Fighter's 2 bad saves

[John Lynch 106]

What's the justification with paladin's and rangers getting 2 good saves and fighter's only getting 1? Has this design choice ever been explained?

[Dragonchess Player]

The paladin and ranger are "divine/nature's warriors" and gain additional training/protection.

Note that barbarians, rogues, sorcerers, wizards, cavaliers, oracles, summoners, witches, arcanists, bloodragers, shamans, swashbucklers, mediums, and psychics all have one good save and two poor saves, as well.

[Jeraa]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

What's the justification with paladin's and rangers getting 2 good saves and fighter's only getting 1? Has this design choice ever been explained?

In general, warrior types are good at either fortitude or reflex saves. Mystical/magical types are good at will saves. A combination character that combines traits of both warrior and mystical/caster would therefore be good at will saves, and either fortitude or reflex saves.

Just looking at the core rulebook classes, this holds true. Barbarians, fighters, and rogues are pure warrior types. They have 1 good save (fortitude or reflex).

Bards (magical warrior-poets), clerics (warrior priests, heavier on the priest), druids (shapeshifting warrior nature priests), monks (mystical warriors), paladins (warrior priests, heavier on the warrior part), and rangers (magical nature warriors) are all combo classes. They all have good Will and either fortitude or reflex saves.

Sorcerers and wizards are pure magical classes. They only have good will saves.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Rangers are supposed to be able to survive alone in the wilderness. Having good fortitude saves allows them to deal with extreme temperature, resisting disease and avoiding exhaustion. Rangers get good reflex saves to allow them to avoid damage and other threats. Since they get evasion as a class feature having poor reflex saves makes no sense at all. So the design choice of the rangers saves are to allow him to function as the wilderness warrior he is supposed to be. Will saves on the other hand are rarely if ever used vs natural threats.

Paladins are supposed to relentless in their fight against evil. No matter the cost to themselves they still keep going. Think of Capitan America in the first movie. No matter how often he got smacked down he still got back up to fight. Good fortitude saves allows the paladin to deal exhaustion and force himself to keep going. It also allows him to deal with negative energy that many undead use. Good will saves also make sense. A paladin is who is easily charmed or dominated is useless. This is also supported by their Aura’s. It does not make sense that a class that eventually gets complete immunity to, and grants others bonuses to saves vs. fear, charm and compulsion have low will save.

[PossibleCabbage]

It's a holdover from 3.5th edition. The "Armed Bravery" advanced weapon training fixes this, by giving fighters a good will save to go with their fort, but at the cost of a feat/weapon training. I'm considering just giving it to fighters for free (along with the AWT that fixes the 2+INT skills/level thing).

[Jeraa]

Too late to edit my previous post, so:

Edit: I did just notice that rangers don't have will, but do have fortitude and reflex. That does make them an exception to the general guideline in one way (they don't have will despite being a magical-type class), but still fit the guideline in the other way (they are a combo class, and so have 2 good saves).

Every rule or guideline can have exceptions.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

A lot of the Advanced Weapon and Armor Training options suggested to me that the dev team realized a lot of the design decisions that got grandfather-claused onto the Pathfinder Fighter from 3rd Edition were not great ideas, but didn't want to undermine the core rulebook by making the patches free. When homebrewing, yeah, I'd suggest making Versatile Training and Armed Bravery freebies so people might actually take something else for their first AWT.

[rainzax]

Compared to Rangers, Fighters are slow?

Compared to Paladins, Fighters are dumb?

I give them both Fortitude and Will in my game because I see them as Super Soldiers and Disciplined Warriors.

[lemeres]

Fort- fierce fighting types that attack from the front, generally
Reflex- the light, dodgey types, often associated with traps or tracking.
Will- usually magic, or at least highly disciplined.

Rangers at left out of the will save due both to balance (only monks have true perfect saves) and because their meager amount of spells are the only magical effects they have.

Paladins also have few spells, but they have divine power that reinforces their attacks against evil, allows them to heal, and even protect them from various threats (the save boost). Ergo, they are magic enough for will saves.

[Mythic Magus]

Balance, Fighters would be too strong otherwise compared to weaker paladins and rangers.

[Lynceus]

Mythic Magus- I was drinking something when I read that. The result was very uncomfortable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B01o2xtJwgk

Well played, Sir, well played.

[The Shaman]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

What's the justification with paladin's and rangers getting 2 good saves and fighter's only getting 1? Has this design choice ever been explained?

It's been around since second edition, and yeah, things were a bit different there. Fighters started bad, but advanced most saves fairly quickly.

[Sundakan]

Because Paizo logic when the game was originally made that while the Fighter was good at fighting, he wasn't supposed to be good at SURVIVING fights, apparently.

[Rysky]

Sundakan wrote:

Because Paizo logic when the game was originally made that while the Fighter was good at fighting, he wasn't supposed to be good at SURVIVING fights, apparently.

Fighter had the same saves in 3rd edition.

[Sundakan]

And they had the opportunity to change that when porting it to PF, which they didn't.

Backwards compatibility doesn't really apply here either, since similar small changes were made to other classes, like Ranger and Rogue getting an HD bump.

[Rysky]

But only to HD, no other class to my knowledge got Save boosts.

[The Shaman]

The paladin got a good will save, though I can't think of anyone else.

Pathfinder was meant to be a patch on 3.5. Paizo people probably thought bravery and armor/weapon training were enough.

[John Lynch 106]

Mythic Magus wrote:

Balance, Fighters would be too strong otherwise compared to weaker paladins and rangers.

This is taking the piss, right?

The Shaman wrote:

It's been around since second edition, and yeah, things were a bit different there. Fighters started bad, but advanced most saves fairly quickly.

Incorrect. Fighter's, Paladin's and Rangers had the same base saves in 2nd edition.

Anyway, thanks for the posts. It seems to be the answer is "because" with a whole lot of justification added afterwards that may or may not actually apply consistently.

[Rysky]

The Shaman wrote:

The paladin got a good will save, though I can't think of anything else.

Pathfinder was meant to be a patch on 3.5. Paizo people probably thought bravery and armor/weapon training were enough.

*looks up 3.5 Paladin*

Ah, interesting.

[The Shaman]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Incorrect. Fighter's, Paladin's and Rangers had the same base saves in 2nd edition.

The base was the same, but iirc fighters leveled faster and could reach new threshholds with less XP.

[Alexandros Satorum]

The Shaman wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Incorrect. Fighter's, Paladin's and Rangers had the same base saves in 2nd edition.

The base was the same, but iirc fighters leveled faster and could reach new threshholds with less XP.

And rangers and paladins didn't outperformed the fighter at general fighting (though the paladin had a -2 bonus to all saves, yeah a negative number that was a bonus, the old times)

[JuanAdriel]

About 2nd edition paladins, they got a +2 to all saves, just because they are the god's favorite toys. :)

In pathfinder paladins got one major re-work and IMHO, made them the most powerful martial class (full BAB).

[John Lynch 106]

The Shaman wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Incorrect. Fighter's, Paladin's and Rangers had the same base saves in 2nd edition.

The base was the same, but iirc fighters leveled faster and could reach new threshholds with less XP.

Sorry. I thought you were saying Paladin's and Rangers have always had better saves than fighter's.

JuanAdriel: And in Pathfinder Paladin's have +Cha mod to saves.

[Bob Bob Bob]

If I were to hazard a guess, they probably meant Bravery to compensate for that. Same as the Barbarian and the bonus from Rage (and later Indomitable Will). That's woefully naive, but that's my best guess.

[Lady-J]

i had a house rule that gave fighters an average save in reflex and will so at level 20 they had +9 to them instead of +6 or +12

[kainblackheart]

I always took the feat(indomitable will?) that replaced your wis mod on will with your con mod for my fighters...seemed to compensate fine, and as far as reflex...who needs reflex...your fireball is not going to kill me before I close on you..hahahaha!!!

[Snowlilly]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

[Letric]

Snowlilly wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

Snowlilly wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

This whole time, Clerics were secretly overpowered.

[kainblackheart]

Letric wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

This, I just don't get this...Fighters are as awesome as you make them

[Letric]

kainblackheart wrote:

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

This, I just don't get this...Fighters are as awesome as you make them

This is like saying that a Wizard specializing in Enchantment against an all undead campaign is useful too.

[Snowlilly]

Letric wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

I was not aware every class, except for the fighter, got two or more good saves for free.

[Sundakan]

Snowlilly wrote:

Letric wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

I was not aware every class, except for the fighter, got two or more good saves for free.

Rogue, Cavalier, and Swashbuckler, and Fighter (classes with one thing in common: They suck balls, partially because their saving throws are terrible) are the only non-caster class without at least two Good saves, or class features to massively boost one of their saves.

Barbarian gets a +2 Will in Rage, and can use Superstition to basically be immune to magic.

All the other non-casters and 4 level casters get 2 or more Good saves.

And if you haven't figured out that casters are more powerful than non-casters at this point, and don't deserve any extra buffs, I don't know what to tell you. Read better?

[PossibleCabbage]

Bloodrager has only one good save (Fort), but does have the Barbarian's +2 Will when bloodraging; doesn't have access to superstition though (it would be odd for someone who can literally use magic).

The Bloodrager's quite good though.

[voska66]

With Advanced Weapon Training applying your bravery bonus to Will Saves and that fighter tend to have high Dex stats their saves are pretty good now. When I make fighter go with high dex because you need it for Armor Training. Fighters excel is high AC while dealing decent enough damage to keep you a threat. So no ignoring that tank, sure it won't kill in 1 round but it might in 2 rounds.

[voska66]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Bloodrager has only one good save (Fort), but does have the Barbarian's +2 Will when bloodraging; doesn't have access to superstition though (it would be odd for someone who can literally use magic).

The Bloodrager's quite good though.

Bloodrager can get superstitious as they can trade out 1 bloodline power for 2 rage powers with a archetype. I built a character with that and took the the archetype that trades spells for SR as I though it made more sense.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Snowlilly wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my home game, I just took out Armed Bravery and added in Good Will save for the Fighter. If they were going to just fix the Will saves like that, might as well just cut the middleman here and save the Fighter the trouble.

We should do the same for casters that have only 1 good save.

Give all pure casters good Fortitude saves for free.

What, like the cleric and druid have always had even though you would not think a priest would be better with poisons and holding his beer than a rogue or swashbuckler?

You are either missing, or deliberately choosing to ignore, that saves really ought to be biased against full casters and in favor of full BAB frontliners. Why? Simple.

Your frontliner is a defender. It is the game's assumption that the majority of the punishment enemies dish out will be coming their way. That's why they have higher AC, Damage Reduction, and more HP. Their class is there to take what the enemy dishes out and overcome it. This is let down badly if you make a frontliner that has terrible saves, as suddenly many enemies can completely bypass all other forms of defense and render all the things the frontliner is good at moot. Going purely by the core classes, the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk are all classes that have high AC to take the brunt of enemy attacks AND high saves to avoid attempts to bypass this line of defense; the Barbarian with his superstition can be nearly immune to spells as time goes on (while this one is an option, many barbarian powers build off of superstition, so it is a highly popular pick among newbies and an ENORMOUSLY popular pick among experienced barbarian players), the Paladin with his downright amazing saves from Divine Grace, the Ranger more mundanely from having naturally high Fort and Reflex saves plus an incentive to invest highly in wisdom, and the monk from having perfect save progression along with good incentives to have high DEX, CON, and WIS. The last two also get evasion so that area-of-effect attacks that would otherwise ignore their defenses are much less likely to harm them, and all of those classes do have some way to heal themselves, even if the Barbarian's is not particularly efficient. While the Monk's capabilities as a frontliner have been troubled from the start, leading to the UnMonk, the point still stands that the guys you're expecting to be engaging the enemy directly should be very well defended, both difficult to injure with weapons and hard to target with save-or-sucks that would otherwise make their massive HP and AC pointless.

Your mage is not meant to be soaking things. Strongly magical characters aren't meant to be taking a lot of hits or absorbing a lot of enemy effects; you should be using magic and teamwork with the frontliner to avoid that stuff, and when the enemy targets your mages, the mages should be in danger because of their weaker defenses. Hyper-efficient AC-boosting spells and full casters with good fort saves and 3/4ths BAB makes this distinction less plain, and frankly I've noticed casters with good armor, decent saves, and the positioning abilities that are exclusive to highly magical characters are usually in the least danger in a battle even when the frontliners aren't occupying the enemy's attention.

With great magic, in my mind, should come great fragility. Full BAB characters, however, are designed to be in the thick of it and need the toolbox to take anything the GM can throw at 'em and come back for more.

[Lady-J]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Bloodrager has only one good save (Fort), but does have the Barbarian's +2 Will when bloodraging; doesn't have access to superstition though (it would be odd for someone who can literally use magic).

The Bloodrager's quite good though.

actually it does you can trade out a bloodline ability for 2 rage powers with primalist

[kainblackheart]

Letric wrote:

kainblackheart wrote:

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

This, I just don't get this...Fighters are as awesome as you make them

This is like saying that a Wizard specializing in Enchantment against an all undead campaign is useful too.

Why wouldn't he be? Specialization does not stop you from casting other spells...also in an all undead campaign their would still be towns would their not? Still opportunities to use your enchantment abilities to increase your parties standing and ability. The character is what you make it. Period.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The paladin and ranger are "divine/nature's warriors" and gain additional training/protection.

Note that barbarians, rogues, sorcerers, wizards, cavaliers, oracles, summoners, witches, arcanists, bloodragers, shamans, swashbucklers, mediums, and psychics all have one good save and two poor saves, as well.

Specialized classes typically get one good save, hybrid classes two.

Monk... depends which version you're using.

[Ryan Freire]

kainblackheart wrote:

Letric wrote:

kainblackheart wrote:

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

This, I just don't get this...Fighters are as awesome as you make them

This is like saying that a Wizard specializing in Enchantment against an all undead campaign is useful too.

Why wouldn't he be? Specialization does not stop you from casting other spells...also in an all undead campaign their would still be towns would their not? Still opportunities to use your enchantment abilities to increase your parties standing and ability. The character is what you make it. Period.

Plus theres a metamagic that lets you use mind affecting stuff on undead

[Blackwaltzomega]

The wizard seems like a rather poor counter-argument. If he's an enchantment specialist and the enemy's almost universally immune to enchantments he can catch some z's, do some homework, and switch over to chucking fireballs at them until something he CAN enchant shows up.

The enchantment specialist SORCERER is probably going to be **** out of luck, since he can't take the metamagic feat spoken of until level 7 and casting all of his or her best spells as a full round action in a +2 spell slot is going to be so miserable it's more likely they'll give up and find something else to do.

Which is, I feel, kind of the boat you're going to be in if you made a great whip-tripping-disarming fighter and then for ten consecutive battles need to keep pulling out your longbow because the enemies are immune to tripping, fight with natural weapons or spells, and are often out of even your large melee reach. You're contributing still, but what you have made of the fighter is anything but awesome.

[Diffan]

Ryan Freire wrote:

kainblackheart wrote:

Letric wrote:

kainblackheart wrote:

Fighters are already weak. Having to waste their class features to get what others get for free makes no sense.

This, I just don't get this...Fighters are as awesome as you make them

This is like saying that a Wizard specializing in Enchantment against an all undead campaign is useful too.

Why wouldn't he be? Specialization does not stop you from casting other spells...also in an all undead campaign their would still be towns would their not? Still opportunities to use your enchantment abilities to increase your parties standing and ability. The character is what you make it. Period.

Plus theres a metamagic that lets you use mind affecting stuff on undead

So you can control the people around you to throw at the oncoming Horde? That's.....helpful I guess?

But the fact is that you actively have to work at making fighters worth a damn and pray that the DM is cool with you grabbing every single option from every single supplement in the hopes of achieving that mediocrity. OR just play another class that's flat out better...

[Blackwaltzomega]

Now, I will say there's one particular niche the fighter does have above all other classes. It is probably the best thrown-weapon user in the game as of the Weapon Master's Handbook, what with Ricochet Toss and Startoss Style, and having enough bonus feats to actually afford how feat-intensive it is to be good with starknives and stuff.

Pretty much anything else it has some competition from another full-BAB class, but I don't think anything first-party can outdo Fighty McGee for throwing knives at people.

[Chengar Qordath]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Now, I will say there's one particular niche the fighter does have above all other classes. It is probably the best thrown-weapon user in the game as of the Weapon Master's Handbook, what with Ricochet Toss and Startoss Style, and having enough bonus feats to actually afford how feat-intensive it is to be good with starknives and stuff.

Pretty much anything else it has some competition from another full-BAB class, but I don't think anything first-party can outdo Fighty McGee for throwing knives at people.

Yeah, unlike with most of the other really feat-intensive fighting styles, rangers and slayers don't really get much out of early access or bypassing prerequisites from the thrown combat style.

[kainblackheart]

I guess some people just feel that in order to not suck you have to have spells,that's not my feelings at all..I'll take a dwarven ax and shield fighter or an Elven two weapon dagger fighter or a Half-orc greatsword fighter and play the hell out of them...have a great night gaming and probably save the mages but a few times while I'm at it, but thats just me.