Yeesh, arguments like this are why games end up with rulebooks thick enough to stop small-arms fire.
One of the Fighter's "main selling points" is their sheer number of bonus feats... But many of the other martial classes also get bonus feats (albeit not as many). In exchange for the bonus feats they don't get, they are getting class features which are usually much, much better than any feat they could take at that level. Then there is also the fact that Rangers and Slayers can skip the prerequisites of feats in their chosen Combat Styles, allowing them to reduce "feat taxes".....And since non-Fighter classes can take these feats, they have to put the useful/cool ones at the ends of long feat-chains.
I feel like a real fighter fix for this issue at least is to give them access to combat packages similar to avenger vigilante talents that they can take instead of a bonus feat. Where it gives you the first feat in a chain immediately, then feeds you the rest as you level. Combat stamina is great but pretty unwieldy. Needing a "spellbook" for your fighter is rough.
I do find it amusing that high-end fighter optimization requires the same sort of accounting degree that wizard optimization always seems to boil down to.
That spellbook description is super apt.
I mean, once you have Barroom Brawler + Abundant Tactics, you kind of need that spellbook, and that's like level 5.
If I were to write an "upgrade" package for the Fighter... an "Unchained Fighter" as it were:
I would give the Fighter 4 skill points per level. In an ideal world the paladin should be similarly upgraded... but that is another topic entirely.
The Fighter would gain Weapon Focus as an additional bonus feat at 1st level. In addition they would have a class feature similar to the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon damage table, complete with what weapons it applied to being determined by what weapons the Fighter took Weapon Focus in. This would allow the Fighter to minimize the penalties for choosing to use "subpar" weapons with unusual special features.
Finally, if that didn't feel like enough upgrade: They would be given a Grit Pool and Deed progression ala the Gunslinger/Swashbuckler. Likely this feature would progress more slowly than the Gunslinger/Swashbuckler's, so as not to steal their thunder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we all really should consider reading more....
Here is my super-efficient upgrade package for the fighter:
Replace the bonus feat gained at level 1 with Weapon Training, which continues at its "every 4 levels thereafter" pace.
In addition they would have a class feature similar to the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon damage table, complete with what weapons it applied to being determined by what weapons the Fighter took Weapon Focus in.
Focused Weapon (Ex) The fighter selects one weapon for which he has Weapon Focus and that belongs to the associated fighter weapon group. The fighter can deal damage with this weapon based on the damage of the warpriest's sacred weapon class feature, treating his fighter level as his warpriest level. The fighter must have Weapon Focus with the selected weapon in order to choose this option.
In addition they would have a class feature similar to the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon damage table, complete with what weapons it applied to being determined by what weapons the Fighter took Weapon Focus in.Focused Weapon (Ex) The fighter selects one weapon for which he has Weapon Focus and that belongs to the associated fighter weapon group. The fighter can deal damage with this weapon based on the damage of the warpriest's sacred weapon class feature, treating his fighter level as his warpriest level. The fighter must have Weapon Focus with the selected weapon in order to choose this option.
Good to know that exists, I don't own the supplement that comes from. Regardless, I would still give it (and Weapon Focus) to them in addition to ALL of their existing class features.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me from reading most of this thread the problem is three fold.
1) Althoguh the fighter is now capable of a great deal it requires a great deal of books and system knowledge to achieve this.
2) A lot of utility comes from magic items and making of magic items, this is primarily a problem because this requires GMs to be co-operative with wealth and item creation, secondly unlike other classes who are self sufficient the fighter has a lot of its power coming directly from other gear, which isn't always what people want from a fighter.
3) with the advent of all these options spreadhrought the boards schrodingers fighter has truncated the argument and is sparking wizard vs fighter arguments.
Oh also people keeping having dick measuring contests around fallacies
I think issue 4) requires all the things to be legal.
In PFS, (yes not the best benchmark but a big playerbase), some of these "fixes" to the fighter are banned. No extra AC from armor specilization, no weapon spirit, no training weapons, no stamina.
like if the fix is baked into a "base class" like the unchained rogue, then it's easier to accept. Like skill unlocks being baked in makes it work for the rogue. Having a suggestion for fighter to have free stamina means no stamina. If they posted a paragraph that the unchained fighter was just 4 skill points and stamina at lv1 then the unchained fighter would exist and have access to stamina for sure
What goes into the decision making for PFS to disallow certain options that primarily benefit classes that could really use it, anyway?
Like the UnMonk and the UnRogue are PFS legal, right? So it's not like "Unchained is out" so there's no reason they couldn't use the stamina rules or allow some of the AWT or AATs that are currently disallowed.
Like if literally every optional published rule that benefits fighters was allowed in PFS, is there any reason to expect fighters would suddenly become dominant? It's just mysterious there is decision making process by some shadowy third party that will get people to wholesale reject valid solutions to problems they perceive in the game.
I mean, hypothetically, any future "fix" to a perceived problem with the fighter runs the risk of not being allowed in PFS, doesn't it?
This is the core point of contention: the weapon master does not have the weapon training class feature according to the FAQ.If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training bonus increases by +2.A 3rd level or higher weapon master fighter has "the weapon training class feature" so the rest of the gloves' ability kicks in. Whether it's the same feature as the fighter doesn't seem to be relevant based on the wording.
You are misreading the faq.
The name change clause makes weapon training more permissive, for example
Class feature name:Legolas-My-Bow: you gain weapon training in bows as a fighter of your level
Even though the name changed, you still have weapon training. THAT's what the FAQ says.
class feature name: Deadshot. tarting at 5th level, a fighter can select one weapon from the bow group as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Every four levels thereafter (9th*, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another weapons from the bow group He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, yada yada yada
This would NOT qualify even though its identical to weapon training because it doesn't use the name.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
18str 14dex 14con 10int 10wis 10cha
Skills: Climb, Perception, Survival
Traits: Seeker, Blood of the Dragon (low light vision)
1. Shield Brace, Shield Focus, Combat Reflexes
2. Blind-Fight
3. Armor training, Master Armorer
4. Power Attack
5. Weapon Training (Polearms), Versatile Training (Diplomacy, Sense Motive)
6. Cut from the Air
7. Adaptable Training (Knowledge Engineering), Guarded Charge
8. Armor Specialization
9. Smash From the Air, Versatile Training (Bluff, Intimidate)
10. Armed Bravery
11. Armored Juggernaut, Dazzling Assault
12. Pin Down
13. Warrior Spirit, Adaptable Training (Acrobatics)
14. Adaptable Training (Climb)
15. Adaptable Training (Disguise), Fighter’s Reflexes
16. Improved Initiative
17. Trained Initiative, Sprightly Armor
18. Armored Sacrifice
19. Armor Mastery, Devastating Assault
20. Weapon Mastery, Weapon Sacrifice
And I'm still not sure if it would even play "OK". Fighters take WAY more effort to make a working character than they should.
Still I think I get by virtue of class features:
1. A shield plus a two handed weapon with all the two handed bonuses. Once you have a mithral shield the penalty goes away and you can do it sooner because you are a fighter.
2. Cut arrows and spells out of the air that require attack rolls
3. Magic armor and temporary magic weapons
4. 9 skill ranks per level over the normal +2
5. Decent but not good saving throws.
6. Pin down
7. +11 initiative (+15 total)
8. Crit and lethal hit negation
9. 13/- total with adamantine armor.
From previous fighters I traded 3 dex dependent AC for +12 AC, 2d6 weapon dice for 1d10, Cleave-Lunge-ect for skill points-magic gear-and weaboo fightan magic
I think it's no question that the option to fighters are better now, but that also means the ability to mess up fighters increases.
I didn't find the item mastery stuff all that worthwhile, the best ability is Fly, and radiant flying is a dirt cheap +15K cost enchantment that gives no indication of not being able to stack that effect to give yourself more and more flying for loose change.
Raw skill ranks are not the best thing in the world but it certainly helps.
Idk, but I wouldn't say fighters are outclassed by barbars. But I'm not confident enough to think a magus or other 3/4th BAB 6th level casting class still isn't just contributing more.
What goes into the decision making for PFS to disallow certain options that primarily benefit classes that could really use it, anyway?
Like the UnMonk and the UnRogue are PFS legal, right? So it's not like "Unchained is out" so there's no reason they couldn't use the stamina rules or allow some of the AWT or AATs that are currently disallowed.
Like if literally every optional published rule that benefits fighters was allowed in PFS, is there any reason to expect fighters would suddenly become dominant? It's just mysterious there is decision making process by some shadowy third party that will get people to wholesale reject valid solutions to problems they perceive in the game.
I mean, hypothetically, any future "fix" to a perceived problem with the fighter runs the risk of not being allowed in PFS, doesn't it?
example is the Urogue. In PFS skill unlocks are out, BUT the URogue gets to use the ones that his class gives. So you either use the fixed version with the unlocks or not use the fixed version.
Fighter isn't fixed. There's a new rule of stamina that maybe the fighter has bonuses with. If you don't use the new stamina rule and just use the classes, fighter is out.
So PFS isn't the basis for a fixed fighter, but it shows off the problem. A solution existing doesn't mean it's always available. Heck 3PP has had deadly agility for a long time to fix the dex to damage issue. But since it's not in a core RPG line book (or even 1st party) it's not available to all those people wanting a dex to damage solution.
So if they made an unchained fighter that had stamina for free at lv1 and got a free AAT and AWT when they got their first AT and WT and that was to be the new base class, and PFS didn't allow that class, then that's PFS's problem, as unchained classes have had much acceptance from people.
it's more likely that a fixed version of the class is accepted wholesale than the 10 sources with a dozen different needed options each and the stamina system are all approved.
Problem with stamina: It conflicts with AAT and AWT since you replace feats that could use stamina with those options.
You can get the bonus AAT feat 6 times, you can grab the bonus AWT feat 4 times.
Then many really good feats have no stamina enhancement.
IMHO: Stamina is not worth a feat to have access too and helps far less than AAT or AWT.
I believe the assumption is that the best stamina related fix for fighters is to use the "Free for Fighters" option for stamina from Unchained (allowing anybody else to spend a feat to get option a stamina pool, like how amateur gunslinger gets you access to grit).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What goes into the decision making for PFS to disallow certain options that primarily benefit classes that could really use it, anyway?
Like the UnMonk and the UnRogue are PFS legal, right? So it's not like "Unchained is out" so there's no reason they couldn't use the stamina rules or allow some of the AWT or AATs that are currently disallowed.
Like if literally every optional published rule that benefits fighters was allowed in PFS, is there any reason to expect fighters would suddenly become dominant? It's just mysterious there is decision making process by some shadowy third party that will get people to wholesale reject valid solutions to problems they perceive in the game.
I mean, hypothetically, any future "fix" to a perceived problem with the fighter runs the risk of not being allowed in PFS, doesn't it?
This. When i realized that most of what PFS bans keeps martial classes from closing the gap with casters was when i realized PFS was kind of a bad set of house rules. If you have a GM whose house rules keep a poor class from using the options that make it decent, the problem is with that gms ruleset, not the options that the gm isn't allowing you to take.
okay, so a GM that says, RPG line only (which includes unchained) and no alternate systems is a problem with the GM ruleset?
A GM that says, RPG line and only 1 or 2 splat books per character is a problem GM?
A GM that says only Paizo products is a problem GM? (deadly agility is 3PP)
If the GM ban's leadership that's a GM problem?
yes having the options exist in 1st party is a good step. But it's not a big general fix like the unchained rogue. All you need in one book, and you're just deciding if you're allowing the class or not. Not needing to decide if you're allowing 10 books and allowing each needed item from those books and a new subsystem.
This. When i realized that most of what PFS bans keeps martial classes from closing the gap with casters was when i realized PFS was kind of a bad set of house rules. If you have a GM whose house rules keep a poor class from using the options that make it decent, the problem is with that gms ruleset, not the options that the gm isn't allowing you to take.
It's just confusing to me since "what's legal in PFS" is a thing that changes from time to time (the whole "no early entry to PRCs" thing was big, I recall). So it's not like if they were to enable something people wanting to play fighters would really appreciate and then later decide that it's not a good idea, they couldn't just change it back to the way it was.
It absolutely makes sense that PFS would ban Master Armorer, since you don't want to mess around with crafting in that sort of setup, but I see no reason that Warrior Spirit is unacceptable since other classes (Magus, Occultist) have a similar ability that somehow manages not to destabilize PFS.
and that's not saying anything about whether these options actually fix what people feel are wrong with the class. I personally don't feel it's enough as you're having to play catch-up and trade the one big thing you get special for it, all your feats.
And the bonus skill ranks options only matter much if you'd max the skill anyways, otherwise, while nice having it maxed, doesn't give the same benefit of actual skills to me.
but I see no reason that Warrior Spirit is unacceptable since other classes (Magus, Occultist) have a similar ability that somehow manages not to destabilize PFS.
I do, no action is listed to use the ability.
but I see no reason that Warrior Spirit is unacceptable since other classes (Magus, Occultist) have a similar ability that somehow manages not to destabilize PFS.I do, no action is listed to use the ability.
That's a thing you could fix easily with a clarification, isn't it?
This. When i realized that most of what PFS bans keeps martial classes from closing the gap with casters was when i realized PFS was kind of a bad set of house rules. If you have a GM whose house rules keep a poor class from using the options that make it decent, the problem is with that gms ruleset, not the options that the gm isn't allowing you to take.It's just confusing to me since "what's legal in PFS" is a thing that changes from time to time (the whole "no early entry to PRCs" thing was big, I recall). So it's not like if they were to enable something people wanting to play fighters would really appreciate and then later decide that it's not a good idea, they couldn't just change it back to the way it was.
It absolutely makes sense that PFS would ban Master Armorer, since you don't want to mess around with crafting in that sort of setup, but I see no reason that Warrior Spirit is unacceptable since other classes (Magus, Occultist) have a similar ability that somehow manages not to destabilize PFS.
unfortunately PFS seems to ban new material that "is clearly a better option than those currently available" and/or puts a value out of acceptable range.
thus warrior spirit is banned because getting a lot of free damage is clearly a better option then not and gives the fighter, which many say does damage okay, a LOT more damage, apparently an unbalancing amount of extra damage. the magus and occultist are 3/4 bab that are expected to have their booster to match the full bab. A full bab getting it for free on top of everything, wasn't planned on. Especially because it works with the fighter gloves, at lv 9-10 you're suddenly at +4 more than before, with one of those +s likely being a bane.Same for armor specialization, I guess having that much extra free AC is seen as bad. (heck getting 1/2 AC from jingasa was apparently too OP)
But since the splatbooks aren't looked at by the RPG line, their power level is more variable, and PFS is wanting the power to stay near the RPG line and not full splatbook.
Though I agree that PFS is being to harsh on banning stuff.
|
That's a thing you could fix easily with a clarification, isn't it?but I see no reason that Warrior Spirit is unacceptable since other classes (Magus, Occultist) have a similar ability that somehow manages not to destabilize PFS.I do, no action is listed to use the ability.
*nods*
Be simple enough to start a Clarification/FAQ Request thread.
That's a thing you could fix easily with a clarification, isn't it?but I see no reason that Warrior Spirit is unacceptable since other classes (Magus, Occultist) have a similar ability that somehow manages not to destabilize PFS.I do, no action is listed to use the ability.
PFS is not that work stream.
So rather than maybe stepping on the toes of the A-team with a PFS rule's precedent, it's banned*
*pure conjecture.
Warrior Spirit is not from an A team book though and PFS has had no problem issuing its own errata in the past.
Maybe they just hate fighters?
I'm of the opinion that any team is the A-team compared to the PFS houserule committee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules forum seems pretty clear on Warrior Spirit being a standard action because it is a (Su) ability that does not specify it is any other kind of action, hence by rule it's a standard action.
okay, so a GM that says, RPG line only (which includes unchained) and no alternate systems is a problem with the GM ruleset?
A GM that says, RPG line and only 1 or 2 splat books per character is a problem GM?
A GM that says only Paizo products is a problem GM? (deadly agility is 3PP)
If the GM ban's leadership that's a GM problem?yes having the options exist in 1st party is a good step. But it's not a big general fix like the unchained rogue. All you need in one book, and you're just deciding if you're allowing the class or not. Not needing to decide if you're allowing 10 books and allowing each needed item from those books and a new subsystem.
If a solution exists and a gm (or pfs)doesn't allow it, then yes, the problem with the class becomes with that ruleset rather than the class itself. The precedent has been set that fixes to the fighter AREN'T going to be PFS legal without a complete rewrite of the class.
Fighter becomes a bad class to play in that particular gm or system's games and as its an iconic rpg class, that becomes something of a problem for folks who like the aesthetic.
Also, for your individual examples:
The fighter fixes are RPG line +1 or 2 splat books per character. Unchained is core line enough that you have to use the summoner version in it in PFS.
Deadly agility isn't a "fix" as much as it is an option that can be achieved in paizo only products. Also all of the fighter fixes under discussion are from paizo only products.
Leadership isn't necessary for any class to perform decently.
If a solution exists and a gm (or pfs)doesn't allow it, then yes, the problem with the class becomes with that ruleset rather than the class itself. The precedent has been set that fixes to the fighter AREN'T going to be PFS legal without a complete rewrite of the class.
And what if say, the GM and players don't play Golarion and thus only purchase and ever use RPG-line books?
You don't need to buy books to have acccess to rules if a player finds something they want to use that's first party but not it one of your books doesn't mean you should ban it
If a solution exists and a gm (or pfs)doesn't allow it, then yes, the problem with the class becomes with that ruleset rather than the class itself. The precedent has been set that fixes to the fighter AREN'T going to be PFS legal without a complete rewrite of the class.And what if say, the GM and players don't play Golarion and thus only purchase and ever use RPG-line books?
fortunately theres a whole site dedicated to collecting Paizo's rules for the game and posting them, with the golarion centric flavor removed.
And what if say, the GM and players don't play Golarion and thus only purchase and ever use RPG-line books?
I think that these people aren't going to buy something like the Weapon Master's Handbook before it's released, but once it's out, and they can figure out what's in it, it's not especially difficult to figure out if it's a must own. A lot of the player companions have relatively little Golarion specific stuff, and what's there is fairly simple to strip out or re-purpose.
And what if say, the GM and players don't play Golarion and thus only purchase and ever use RPG-line books?I think that these people aren't going to buy something like the Weapon Master's Handbook before it's released, but once it's out, and they can figure out what's in it, it's not especially difficult to figure out if it's a must own. A lot of the player companions have relatively little Golarion specific stuff, and what's there is fairly simple to strip out or re-purpose.
I feel like the access arguments about things like this are kind of specious. This isn't 1992 where only the really rich kids have an AOL account and a 14400 baud modem and the web is undeveloped so maybe there aren't many fan sites out there.
Nearly everyone has a star trek hand computer that can access the near sum of human knowledge nigh instantaneously AND the legal around this system has allowed people to post, free of charge, the nuts and bolts of everything about the game. They even reference exactly which book to buy with a link to buy it for every option. Access to the rules is more between, people who know the rule/book exists and people who dont.
You honestly dont have to purchase to use the rules, and if you feel ethically obligated to do so, the means are provided right under the rules listed.
|
***
The new guy playing the greatsword fighter sucks in the grand scheme of things, and that's why not having an unchained fighter was a bad idea by paizo.
Realistically, if theoretical new fighter player actually grabbed a greatsword, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization, he's still better than like 95% of the possible fighter early builds he could have picked. At least he'll be able to whack the crap out of things during the early levels where that's still a pretty valid strategy. He could have tried to make a two-weapon fighter without knowing the ins and outs of making that work, or a crossbowman, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warrior Spirit, taken with a feat at level 5, allows you to do twice per day what the Occultist who takes the transmutation implement can do three times per day at level 1. At level 9 when the fighter gets gloves of duelling for 5 times a day, the Occultist has been able to do it 6 times per day since level 7 (assuming they're only putting enough mental focus into that implement to max out the resonant power.)
Realistically, if theoretical new fighter player actually grabbed a greatsword, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization, he's still better than like 95% of the possible fighter early builds he could have picked. At least he'll be able to whack the crap out of things during the early levels where that's still a pretty valid strategy. He could have tried to make a two-weapon fighter without knowing the ins and outs of making that work, or a crossbowman, etc.***
The new guy playing the greatsword fighter sucks in the grand scheme of things, and that's why not having an unchained fighter was a bad idea by paizo.
This is super fair criticism. At its root, 2handed fighter is pretty much the superior build if you want to take advantage of the new options. It takes like 3 feats to be a beast, Archery and two weapon fighting, even weapon/shield take like 4 to be functional. The options presented in a lot of these sources do more to cover the weakness of a 2hander than they do the other options as well. The ability to turn your weapon into a +2 shield via AWT, and an extra +5 ac from armor specialization fills a pretty big gap in that build style, plus having more options open to take advantage of other gap closers like armed bravery, iron will, or the odd item mastery.
I feel like even if the fighter is a super iconic D&D class, that doesn't mean that it needs to be the simplest to play. It's wholly reasonable for one of the "hit people with things until they fall down" classes to be more complicated to play than the other classes of that variety. Would it be terrible if the Fighter was more challenging to play well than the Barbarian or the Ranger and this was on purpose?
At level 9, a fighter with gloves of dueling can use warrior spirit 5 times a day for +4 bonus. Magus can't get bane; fighter can.
So a fighter can turn a +1 holy weapon into a +4 holy/bane weapon. Which added to weapon specialization and weapon training puts him at #1 in dpr.
I'm not sure a fighter being #1 at DPR only X times per day is a bad thing. Then again, I don't know what the current DPR champion is or how high this would put them over it. Would this be significantly worse than the champion?
The occultist is a very strong class.
The problem is not the power level of the ability versus what other classes get, but power level of the ability versus other abilities you can choose from for that power. Warrior spirit is clearly in my mind the leadership or power attack power.
What fighter needs is a general increase to it's base power starting at level 1; not an ability that takes a mediocre damage dealing class and puts it way above every other class. And for the fix to be intrinsic, so you don't have a sucky class if you can't take warrior spirit because it's not allowed or you don't know about it.
If you were starting from a position of everything being roughly equal itd be fair, but you aren't. The fighter has been disliked as one of the worst classes to play in the game for some time. Classes that far down need a larger boost
Also the occultist is a very strong class because its also a 2/3 caster with access to a decently solid spell selection.
Look I don't think people are arguing that the ideal would be a completely reworked fighter class put forth in an unchained book or something. Yeah, thatd be ideal, but it hasn't happened and the fixes are there if a bit scattered.