'm still right about it.It's not that disingenuous. Yes, there are item mastery feats, but those also aren't fighter specific, so you're back to "the fighter has nothing unique to call his own to grant him versatility. He's at best able to do what others can, and nothing above that." They also come online really late & are low power by comparison (level 8 for 1/day flight, 2 if you take another feat, vs a wizard's level 5, augmented by high intelligence, scrolls or pearls of power to get it more than once per day).
Fun fact. The Fighters aren't even the best at using the Item Mastery feats anymore. That honor belongs to the true master of armor and weapons the Occultist namely because they can use their main class feature to negate the 1/day issues. Admittedly, most of the feats replicate stuff that the Occulist does normally.
In 1st edition The differences were even more intense by 6th-10th level thew wizards was untouchable by the fighter class without magic assistance.
In 1st edition most of the goofy stuff you'd do in Pathfinder at-will would effectively end your character's life making it bizarrely balanced. That is the problem with 3E in a nutshell. They recognized that the balancing mechanics of earlier editions were not fun but didn't actually think to adjust the game accordingly.
Improved Bravery compares to superstition, and Shatterspell is Spell Sunder for fighters.
Shatterspell is Spell Sunder for dwarf fighters. And maybe humans who spend a feat to have a dwarf grandpappy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Bravery compares to superstition
Eh....maybe. The barbarian is gaining the improvement to saves on top of an already good save, and it's for all saves instead of just against mind effecting. Being able to be doubled by moment of greatness (for superstition) is funny, but being unable to be targeted by ally casters without saving kinda sucks. So, much better bonus for the barbarian, but with an irritating drawback if you didn't fully prebuff.
Master Armorer can be taken at 3rd level, which starts the process of obtaining the items... as I said.
That's a little pointless isn't it? It's like saying that taking fighter 1 moves you towards Master Armorer, which also "starts the process." Since your not going to have the wealth to even craft* the flight armor you want until level 6-8, you could just as well wait on master armorer until then. Unless of course your crafting all throughout your low level career, but that seems...unlikely.
All spells from items are cast at the minimum caster level
Do you know where this is online? I believe you, but I can't seem to find it, and am also curious what that means for spells cast from items with higher CL than their spell requires.
All spells from items are cast at the minimum caster levelDo you know where this is online? I believe you, but I can't seem to find it, and am also curious what that means for spells cast from items with higher CL than their spell requires.
I think they are cast at the item's caster level, not minimum (you also have a problem with spells that are different lvls on different spell lists). That said, most of those caster levels for items ARE minimum for the spell in question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in Magic Item Descriptions in the CRB.
Thank you very much. Although it doesn't seem to mention that a spell cast through an item is at a caster level determined by what spell list it's on, so I'm stuck assuming it's at the item's caster level (which makes the most sense). 5 hours of overland flight is still more than enough for most days though. Its stipulation of "minimum caster level needed to cast it" are for items that don't have a caster level in their description.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you very much. Although it doesn't seem to mention that a spell cast through an item is at a caster level determined by what spell list it's on, so I'm stuck assuming it's at the item's caster level (which makes the most sense). 5 hours of overland flight is still more than enough for most days though. Its stipulation of "minimum caster level needed to cast it" are for items that don't have a caster level in their description.
If you look abit further down it does say that "For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself." and even the section that does talk about items being at minimum caster level just says to "assume" that items like wands, potions and scrolls are at minimum caster level for ease of use not that such a thing is a restriction.
My search fu reveals that there is disparity in it, since the hard rules say you can't have the item cast it at a lower level than the spell's minimum, but it isn't listed at such.
It's listed in the possible errata thread for UE.
DM call, assume lower CL most of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Necklace of Fireballs has spheres that detonate as the fireball spell and can do less than 5d6 damage, if that's any way relevant.
That is exactly the feat I would need in the undead scenario presented in that book. Hopefully I can have a feat for every situation; I'm sure fighter builds work like that- or whatever.A big thing about fighters is being able to pick and choose through all the feats.
From the DM side of things, those other feats work great on NPCs that are meant to be weak by comparison or only have niche versatility.
That's actually the purview of Brawlers and a few specific Fighter archetypes.
Brawlers are truly Schrodinger's fighter.
Pretty much, I think Fighters should have more extraordinary abilities that allow them to approach combat situations with more flexibility.
If the fighter had access to more unique weapons/items that would stand in for feat-tax abilities (Like what we have with Combat Maneuvers and flails, swordbreakers and whips) it just might be a class that keeps up with all the other fancy martials. Even with that, quickdraw, multiple weapon focus, weapon finesse and combat expertise- you basically need 5 levels before you feel like you can tie your shoe.
I would suggest that fighters level 1 core feats aren't static (Armour prof, shield prof, weapons prof)- but the multiclass abuse would skyrocket. The legacy in the system drags fighters down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest thing wrong with fighter is that AWT and AAT weren't baked into the class, and their archetypes give up those and bravery rather than bonus feats.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN ALSO POINT OUT THAT SUPERSTITCHIN APPLY TO MANY MORE THINGS THAN BRAVERY, EVEN WITH FEET. SUPERSTITCHIN BONUS AM BIGGER, TOO, AM GETTING FAVORED CLASS BONUSES. EVEN AM ABLE TO HAVE GIANT TOUCH AC. BRAVERY NOT STOP CREEPY GHOSTY GUY FROM TOUCHING FIGHTY. SPELLSTRIKE AM ALSO UNIMPRESSIVE COMPARED TO BARBARIAN, BUT STILL AM MAKING DWARFIGHTY BEST FIGHTY BECAUSE SPELL SUNDER AM THAT GOOD. ALSO DWARF AM GETTING SUPERHARDY FEET TO FOR ACTUAL SAVES.
BASICALLY, AM LIKE FIGHTYS SLOWLY GETTING BUFFED TO BE LIKE BARBARIAN BUT NOT QUITE AS GOOD AS BARBARIAN BUT HAVING MORE FEETS. FIGHTY AM WANTING STEP WITH BARBARIAN, BUT BARBARIAN AM DOING TEXAS TWO STEP AND FIGHTY AM IN KANSAS. FIGHTY NOT WANT BE IN KANSAS ANYMORE, BUT TORNADOS AM HARD TO FIND AND RAINBOW JUMPING AM WAY HARD WITHOUT WAY TO FLY. PERCEPTION ALSO NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO FIND WAY OVER RAINBOW. FIGHTY NOT HAVE IT AS CLASS SKILL, UNLIKE BARBARIAN.
SOMEDAY FIGHTY AM JOINING BARBARIAN DANCE POSSEE, BUT IN MEANWHILE FIGHTY AM SETTLING FOR BEST ARCHER AND ALSO HAVING ALL COMBAT STYLE FEATS AT SAME TIME BUT ONLY ONE AT TIME.
KEEP LIVING DREAM, FIGHTY. FOR NOW, AM MORE EVIDENCE OF BARBARIAN/NOT-BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM BARBARIAN IS LATE TO PARTY, THREAD DIE OVER MONTH AGO
Though props for using the word "destrucity." *skronk*
BARBARIAN NEVER LATE.
NOR AM BARBARIAN EARLY.
BARBARIAN ARRIVE PRECISELY WHEN BARBARIAN MEAN TO. GENERALLY THOUGH BARBARIAN ARRIVE AT 'THE END.'
I'm not going to tell the Barbarian he's late to the party. Or that he shouldn't kill the King and his guards. Or punch out the Paladin. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the Barbarian can do whatever he wants, I'm just going to stand over here, outside of his reach...
Working on AM FIGHTER.
Check the guide that came about from this thread.
Working on AM FIGHTER.
Check the guide that came about from this thread.
Ooh, shiny. I just checked your started threads and couldn't find one, is there a link?
I think the thread concluded that a guide that complied all the new fighter toys so a player knows what they are capable of was needed more than a fighter 'fix'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Working on AM FIGHTER.
Check the guide that came about from this thread.
the question is not "can a fighter be good"
the question is "why use the fighter to make that character?"
Vancian spellcasting but for combat feats is a pretty strong argument, imo. (If I'm reading that correctly)
I still think barbarians are better, because of course I do, but. It's still a niche that only they have.
the question is not "can a fighter be good"
the question is "why use the fighter to make that character?"
The two main reasons for using the Fighter class (aside from some of the recent pretty good Fighter variants) are:
(a) It's relatively simple to build and run - no class-specific resources to keep track of, and so on. Good for newbies, lazy players, and NPCs.(b) Some players are unable to get the default class flavors out of their head. Barbarian? Must be a savage tribesman. Samurai? Must be Japanese. Slayer? Must be a vicious murderer. The Fighter carries the least baggage.
Fun fact: a 1st level Magus or a 4th level Paladin can put on heavy armor by themselves as a standard action by spending a spell slot. (For the Magus, it costs 35 gp, once)
Less fun fact: a 7th level Fighter can put on heavy armor by themselves over the course of 2 minutes if they invest their Armor Training into it. Without it, they cannot fully put on heavy armor at all.
Of course, you could buy wands, but it's definitely much more investment than, say, a squire. Or having your Paladin friend help you into armor.
Who's taking off their armor..lol
People who need to sleep. A Fighter woken up in the middle of the night by a monster attack will have to rely on the armor bonus of his pyjamas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, fighter was the first class I ever played, so they hold a special spot in my heart. I play a fighter for what they are, a simple class that's easy to play and can lay the wood on some bad guys. I've been lucky enough to introduce gaming to a few people in my day and I almost always recommend a fighter for those first few forays into the RPG world. And maybe that's were the fighter shines the brightest, as an introduction into a much wider world of options. The things that people sight as their greatest flaws are possibly there greatest strengths in this role. You need a base class that some one can wrap their head around while learning the system and the "art" of role playing. So while the fighter does fall short in many areas compared to other classes/archtypes I personally don't fell as though they need to be tweaked to compete with other classes. As so many have said if you want to play something that's getting all the bells and whistles then there are plenty of options available to you, but sometimes you just want something straight forward and easy to pick up and that is the core of what the fighter is.
People who need to sleep. A Fighter woken up in the middle of the night by a monster attack will have to rely on the armor bonus of his pyjamas.
Depending on what sources you allow there are cheap solutions to this problem...I never take my armor off :) it's a second skin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see on the boards alot of people saying the fighter needs to be "fixed"
My table views them as one of the strongest classes in the game
I am curious about the "issues"
Just keep having fun. My table is the same as yours.
When I hear someone talk about quadratic vs. linear I assume they would be no fun to play 3.PF with.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the question is not "can a fighter be good"
the question is "why use the fighter to make that character?"
The two main reasons for using the Fighter class (aside from some of the recent pretty good Fighter variants) are:
(a) It's relatively simple to build and run - no class-specific resources to keep track of, and so on. Good for newbies, lazy players, and NPCs.
(b) Some players are unable to get the default class flavors out of their head. Barbarian? Must be a savage tribesman. Samurai? Must be Japanese. Slayer? Must be a vicious murderer. The Fighter carries the least baggage.
Regarding (a): that's the trap though, the fighter is one of the least simple builds there is. Even if you don't want to bother all the ways to make them more versatile and just make a pure beatstick, you need quite a bit of system mastery or you'll made a subpar beatstick. So, sure, you don't have to track a lot of uses per day of things, but if you don't know what you're doing you'll quickly start to wonder why you keep getting put to sleep, why your damage isn't keeping up with the party, or why you're not contributing as much as the pally or barb.
(Well, this has been sitting open on my phone for a long time...wonder if it's still relavent by the time I post this)
|
Working on AM FIGHTER.
Check the guide that came about from this thread.the question is not "can a fighter be good"
the question is "why use the fighter to make that character?"
I have at least two reasons why I might do so:
1) Other martials come with mechanical baggage I'm not terribly interested in for the concept.
This mostly applies to the barbarian and paladin, but it's there for the slayer and ranger as well to a lesser extent. If my idea of how the character fights doesn't involve situational effects, unique terrain familiarity, etc., then those classes don't fit the idea right.
2) The concept involves an absurd number of feats.
This is actually why my Strange Aeons character is going to be a fighter. I want to make someone who is an actual, functional, effective combatant while completely and permanently blind - the archtypical "blind swordmaster." Blind Blade Style is the key piece, but given the feat requirements, only a fighter can effectively pull it off before mid-high levels. Moreover, the sensate archetype for fighters combines extremely well both mechanically and conceptually for the idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding (a): that's the trap though, the fighter is one of the least simple builds there is. Even if you don't want to bother all the ways to make them more versatile and just make a pure beatstick, you need quite a bit of system mastery or you'll made a subpar beatstick.
If there's an experienced player around, they can give the newbie the basic knowledge they need to make an adequate fighter in thirty seconds flat. (High Strength, dump Int and Cha, don't dump Wisdom or Constitution, use a two-handed weapon, take Power Attack.) They won't be as effective as a Magus created by a powergamer, but they'll do fine by normal standards.
Working on AM FIGHTER.
Check the guide that came about from this thread.the question is not "can a fighter be good"
the question is "why use the fighter to make that character?"
I have at least two reasons why I might do so:
1) Other martials come with mechanical baggage I'm not terribly interested in for the concept.
This mostly applies to the barbarian and paladin, but it's there for the slayer and ranger as well to a lesser extent. If my idea of how the character fights doesn't involve situational effects, unique terrain familiarity, etc., then those classes don't fit the idea right.
2) The concept involves an absurd number of feats.
This is actually why my Strange Aeons character is going to be a fighter. I want to make someone who is an actual, functional, effective combatant while completely and permanently blind - the archtypical "blind swordmaster." Blind Blade Style is the key piece, but given the feat requirements, only a fighter can effectively pull it off before mid-high levels. Moreover, the sensate archetype for fighters combines extremely well both mechanically and conceptually for the idea.
The problem is that the feat chain progression is locked behind level requirements: you cant go up the chain as quickly as a fighter gains feats. You thus have to branch out in a system that rewards specialization.
|
|
Regarding (a): that's the trap though, the fighter is one of the least simple builds there is. Even if you don't want to bother all the ways to make them more versatile and just make a pure beatstick, you need quite a bit of system mastery or you'll made a subpar beatstick.If there's an experienced player around, they can give the newbie the basic knowledge they need to make an adequate fighter in thirty seconds flat. (High Strength, dump Int and Cha, don't dump Wisdom or Constitution, use a two-handed weapon, take Power Attack.) They won't be as effective as a Magus created by a powergamer, but they'll do fine by normal standards.
Or they'll stand around holding their sword while the other players who actually have system mastery or characters with useful abilities steamroll every encounter.
Or they'll stand around holding their sword
In my experience, they usually walk up to enemies and hit them with the sword.