Please don't fall in the trap of debating the analogy. If you want to debate me, debate the intent of my analogy, not the specifics of the analogy. That is a rabbit hole in which only inane chatter resides. If you don't understand the analogy, I would be happy to try to clear it up for you. Otherwise debate the intent.no I get it, you're saying the class that is good at fighting is pigeon holed into being the guy who is good at fighting. You can say that about any class, they each have their nitch.
But nothing stops the player from giving him Ranks in Diplomacy and talking the two farmers down, you simply complain that it isn't "optimal". You are completely dismissive of Player agency while insisting that the fighter mechanics are the only aspect that is important. You also look at those mechanics entirely in a vacuum while ignore the many options that have been made available to the characters over the years.
But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
If you are going to look at a class without anything else, any class is bad. If you look at the entire character, you will see that race and place of origin add "class" skills and possibly free feats. If they come from the capital of a nation, they will have diplomacy.
Warrior Spirit exists.... this thread is irrelevant.
Note to self: finish fighter guide.
If you are going to look at a class without anything else, any class is bad. If you look at the entire character, you will see that race and place of origin add "class" skills and possibly free feats. If they come from the capital of a nation, they will have diplomacy.
Please don't fall in the trap of debating the analogy. If you want to debate me, debate the intent of my analogy, not the specifics of the analogy. That is a rabbit hole in which only inane chatter resides. If you don't understand the analogy, I would be happy to try to clear it up for you. Otherwise debate the intent.no I get it, you're saying the class that is good at fighting is pigeon holed into being the guy who is good at fighting. You can say that about any class, they each have their nitch.
But nothing stops the player from giving him Ranks in Diplomacy and talking the two farmers down, you simply complain that it isn't "optimal". You are completely dismissive of Player agency while insisting that the fighter mechanics are the only aspect that is important. You also look at those mechanics entirely in a vacuum while ignore the many options that have been made available to the characters over the years.
But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
No, other classes have mechanics baked into their CLASS that give them options to address challenges and problems that are non-combat related.
I want the fighter to have mechanics for non-combat situations as well. I'm not looking for race options, background options, or something that is something other than a class option. Because that isn't my complaint with the design of the fighter CLASS.
This thread isn't about races, or backgrounds. This thread is about the FIGHTER CLASS.
If you're going to try to say that you think the wizard class has zero options for problem solving outside of combat, you aren't engaging with this conversation in an honest and meaningful way.
Remember, I'm not asking for them to be equal. All I'm asking for is that the fighter CLASS have something to contribute as well.
That's it.
Right now, the fighter CLASS has less to offer out of combat than the NPC class expert.
I'll remind you too, we're in the Homebrew forums, where people present solutions to how to modify the game to make it more interesting for them. Really think about that and if you're contributing to this process, or attempting to hinder it. It's not the Rules forum, or Advice, or General Discussion. It's the "I'm thinking about how to change the game" forum.
|
I'm not trolling at all. From my...I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling.Are you having difficulty with understanding my point? If so, feel free to ask questions and I can try to explain it better, because your reply tells me you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps try repeating my stance back to me, without snark or sarcasm. Don't try and reduce it to absurdism, just give it an honest summation and I'll let you know if it's correct or not.But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
Ok, sorry. I think I mixed you up with the other guy you were debating. Too many gray armored avatars ;)
I reread the OP. My homebrew solution is to give fighters and monks another skill point per level, diplomacy as a class skill, and a point of skill in every class skill every 5 levels, making them trained skills.
Otherwise, give them magical powers like Dragon Ball characters.
If 2 people start arguing about if fighters should have as much skills as Rogues, then they cannot play together.
Fighters actually can use a Manual of War to switch out a feat like Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training) and can have a large number of skills available to him more or less on the fly.
The same things can be accomplished with Barroom Brawler and Quick Study (Humans only) and with the Warrior Spirit ability.
In fact, fighters have the ability to have more skills than any other class in the game, even though they don't need them to have more skill versatility than a rogue or bard.
Really should finish the fighter guide...
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?
Because not everyone can do magic, as a matter of fact MOST people can not do magic. I am not saying there is not a MECHANICAL imbalance between magic and non-magic classes. But from a world building/role play perspective not everyone can do magic. Unless you had a setting/world were ABSOLUTELY 100% of everyone was some kind of spell caster you will have people who can NOT do magic. I have yet to see/read/etc of any fantasy setting were absolutely everyone was able to use magic. Usually it is the exact opposite with magic being extremely rare.
|
Because not everyone can do magic, as a matter of fact MOST people can not do magic. I am not saying there is not a MECHANICAL imbalance between magic and non-magic classes. But from a world building/role play perspective not everyone can do magic. Unless you had a setting/world were ABSOLUTELY 100% of everyone was some kind of spell caster you will have people who can NOT do magic. I have yet to see/read/etc of any fantasy setting were absolutely everyone was able to use magic. Usually it is the exact opposite with magic being extremely rare.Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?
You're typical non-magical fighting guy/gal could just be a Warrior (NPC class). Maybe a little epic magic/destiny is what distinguishes a regular guy Warrior from a Fighter. It would certainly mean a lot of published mook "fighters" would need to get re-stated as Warriors.
Fighters actually can use a Manual of War to switch out a feat like Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training) and can have a large number of skills available to him more or less on the fly.
The same things can be accomplished with Barroom Brawler and Quick Study (Humans only) and with the Warrior Spirit ability.
In fact, fighters have the ability to have more skills than any other class in the game, even though they don't need them to have more skill versatility than a rogue or bard.
Really should finish the fighter guide...
No one's listening marshmallow, they've had decades of "fighters don't out of combat". All you're going to get is a goalpost shift to how unfair it is to have to get splatbooks to make it work/I dont use the srd/spells still do it better/my home gm doesn't allow it/pfs doesn't allow it.
Because that's their niche. They are the fighting guy. There are plenty of archetypes that change this up of course but I've always seen the fighter as the dude that just fights really good without need for magic.I can understand that, I'm just curious because it makes something like a Magus very interesting. I just find it odd because it's very easy to imagine magical versions of a given class (Cavaliers could become Eldritch Knights or Knights Templars if they had magic powers that were either Arcane or Divine), so it always makes me wonder what lets the non-magic version stand out.
Because that's not the trope some people want to play. When people think fighter character... they picture guys like Zorro, the three musketeers, Sir Lancelot, Conan the Barbarian... People who pick up a weapon and slay the dragon in countless movies and books and tv shows and when they pick up dice... they want to make a character just like that.
If they want to play a spell casting swordsman... they go Magus. If they want some kind of Simon Belmont or Sylvester Stallone butt-kicker... they don't want flashy magical crutches to help them do it.
Honestly, I think Swashbuckler did it best with various added abilities and the Panache that keeps 'special moves' somewhat grounded, and there could be a way to do that with fighters too... but just as it's easy to imagine magical versions of fighters... media and imagination is flooded with examples of NON-magical fighter types that still save the day.
You're typical non-magical fighting guy/gal could just be a Warrior (NPC class). Maybe a little epic magic/destiny is what distinguishes a regular guy Warrior from a Fighter. It would certainly mean a lot of published mook "fighters" would need to get re-stated as Warriors.Because not everyone can do magic, as a matter of fact MOST people can not do magic. I am not saying there is not a MECHANICAL imbalance between magic and non-magic classes. But from a world building/role play perspective not everyone can do magic. Unless you had a setting/world were ABSOLUTELY 100% of everyone was some kind of spell caster you will have people who can NOT do magic. I have yet to see/read/etc of any fantasy setting were absolutely everyone was able to use magic. Usually it is the exact opposite with magic being extremely rare.Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?
There are plenty of PLAYERS who LIKE to play a non-magic fighter/warrior type. Hell, plenty of classic fantasy characters are basic fighter/warrior types. Gimli from Lord of the Rings is a Fighter for crying out loud!
What is wrong with being a Fighter? They can still be heroic, they can still be fun to role play as? In fact, being the guy with no special powers hanging out with a bunch of people without powers would probably make you the bravest out of them all. Look at Batman!
Your "little epic magic/destiny" reason is WHY there are both Fighters and warriors. Fighters are those martial individuals who are just BETTER than the rest of those other warriors. That is why they get all of those bonus feats while Warriors get nothing.
Because that's not the trope some people want to play. When people think fighter character... they picture guys like Zorro, the three musketeers, Sir Lancelot, Conan the Barbarian... People who pick up a weapon and slay the dragon in countless movies and books and tv shows and when they pick up dice... they want to make a character just like that.
Maybe they should pick a concept that's more appropriate their character level rather than wanting to play a level 5 character all the way to level 20.
Maybe they should pick a concept that's more appropriate their character level rather than wanting to play a level 5 character all the way to level 20.
Because that's not the trope some people want to play. When people think fighter character... they picture guys like Zorro, the three musketeers, Sir Lancelot, Conan the Barbarian... People who pick up a weapon and slay the dragon in countless movies and books and tv shows and when they pick up dice... they want to make a character just like that.
Why? The exceptional fighter taking on insurmountable odds is a common trope for any level. The character can improve with some sweet magic weapons or armor and still keep his 'ordinary mortal' status.
Why? The exceptional fighter taking on insurmountable odds is a common trope for any level. The character can improve with some sweet magic weapons or armor and still keep his 'ordinary mortal' status.
Then pick an NPC class or stay at the level appropriate for your concept.
If I'm running a vampire the requiem game, and you come to the table with a promethean I'm going to say your character doesn't fit the game. If I'm running a game set purely in the wilderness, and you come to the table with a vigilante who would never leave the city, I'm mgoing to say your character doesn't fit the game. If I'm running a high level Pathfinder game, and you come to the table with a character who is basically just a town guard with a +3 sword I'm going to say your character doesn't fit the game.
If you want to be a high level warrior, you should be having your concept be like Heracles and Cú Chulainn. Not "Random knight number three".
Fighters actually can use a Manual of War to switch out a feat like Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training) and can have a large number of skills available to him more or less on the fly.
The same things can be accomplished with Barroom Brawler and Quick Study (Humans only) and with the Warrior Spirit ability.
In fact, fighters have the ability to have more skills than any other class in the game, even though they don't need them to have more skill versatility than a rogue or bard.
Really should finish the fighter guide...
I'd read your posts. They do not solve the issue that I have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I reread the OP. My homebrew solution is to give fighters and monks another skill point per level, diplomacy as a class skill, and a point of skill in every class skill every 5 levels, making them trained skills.
Otherwise, give them magical powers like Dragon Ball characters.
If 2 people start arguing about if fighters should have as much skills as Rogues, then they cannot play together.
You realize that there's a middle ground between 1 skill rank and DragonballZ, that still doesn't get to the realm of magical abilities.
For example, let the fighter choose one of several paths... example:
Reputation: commoners find it easy to relate to you and admire your skill. Gain benefits when dealing with commoners in trade, or when asking for help or information.
Observant: you've learned to watch your opponents and know what they're going to do. You can study a target and make useful predictions about what they might do in certain situations.
Nothing magical, nothing super human. Both well within the theme of the class. Doesn't change combat (I'd make the observant chain too lengthy to use during combat, those observations already apply to all the other stats the fighter has). It's stuff that is useful and makes the fighter CLASS interesting to bring to a non-combat situation. They have something to contribute. They're not the most versatile, or the best at dealing with these situations, but they have something to contribute.
And really that's the crux of my complaint. I just want the fighter CLASS itself to be something where you're like "oh, that'd be kinda cool to have along when we come to [relevant situation]."
No one's listening marshmallow, they've had decades of "fighters don't out of combat". All you're going to get is a goalpost shift to how unfair it is to have to get splatbooks to make it work/I dont use the srd/spells still do it better/my home gm doesn't allow it/pfs doesn't allow it.Fighters actually can use a Manual of War to switch out a feat like Advanced Weapon Training (Versatile Training) and can have a large number of skills available to him more or less on the fly.
The same things can be accomplished with Barroom Brawler and Quick Study (Humans only) and with the Warrior Spirit ability.
In fact, fighters have the ability to have more skills than any other class in the game, even though they don't need them to have more skill versatility than a rogue or bard.
Really should finish the fighter guide...
Goalpost shift? I don't think we've ever bought the "more skill ranks will fix it" line, because it doesn't. Spells do do it better, and do many things skills can't do, because they are magic and skills (for the most part) are not. Which is what the thread was about, as well as the ongoing argument about the role of mundane characters in high fantasy settings.
And when you have to take material from splatbooks published several years after the class they're intended to patch in order to (begin to slightly) close the gap, that is a tacit admission that there is a gap in need of closing. What are the capabilities of casters who similarly comb through splatbooks for the best options and combos?
Someone brought up "player imagination and creativity" as the true limit of a character's utility, which is an absolutely bogus platitude: You can imagine anything you want, but you have to work with the tools available, which for a non-magical character includes "hit them" and "use skills". Those options are both available to casters, albeit in varying amounts, plus their class spell list. Ceteris Paribus, don't compare an imaginative Fighter player to an unimaginative caster player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like i said. ^
Like i said. ^
Is snark all you're down to?
I play fighters and core rulebook (not unchained) rogues because I GM almost exclusively. When you GM you see a metric ton of caster villains and have to track them. I, therefore, REFUSE to track points, daily abilitys, pools, and spell slots as a player. So since i rarely get to play, I like fighter or rogue.
Come to think of it, I have never played a barbarian even in 3.5 because Rage is a headache to track and felt "too magical."
This being said and this being the homebrew section: theres nothing wrong with adding tome of battle powers or dreamscarred press' revival of that system, path of war into your game. I just want the ability to play a base fighter by choice. I dont care if I am subpar. Sorry for the split posts. I am tired.
Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?
I want more than skills points.
Do you have a solution other than skill points?
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?I want more than skills points.
Do you have a solution other than skill points?
Skill unlocks
Master Craftsman (especially with the advanced armor training)Acknowledge that fighter isn't a class to your tastes and play something else.
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?I want more than skills points.
Do you have a solution other than skill points?
If you don't like the class you are playing, play a class with the features you want.
|
|
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?I want more than skills points.
Do you have a solution other than skill points?
If you don't like the class you are playing, play a class with the features you want.
Or maybe fix the fighter. The criticism that the fighter is not up to snuff with other classes goes back all the way to the dawn of 3rd Edition - it's not like people are suddenly butthurt about the fighter, its design has ALWAYS been inadequate, and the fact is that the people most vociferous about defending it are ones who never play it, or who only play D&D/Pathfinder casually.
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?I want more than skills points.
Do you have a solution other than skill points?
Skill unlocks
Master Craftsman (especially with the advanced armor training)
Acknowledge that fighter isn't a class to your tastes and play something else.
This is the Homebrew forum where people want to make the fighter more to their tastes. You are contributing nothing to the thread but argument.
I find most of the fighters problems are tied to system-problems. Feat chains and taxes are bad, and fighter suffers the most from them, because if instead most feats scaled, and had no feat prerequisites, fighter's abundance of feats could make him more versatile. System rewards specialization but fighter has to be over-specialized (w.focus, w.specialization and w.training all pigeonhole him with one weapon) to keep up with other martials so he suffers there. Because of his over-specialization he also suffers the most if you do random loot drops unlike other martial classes (and the character's dependence on magic items is most clear on the fighter).
Skills should be mundane classes way to interact with the world other than combat, but skills do too little compared to spells and fall of rapidly at higher levels (skill unlocks are a good idea but come with too little and too late, IMO)...and still fighter gains less skill points than most of the classes. Yes, some of these things have been alleviated with WMH and AMH and UI, but it goes in a roundabout way, and you have to spend most of your class resources to break even. Better chassis for the class (Unchaining) could do wonders on it. Skills doing more would alleviate the need for utility (and possibly healing) spells.
To come in a roundabout way on-topic, I don't think all classes (most notably fighter and rogue) should have magic (they could have magic archetypes and talents), but should have extraordinary ways to interact with the game world in and out of combat. These ways should probably come in some modular way (special talents and skill unlock subsystem for instance), so that those people who like to play un-extraordinary fighter can do so simply by choosing mundane talents and not using a subsystem.
A bit rant-y and confused post but I hope I get my meaning through.
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?I want more than skills points.
Do you have a solution other than skill points?
Skill unlocks
Master Craftsman (especially with the advanced armor training)
Acknowledge that fighter isn't a class to your tastes and play something else.
So, your contribution to a homebrew forum is to tell me that I shouldn't change anything.
Cool.
Take your own advice and acknowledge that you have zero interest in this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
Or maybe fix the fighter. The criticism that the fighter is not up to snuff with other classes goes back all the way to the dawn of 3rd Edition - it's not like people are suddenly butthurt about the fighter, its design has ALWAYS been inadequate, and the fact is that the people most vociferous about defending it are ones who never play it, or who only play D&D/Pathfinder casually.
There is nothing wrong with the fighter, it is both a powerful and versatile class under the current Pathfinder rules. E.g., if you want to play a "magic warrior", the magus, and its assorted archetypes, are exactly that.
What is wrong is people declaring it broken while asking for feature sets that are either already available via archetypes or already exist on other classes.
Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
Fighters already have access to magic via both archetypes and feats.
Several people have already supplied extensive lists, which the complainers have either chosen to ignore and moved the goalposts on.
Fighters already have access to magic via both archetypes and feats.
Several people have already supplied extensive lists, which the complainers have either chosen to ignore and moved the goalposts on.
Oh I am fully aware that the fighter can get magic.... my rant was more against the general concept of the thread and the wider issues at stake.
If this thread title were something along the lines of "Let's brainstorm Fighter fixes!" I'd agree with you. But in this case, the actual question of the OP is addressing the larger game-design issue of whether there is any reason NOT to make magical changes to the Fighter. As such, it seems to me that "I don't think the Fighter should be changed at all, because these existing features give what I contend is enough versatility" is a reasonably on-topic thing to assert. You might think it's correct or incorrect, but it seems a valid thing to say.I mean, does it really make sense to have a thread specifically asking whether or not there's a reason not to change a class, and then tell anyone who thinks that yes, they think there IS a reason not make any changes that class, that they "have zero interest in this thread" because they think we "shouldn't change anything"?
If there's only one answer to the OP's question that we're allowed to say in this...
Did the person I quote express an opinion? Or did they tell me what to do with my opinion?
Only when people respond to my commenting on the same tired excuses with the same tired excuses.Like i said. ^Is snark all you're down to?
They aren't "tired excuses" just because you say they are, just because you apparently can't come up with an argument against them.
Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
Excluding the fighter, what PC class would you consider to have the least utility outside of combat?
Excluding the fighter, what PC class would you consider to have the least utility outside of combat?Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
Most monk archetypes and the unchained monk have significantly less utility outside combat, as do most barbarians.
Schrodinger's Fighter is real, and not difficult to build.
Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
When the most powerful, versatile, and simplistic thing in the game is magic, and a lot of rules assume they possess said magic to drive the narrative along, then yes, Oprah's approach is the most palatable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the most powerful, versatile, and simplistic thing in the game is magic, and a lot of rules assume they possess said magic to drive the narrative along, then yes, Oprah's approach is the most palatable.Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
If you lack the ability to drive narrative without magic as a class feature, that is a limitation on your personal abilities, not the rules.
Then pick an NPC class or stay at the level appropriate for your concept.
If I'm running a vampire the requiem game, and you come to the table with a promethean I'm going to say your character doesn't fit the game. If I'm running a game set purely in the wilderness, and you come to the table with a vigilante who would never leave the city, I'm mgoing to say your character doesn't fit the game. If I'm running a high level Pathfinder game, and you come to the table with a character who is basically just a town guard with a +3 sword I'm going to say your character doesn't fit the game.
If you want to be a high level warrior, you should be having your concept be like Heracles and Cú Chulainn. Not "Random knight number three".
I'd like to distinguish exactly what you're arguing here. If the point is just that the characters will eventually have to outstrip the strict capabilities of just Conan or Zorro themselves, then I basically agree. If you're going up to Level 20 play, you'll end up fighting things those particular characters couldn't.
However, I didn't interpret the intent of those examples as a strict power ceiling, but as an example of a theme. And I don't yet see any inherent reason why the overall theme needs to be discarded.
If a player wants to play a character who can swing a sword hard enough to hurt the Tarrasque, not because they can charge their sword with magic like a Magus, and not because they've got divine mojo like Heracles and Cú Chulainn, but simply because they're a completely non-magical human who just did that freaking many push-ups, and because the ceiling of human capability is that much higher for Golarion-flavor humans, and because they've got sweet gear... then I see no reason to deny that, if that's the sort of slightly-more-gritty character flavor they're interested in playing.
(Which GMs can still totally ban if it doesn't fit the style of the particular game they want to run, of course, like they can...
I'd like it if Charles Atlas Superpowers were a thing too and a fighter could cut mountains in half just by virtue of their training and dedication and emulate flight by having precise control over how they jump. And maybe could frighten a demon lord into having a heart attack just by glaring at it, because his battle aura is just that fearsome.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the direction that most fixes want to take fighters in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're typical non-magical fighting guy/gal could just be a Warrior (NPC class).
So? Then I'd probably rather play the warrior instead.
On the other hand, there are already enough magic-infused melee classes in the game. So what's wrong with having one non-magical class for those who like it this way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're typical non-magical fighting guy/gal could just be a Warrior (NPC class).So? Then I'd probably rather play the warrior instead.
On the other hand, there are already enough magic-infused melee classes in the game. So what's wrong with having one non-magical class for those who like it this way?
When that nonmagical class is not allowed to be extraordinary.
If you lack the ability to drive narrative without magic as a class feature, that is a limitation on your personal abilities, not the rules.When the most powerful, versatile, and simplistic thing in the game is magic, and a lot of rules assume they possess said magic to drive the narrative along, then yes, Oprah's approach is the most palatable.Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
Depends on the narrative to be driven.
I mean, a fighter can't exactly teleport on a whim like spellcasters can. And when that is required to drive the narrative, what's a fighter to do? Bum a teleport from some random spellcaster? Be shoehorned into using Boots of Teleportation?
Neither of those are very palatable for a class like the fighter, and since magic is frowned upon, he's kind of in a bind in regards to that narrative...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When that nonmagical class is not allowed to be extraordinary.
See I'm not saying that the fighter couldn't be improved upon. So we can talk about how to do this, as long as we can agree upon that the class should stay non-magical. Personally I think that Irontruth made some good suggestions already but we could talk as well about how to include some of the myriad of options in the game that improve upon the fighter into the core class chassis.
But as long as the solution is to make the fighter from a non-magical to a magical character, I'm totally against it. For that, there are already enough options out there, and there's a reason why I prefer to ply a fighter over everyone of them (notable exception: the paladin).
Depends on the narrative to be driven.I mean, a fighter can't exactly teleport on a whim like spellcasters can. And when that is required to drive the narrative, what's a fighter to do? Bum a teleport from some random spellcaster? Be shoehorned into using Boots of Teleportation?
Neither of those are very palatable for a class like the fighter, and since magic is frowned upon, he's kind of in a bind in regards to that narrative...
About the same bind the naked wizard is in while chained between two pillars.
Not that Samson ever drove the narrative or anything.
/s
*Nice strawman though. Lacking a specific feature of a specific class does not make one better or worse at driving initiative in the general sense, only better at using a specific solution to resolve a specific problem.
If you lack the ability to drive narrative without magic as a class feature, that is a limitation on your personal abilities, not the rules.When the most powerful, versatile, and simplistic thing in the game is magic, and a lot of rules assume they possess said magic to drive the narrative along, then yes, Oprah's approach is the most palatable.Is there a good reason why a fighter SHOULD get magic powers??
I really dislike the whole "Ohhhh lets give everyone magic!"
Depends on the narrative to be driven.
I mean, a fighter can't exactly teleport on a whim like spellcasters can. And when that is required to drive the narrative, what's a fighter to do? Bum a teleport from some random spellcaster? Be shoehorned into using Boots of Teleportation?
Neither of those are very palatable for a class like the fighter, and since magic is frowned upon, he's kind of in a bind in regards to that narrative...
A fighter with Warrior Spirit can get himself Teleportation Mastery, or Barroom Brawler, or Quick Study, or the Manual.
Fighters got toys, they are no longer bound to nonmagical options in the same way that they were in the CRB.
We forum goers have pretty much concluded that the problem with fighters is that all the options that fix it when combined are themselves spread out over a large number of books, some of which are not open licence. Adventurer's Guide gave me hope for some OGL reprints and compilations of these options in a future release.
Have hope, they're listening and they're actually doing the thing.
I think Im going to playtest a few easy, but powerful changes. 1) fighters get the combat stamina feat at level 1 free. 2) at level 3, 5, etc the fighter gains the Martail Training I, II, III, etc feats from dsp's Path of War for free. 3) fighters receive the squire feat at level 4 and regular leadership at 7 ignoring the prereq of the cohort winning a one on one fight. Finally) the receive a bonus to intimidate equal to their bravery bonus and increase the act friendly and demoralize actions by 1 minute and 1 round per bravery bonus. So bravery +2 would increase demoralize by +2 rounds and act friendly by +2 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to thank everyone that's participated so far in this. I want to reemphasize that this thread is just to find out why folks think the Fighter shouldn't (or should) have magical abilities, not a thread to "fix the Fighter". One can't shake an undead stick without hitting a "fix the Fighter" thread around here.
So far the answer seems to be that a Fighter with magic is a Magus or Cleric or similar and the class concept of the Fighter is a mundane warrior. No one's yet discussed what a Fighter with psionic abilities counts as, though.