Fighters should not have feats


Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The way each class has their own feats is interesting, however I don't think that the Fighter should have their own feats. Looking at their list they basically stole all the combat feats and are hiding them in their room from the other classes. Sure some classes get their own versions, like Paladin gets Attack of Opportunity and Ranger gets some two weapon feats, but others say hidden in the fighter list- like Power Attack which they refuse to share with the Barbarian.

So no, I don't think the fighter should have feats, he should have means of getting more combat feats than others, not be a gatekeeper to the cool toys.


Well I don't think that fighter shouldnt have feats but they should loosen the chassis - I was really surprised to see no twf in the rogues list for exampls


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

But then, if everybody could get the fighter's cool toys, why would you want to play a fighter?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

because they (should) have some unique toys and maybe get some more then usual?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
But then, if everybody could get the fighter's cool toys, why would you want to play a fighter?

I think they should probably give the Fighter some form of feat bundles, like the styles from 1st edition ranger. Give him weapon versatility so he can be equally good with a bow and a sword. Or two weapons and sword and board. Etc.

The fighter should definitely be the best at what he does, but that should be because he's focused on that, not because he's hiding everything from the other classes.


I don't think it's bad to have things held back to be fighter only. My only worry is that if those things are must haves than everyone will feel the need to multiclass to get those options.

Do barbarians need power attack in PF2? They can get it by taking the fighter archetype and if every barbarian ends up doing that then that is a problem. But if only some do and others are just as viable focusing on barbarian feats only then I don't see a problem with that specific trick being fighter only.

Similarly anyone can dual wield and get a minor benefit. First strike with a high damage non-agile weapon and follow up strike(s) with a lower damage agile weapon for better accuracy. dual slice is better but is it so good that every two weapon fighting character will feel the need to multi class fighter (or ranger in the future) to get it?


By taking the fighter multiclass feat, I believe you can gain access to them in the long run, no matter what class you are


5 people marked this as a favorite.

IMHO:

1. Make "weapon style" feats General Feats that anyone can take. So Power Attack, Double Slice, Point-Blank Shot, etc. are all available as a General Feat for anyone who wants them.

2. Fighters get to pick them as Class Feats.

3. Fighters get some ability that allows them to gain feats from OTHER style feat-lines for free while investing on a single one. So a Fighter could get everything a Sword + Board Paladin could want out of combat feats, while simultaneously getting everything a 2H Barb would want out of them too, at no opportunity cost other than their class.

4. Fighters still have the highest weapon proficiencies, so they get to be the most effective at two/three fighting styles simultaneously.

I think this would carve a unique niche while leaving other classes happy in that they get to pick up their own goodies.


Bardarok wrote:

I don't think it's bad to have things held back to be fighter only. My only worry is that if those things are must haves than everyone will feel the need to multiclass to get those options.

Do barbarians need power attack in PF2? They can get it by taking the fighter archetype and if every barbarian ends up doing that then that is a problem. But if only some do and others are just as viable focusing on barbarian feats only then I don't see a problem with that specific trick being fighter only.

Similarly anyone can dual wield and get a minor benefit. First strike with a high damage non-agile weapon and follow up strike(s) with a lower damage agile weapon for better accuracy. dual slice is better but is it so good that every two weapon fighting character will feel the need to multi class fighter (or ranger in the future) to get it?

I can definitely see Barbarians wanting Power Attack. It's the iconic smash style attack. I can see every ranger that wants to focus on Ranged attacks needing Fighter just so they can get Double Shot and then Triple Shot (and they still won't be able to take some ranged feats due to lvl/2 capping you at 10th lvl feats).

I don't necessarily mind using fighter as a way to turn most casters into pseudo-martials, or use it as a base for martial-casters. However it seems ridiculous that I have to multiclass with another martial to be good at something iconic to my class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Barbarians can't Power Attack or TWF and Fighter can't Quick Draw.

I think all classes should have access to those options like before. The entire "General Feat" system needs kind of a revamp to include these and also make gaining general feats more available.

Class feats should not be thing sthat get shared around. There needs to be a good reason why some ability is locked for a specific class. PF1E already has a lot of cool fighter-only abilities such as the AWT and AATs. Stuff like those should be the fighter feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:

I don't think it's bad to have things held back to be fighter only. My only worry is that if those things are must haves than everyone will feel the need to multiclass to get those options.

Do barbarians need power attack in PF2? They can get it by taking the fighter archetype and if every barbarian ends up doing that then that is a problem. But if only some do and others are just as viable focusing on barbarian feats only then I don't see a problem with that specific trick being fighter only.

Well... it is kind of silly in character.

After a barbarian takes fighter dedication

Barbarian: hey fighter, could you teach me to power attack.

Fighter: sure, *adopts a fighting stance.* So you hold up your greatsword, and instead of swinging it normally, you haul back and swing it really hard!

Barbarian: *squees at the revelation* Thank you so much, I never thought of swinging it really hard!

Edit: although come to think of it that's really not any different from:

A fighter takes rogue dedication.

Fighter: Hey rogue, could you teach me to sneak attack people?

Rogue: sure. *steals a combat dummy from a nearby store.* okay so what you do is, you wait until your enemy is focused on something else, like your friend, or the pain of someone bonking him on the head really hard, and you stab him, but in the throat, or the crotch, or somewhere else that hurts more than a normal stab.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the basic issue is that as soon as you sit down to build a character you don't want to feel like your fighting style was already picked for you. With all the fighting style choices being internal to the class it feels like you are selecting a character from a mortal combat character selection screen and not building your character from scratch.

I think the core problem is that 3.x D&D had it right in concept but wrong in practice. In 3.X you could pick your fighting style, but what actually happened was that you picked a fighting style as a martial and that fighting style had a package of feats you basically always took and actually stomped all over the feat system.

You leveled up and ALWAYS spent your feat choice on filling in your fighting style. Except when you didn't meet the BAB requirements or ability score requirements yet, and then took a filler feat that you took because it was cool and you actually wanted to take it.

What they need are 'fighting styles' like 'sword and shield', 'dual wield', 'two handed', 'polearm', 'bow', 'crossbow', etc. Classes that are supposed to be martial classes get to pick one of a subset of those styles for their build and get an unlocking sequence of abilities in a class agnostic package with no choices (you made your choice when you picked your fighting style was a two handed power attacker).

Then hang class feats off those fighting styles by putting a requirement for 'sword and shield fighting style' or even just a 'melee style'.

That way they don't class lock fighting styles, and they free up feats to be situational picks instead of 'making my class function' picks. It also removes noob traps like the guy who tries to be both a dual wield and ranged martial in one build and creates a mechanical mess instead of a functional character.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Many of the class feats are repeated. One fix would be to move these to the general feat section and add a tag like they did with skill feats. One tag for combat feats, and one for metamagic feats. Let martial class pick these combat feats as class feats, and let casters pick metamagic feats as class feats. This would free up room to add more options.

For the fighter that would be moving about 15 feat to the general section.
Close to that for the other martial classes as well. Then you would only need to list them once.


I've been running some numbers and I was surprised to find out that barbarians don't actually want power attack. The higher your base damage is the worse power attack is. With a barbarians high base damage they are better off just attacking twice except right around level 10 IF they had power attack as a barb feat and it got upgraded to two dice at at barb lvl 10, even then it falls behind once their rage damage bumps up again. So my worry that barbarians will all want to multiclass fighter for power attack is assuages.

Actually power attack ends up falling behind just attacking twice for everyone at the highest levels when weapon base damage becomes really great it probably needs to add a third die at some point to keep up, or maybe just retrain it at high levels.

I am going to start looking into the ranger next to see how badly they need/don't need the bow feats that seem to be fighter only. Already it is clear that they don't get feats for bows or for single weapon fighting yet their hunt target ability actually works best for those two styles which is an interesting design choice. It seems that the combat feats available for them are there to make other styles viable not to make the strongest style better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tursic wrote:

Many of the class feats are repeated. One fix would be to move these to the general feat section and add a tag like they did with skill feats. One tag for combat feats, and one for metamagic feats. Let martial class pick these combat feats as class feats, and let casters pick metamagic feats as class feats. This would free up room to add more options.

For the fighter that would be moving about 15 feat to the general section.
Close to that for the other martial classes as well. Then you would only need to list them once.

I agree with this method. It should also slightly lower the page count, since the descriptions won't need to be repeated.

I still think fighters should get some of their own feats, though. The press and extra reaction abilities suit them well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, a lot of classes should be able to pick up the stuff which is currently fighter-exclusive. Similarly, fighters should be able to grab quick draw (it would have helped me in the playtest).

Power Attack, Quick Draw, Double/Triple Shot, and Double Slice should be available to all classes, as pretty much every weapon-using character is going to be multiclassing to grab them otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Combat Feats (and Spellcasting Feats if you are a caster of any kind) should be a thing that everyone has access to.

What the Fighter should get is the ability to use Combat Feats more effectively and efficiently.

Take Power Attack for example.
Let everyone have access to it
but the Fighter has it count as only 1 attack when counting the penalty.

or he gets a free effect on some things like Free Trip on hit when using a Pole arm

Dark Archive

Lets be honest. The rogue chassis is amazingly powerful. You can make a competent Rouge multi-class Fighter with the following feats:

1 - Trap Finder
2 - Fighter - Dedication
4 - Fighter - Basic Maneuver (Twin Strike) [such a powerful feat]
6 - Fighter - Opportunist
8 - Fighter - Advanced Maneuver (Twin Parry)
10 - Fighter - Fighter Resiliency [lots of L6 rogue feats that are good as well]
12 - Fighter - Weapon Expert [unless you're using the normal rogue weapons since you get this at L13]

Keep in mind the rogue chassis gets 10+int trained skills, and skill bumps and feats at every level. You can get multiple skills to Master (crafting or deception, etc.). Meanwhile you don't need STR and you have DEX to hit/damage with a lot of weapons from the get go. With
doubling rings you are more effectively getting property and potency runes between your weapons without the full double investment. Its one of the few builds I'm excited about. I'd like to see the feat available for the rogue from the outset, but I guess that won't be happening in the playtest.


I feel like a tiny bit of caution could possibly be in order for double slice on a rogue -as far as I can tell, and unless I'm missing something, each hit from double slice would be sneak attacking for full to hit bonus. This seems possibly stronger than some other low level rogue feats.

Other than that, I'd be totally cool with stuff getting expanded.


Zaister wrote:
But then, if everybody could get the fighter's cool toys, why would you want to play a fighter?

Weapon Mastery, Weapon Specialization. They aren't feats.

And more feats than other classes.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Maybe make most of the Fighter feats into normal Combat feats, but if a Fighter gets the same feat twice he can "heighten" the feat or something. So Power Attack now takes only one action and counts as only one attack, or adds another damage die at every level, or can be used any time instead of just as the opening attack. Fighters still get the best combat stuff, but now other people can use them too.

Plus then you have your option of getting twice as many combat feats, or half as many which are more effective.

And then I guess for simplicity just remove the "skill" tag and split the feats into "general" and "specialized" or something. All the feats gated by proficiency in a skill or a weapon go in Specialized, everything else goes in General.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Mucchiello wrote:
Zaister wrote:
But then, if everybody could get the fighter's cool toys, why would you want to play a fighter?

Weapon Mastery, Weapon Specialization. They aren't feats.

And more feats than other classes.

Better yet, give the fighter actually cool toys, and let the generic toys be available to everyone.


I don't totally agree with the OP statement. I think fighters should get their feats earlier than others. For example, power attack may be Fighter 1, Barbarian 2, Paladin or Ranger 3 or whatever progression makes sense. Give a good choice to fighter first then delay it for others much in the same way a paladin could also gain attack of opportunity as a feat but must wait till sixth level


Since a lot of the feats don't directly power you up, instead giving you more options. I would like to have more of the feats available to all the martials but give fighter even more feats. Making his thing being the most versatile of martials classes by letting him be good at more than one fighting style.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells / Fighters should not have feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells