Playing an entire group of fighters even more viable?


Prerelease Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So your standard fighter in PF1 are almost solely focused on damage, as playing defensively just means you get ignored and your friends get picked on. But now with shields being more useful and more defensive options are being opened up, I'm wondering if a entire party made up of different fighters would be viable. Of course it would fall behind a properly balanced party in most encounters, but with how flexible Pathfinder is becoming I think it'd work pretty well. Here's how the party would be made up.

Spear Fighter: Focuses on killing monsters as quickly as possible from behind the shield fighters using reach, possible also tripping monsters and using AoO. High STR for damage, and CHA to be the face. Half Orc or Human, no Dwarves.

2 Sword and Board fighters: They'd be the frontline and protect the rest of the group from attacks. Being able to use their reactions to keep enemies from getting around them would what would probably keep the part alive, and using the Shield stance that allows them to keep up their shields forever without spending an action would allow them to help kill monsters. High CON and STR, maybe INT to unlock Combat Expertise if it's still a thing and to provide skills for the group
No Elves as you need the highest CON possible, so probably Dwarf or Gnomes.

Archer Fighter: Shoot enemies from a distance/ pick off ranged enemies and spellcasters. Would get feats like Point blank shot, or the one that removes the penalties for firing through allies' squares. High DEX and STR to maximize damage and hits, also focus on WIS to be the parties Ranger basically. Elf or Dwarf would work pretty well.

This is mostly just for fun and I'd need a lot more information to actually get it more set in stone, but if you have anymore ideas on what could make this more likely to work feel free to share your ideas. Also if you have any ideas on other entire class parties then be sure to share!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think Mark actually relayed a story that he and some other folks did this during the internal play testing. There was a two hander, a sword and board, and a two weapon fighter in the same party. Apparently they all played very differently, excelled in a different situations, and all felt useful and fun while remaining distinct.

I certainly don't see why an archer couldn't join that party and follow the same example. Now, I can't comment on how viable the party will be without magic or a skill monkey, but it sounds like it is at least FUN.


With trinkets, rituals and potions they may not be too far behind having a full caster.

I think it would be cool to try. Definitely a good stress test for the system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

The thing that excites me the flexibility I see in fighters. I know of people who would not play them because they were "boring". There is little chance of them being boring in Pathfinder 2.


What we've seen of PF2s Fighter class would seem to point towards all-fighter parties being less-viable than in PF1 due to the class no longer being so focused on dealing damage and the fact that a lot of the special qualities applied to weapons and class abilities seem like they'd get in the way of cooperation.

It's possible there are other factors that compensate, but if so, we haven't seen them yet.


Should be much more viable. You can spend skill feats to get at least some healing, although we’ll have to see about condition removal. Fewer skills and broader competence help out in non-combat situations. Swarms generally don’t get weapon damage immunity now. I’m guessing you’ll need some means of detection of invisible enemies and of flight (or grounding flying enemies).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Crayon wrote:

What we've seen of PF2s Fighter class would seem to point towards all-fighter parties being less-viable than in PF1 due to the class no longer being so focused on dealing damage and the fact that a lot of the special qualities applied to weapons and class abilities seem like they'd get in the way of cooperation.

It's possible there are other factors that compensate, but if so, we haven't seen them yet.

How do you figure? Crits with swords leave enemies flat footed and easier for your allies to hit. Shield feats that let you block hits aimed at allies more than once a round. And Fighters having the most consistent AoO access means they are very good at protecting the back line. You could potentially do things like this in PF1, but only through pretty heavy specialization in feat tress. I certainly don't see how Fighters are getting worse at teamwork.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Crayon wrote:

What we've seen of PF2s Fighter class would seem to point towards all-fighter parties being less-viable than in PF1 due to the class no longer being so focused on dealing damage and the fact that a lot of the special qualities applied to weapons and class abilities seem like they'd get in the way of cooperation.

It's possible there are other factors that compensate, but if so, we haven't seen them yet.

How do you figure? Crits with swords leave enemies flat footed and easier for your allies to hit. Shield feats that let you block hits aimed at allies more than once a round. And Fighters having the most consistent AoO access means they are very good at protecting the back line. You could potentially do things like this in PF1, but only through pretty heavy specialization in feat tress. I certainly don't see how Fighters are getting worse at teamwork.

The sword thing is largely meaningless in an all-Fighter party since your allies are unlikely to miss anyway (and Critical Misses don't exist). Plus, if the enemy is already flat-footed or doesn't intend to move, it's useless.

The shield thing is similarly pointless in an all-Fighter party as everyone has similar AC and HP and thus don't need protection.

Also, presumably the back-line of an all-Fighter party would consist of ranged specialists who probably aren't any squishier than the character making the AoO which raises the question of why the target wouldn't just attack them instead rather than wasting an action moving?

In any event, I was referring more to the 'benefits' associated with bows and blunt weapons which seem like they'd make it harder to engage with enemies more often than not.


Crayon wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Crayon wrote:

What we've seen of PF2s Fighter class would seem to point towards all-fighter parties being less-viable than in PF1 due to the class no longer being so focused on dealing damage and the fact that a lot of the special qualities applied to weapons and class abilities seem like they'd get in the way of cooperation.

It's possible there are other factors that compensate, but if so, we haven't seen them yet.

How do you figure? Crits with swords leave enemies flat footed and easier for your allies to hit. Shield feats that let you block hits aimed at allies more than once a round. And Fighters having the most consistent AoO access means they are very good at protecting the back line. You could potentially do things like this in PF1, but only through pretty heavy specialization in feat tress. I certainly don't see how Fighters are getting worse at teamwork.

The sword thing is largely meaningless in an all-Fighter party since your allies are unlikely to miss anyway (and Critical Misses don't exist). Plus, if the enemy is already flat-footed or doesn't intend to move, it's useless.

The shield thing is similarly pointless in an all-Fighter party as everyone has similar AC and HP and thus don't need protection.

Also, presumably the back-line of an all-Fighter party would consist of ranged specialists who probably aren't any squishier than the character making the AoO which raises the question of why the target wouldn't just attack them instead rather than wasting an action moving?

In any event, I was referring more to the 'benefits' associated with bows and blunt weapons which seem like they'd make it harder to engage with enemies more often than not.

Yo, it isn't about hitting anymore this edition. It's about 10% higher odds of critical hit for everyone!


Crayon wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Crayon wrote:

What we've seen of PF2s Fighter class would seem to point towards all-fighter parties being less-viable than in PF1 due to the class no longer being so focused on dealing damage and the fact that a lot of the special qualities applied to weapons and class abilities seem like they'd get in the way of cooperation.

It's possible there are other factors that compensate, but if so, we haven't seen them yet.

How do you figure? Crits with swords leave enemies flat footed and easier for your allies to hit. Shield feats that let you block hits aimed at allies more than once a round. And Fighters having the most consistent AoO access means they are very good at protecting the back line. You could potentially do things like this in PF1, but only through pretty heavy specialization in feat tress. I certainly don't see how Fighters are getting worse at teamwork.

The sword thing is largely meaningless in an all-Fighter party since your allies are unlikely to miss anyway (and Critical Misses don't exist). Plus, if the enemy is already flat-footed or doesn't intend to move, it's useless.

The shield thing is similarly pointless in an all-Fighter party as everyone has similar AC and HP and thus don't need protection.

Also, presumably the back-line of an all-Fighter party would consist of ranged specialists who probably aren't any squishier than the character making the AoO which raises the question of why the target wouldn't just attack them instead rather than wasting an action moving?

In any event, I was referring more to the 'benefits' associated with bows and blunt weapons which seem like they'd make it harder to engage with enemies more often than not.

Making an enemy easier to hit now also makes them easier to crit, so flat-footed is meaningful.

The shield thing lets sword-and-board extend the benefits of their build to the two-handed build character. So enemies can’t just focus on the lower AC, higher damage character.

The ranged Fighters are probably only a little squishier (no shield, need Dex more than Con), but if they’re free from people getting in their face, they can focus entirely on ranged rather than switch-hitting.

The benefits of bows and blunt weapons seem pretty good. Shove somebody back with a blunt weapon, and it might count as provoking. Even if not, that opponent has to spend an action to close. Team Fighter doesn’t care about closing, their ranged teammate will just continue to do pinning shots. Yeah, don’t use a mace if you want to lock a caster down, unless that crit effect is optional.


Probably less inviable. It might work for a couple more levels, but I'm not sure you can carry a group of fighters from 1 to 20 in a regular AP without big ammounts of system mastery and probably "faking" a couple spellcasters with use magic device and scrolls or whatever.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Crayon wrote:

What we've seen of PF2s Fighter class would seem to point towards all-fighter parties being less-viable than in PF1 due to the class no longer being so focused on dealing damage and the fact that a lot of the special qualities applied to weapons and class abilities seem like they'd get in the way of cooperation.

It's possible there are other factors that compensate, but if so, we haven't seen them yet.

How do you figure? Crits with swords leave enemies flat footed and easier for your allies to hit. Shield feats that let you block hits aimed at allies more than once a round. And Fighters having the most consistent AoO access means they are very good at protecting the back line. You could potentially do things like this in PF1, but only through pretty heavy specialization in feat tress. I certainly don't see how Fighters are getting worse at teamwork.

The sword thing is largely meaningless in an all-Fighter party since your allies are unlikely to miss anyway (and Critical Misses don't exist). Plus, if the enemy is already flat-footed or doesn't intend to move, it's useless.

The shield thing is similarly pointless in an all-Fighter party as everyone has similar AC and HP and thus don't need protection.

Also, presumably the back-line of an all-Fighter party would consist of ranged specialists who probably aren't any squishier than the character making the AoO which raises the question of why the target wouldn't just attack them instead rather than wasting an action moving?

In any event, I was referring more to the 'benefits' associated with bows and blunt weapons which seem like they'd make it harder to engage with enemies more often than not.

Making an enemy easier to hit now also makes them easier to crit, so flat-footed is meaningful.

The shield thing lets sword-and-board extend the benefits of their build to the two-handed build character. So enemies can’t just focus on the lower AC, higher damage...

Aside from what has already been said, I'll note everything you (Crayon) note applies as much or more to an all fighter PF1 party.


This is something I've always wanted to try. Healing might be a bit of an issue.

Now I don't think Magic SHOULD be needed all the time but gonna need some healing. It probably would vary table to table, but probably have 1 Cleric's worth of healing. Or Adept. Mind you that's total. If each fighter can heal 1d6 once, or something like that, probably will be fine.


MerlinCross wrote:

This is something I've always wanted to try. Healing might be a bit of an issue.

Now I don't think Magic SHOULD be needed all the time but gonna need some healing. It probably would vary table to table, but probably have 1 Cleric's worth of healing. Or Adept. Mind you that's total. If each fighter can heal 1d6 once, or something like that, probably will be fine.

Mark Seifter's previous statements lead me to believe that healing wouldn't be an insurmountable problem for a group of Fighters, though it might require a few non-standard builds.

I'd be more worried about "utility" magic (true seeing, fly, etc), though I don't know the skill / magic item systems well enough to judge how much of a loss that would be.


I don't know in PF2, but in PF1, healing was never a problem, or why the cleric/other divine classes were so important.

It was everything else, from removing negative levels, to cure disease, poison, ability drain, and such, including short term hindrances like fear or confusion.

Hit points are/were really easy to remove. Seven drained points of strength and two negative levels are harder.


MerlinCross wrote:

This is something I've always wanted to try. Healing might be a bit of an issue.

Now I don't think Magic SHOULD be needed all the time but gonna need some healing. It probably would vary table to table, but probably have 1 Cleric's worth of healing. Or Adept. Mind you that's total. If each fighter can heal 1d6 once, or something like that, probably will be fine.

I'm sure that a bit of money towards potions could cover it. Maybe the spear fighter could invest in healing oils instead that he could apply to the shield fighters so the shield fighters could keep attacking and not provoke any sort of AoO.


God Fighter Edition? ;-)


Cheburn wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

This is something I've always wanted to try. Healing might be a bit of an issue.

Now I don't think Magic SHOULD be needed all the time but gonna need some healing. It probably would vary table to table, but probably have 1 Cleric's worth of healing. Or Adept. Mind you that's total. If each fighter can heal 1d6 once, or something like that, probably will be fine.

Mark Seifter's previous statements lead me to believe that healing wouldn't be an insurmountable problem for a group of Fighters, though it might require a few non-standard builds.

I'd be more worried about "utility" magic (true seeing, fly, etc), though I don't know the skill / magic item systems well enough to judge how much of a loss that would be.

Flight probably won't be as necessary for the all-fighter group; it won't be as necessary for solving environmental problems because your Master Athletics guy can just jump over the gap now rather than being chained to what a Paizo employee is capable of doing, and it won't be as necessary for fighting flying enemies because pulling out your backup ranged weapon and doing respectable damage should be feasible now.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
God Fighter Edition? ;-)

1st Ed AD&D... Especially with weapon specialization from Unearthed Arcana.

Although cavaliers were even better in some ways (however, they had a lot more restrictions). [/oblivious]

(it was probably a rhetorical question, but...)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Playing an entire group of fighters even more viable? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion