This is a thread just to post your initial thoughts on the fighter class.
Fighters are actually quite good. Although they only get 1 fighter feat at 1st level (other than AoOs), the fact they gain expert in martial weapons mimics them getting BAB +1. They finally get 2 good saves which is about time.
Probably one of my favorite classes in PF2 (and it was one of my least favorite in PF1).
Although I think two-handed weapon Fighter needs some love. Being able to shove people is cool, but I was expecting more heavy damage feats specifically designed for two-handed weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, the fighter is looking good. The lack of skills is rough if you build a concept around things that require skills, but the ranger is looking like it is in such rough shape that adding any skills to the fighter is going to destroy the only thing the ranger really has going for it.
As far as two-handed weapon love, I think there isn't much here because of the "we know how to make the two-handed fighter a class that people love" so they are holding a lot of those feats back to push people into play testing the "switch-hander" who uses a bastard sword and sudden charges into combat with a two-handed grip and then drops a hand to do grabs and other athletics stunts.
This is a relatively new thing so I get why they are pushing all of the feats it requires into the play test, but I agree that it makes it hard to really get a feel of what the pure two-hander is going to look like, which is rough because there are only 2 or three weapons to build the "switch-hander" around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also like where they're going with the fighter, but my biggest concern atm is the relative lack of feats (especially at low level) that are useful regardless of weapon type or fighting style.
Also, right now the only feats useful to a ranged fighter are the assorted "shot" combos whereas there are a handful of feats that are good for any melee fighter. I'd also like to see a way to let ranged fighters benefit from Attack of Opportunity. Maybe something like allowing a reaction attack against the last creature you attacked if they try to take cover or something. Maybe not necessary, but that kind of feat would give a ranged fighter more interesting options.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The action taxes kill your potential strategies, and the feats are all designed to be mutually exclusive actions.
It's bad.
I don't see all the different combat styles, but I do see a lot of arbitrary level gates that prevent me from making the character I want.
A lot of these feats do not work as you would want them to, Furious Focus is a feat designed around enhancing your ability to fail, for example. It only works on your secondary attack, and it allows you to make the third attack as if it was your second, but only if you fail to hit. It's a 3 round action without telling you it's a three round action.
Quickdraw excludes any strategy that requires an [open], as [open] feats must be done as primary attacks, and Quickdraw specifically prevents that because it mandates you make an attack with the weapon you draw.
Power Attack is so poorly designed that you are almost always better off just not using it and making two attacks. That's not situational, it's a trap option. It also has really bad math behind its justification.
It really seems like the devs don't understand their own action system, which is a shame because Unchained RAE made the game so much better but this is not playable. I don't build upon any initial strategy and there are no ways to really improve my chance to hit or land crits, I'm mostly just taking feats to expand my tactical repertoire, which doesn't even get better, and maybe get random +1s and 2s to things once I get to high enough level. The whole book is full of this.
WTF is Dual-Handed Assault? It's a feat that gives me a +2 on damage, oh but I can increase the damage die by one step making it exactly the same as maybe using a normal two-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon. You then ungrip the weapon. Normally this would cost 3 actions, to grip, attack, and ungrip. Lucky you get to do it for 2, and get a whopping 2 extra damage and a minute improvement to damage dice. But you have to be level 4 to take this feat because it's too strong for level 1 or 2 characters.
Swipe is cleave, can't be used in conjunction with Power Attack so you get to essentially trade two attacks for two attacks at full bonus if the enemies are adjacent to each other. That seems like a really solid waste of a feat, considering it's pretty much always going to be better to just swing twice and take a good feat instead, if there were good feats to take.
Twin Parry? This is a mess, I have to use Two-Weapons, but neither weapon can be agile? Double Slice encourages agile weapons because it imposes a penalty so these two feats don't work together, they work against each other.
Why is Intimidating Strike two actions? I spent the feat to enhance my attack, but now I can't use another feat to enhance my attack, I get only one enhancement.
Double Shot requires me to attack two different enemies? AND I take -2 to both attacks.
Forcing players to treat their feats like spells, all taking separate actions to resolve and not being able to combine strategies is the worst possible thing they could have done to martial characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loved playing PF 1 Fighters, Elven Curve Blade Human with power-attack. Yelling "FULL POWER-ATTACK!" ever round was great. I just don't see the same excitement here. (It is the same problem I have with 5E)
"cleave" damage usually is bad, and worst at higher levels.
Furious Focus, might be the only power you would use, it's a "you missed try again power". It is actually increases your critical hit chance.
On a tertiary attack, you can treat it as a secondary attack.
I'd rather improve my odds to hit on a primary attack and have free options to do what I want on my turn, instead of improving my odds of failing with an attack I'm likely not even going to make considering all the other combat styles are generally two actions and prevent me from making that third attack anyway.
Twin Parry? This is a mess, I have to use Two-Weapons, but neither weapon can be agile? Double Slice encourages agile weapons because it imposes a penalty so these two feats don't work together, they work against each other.
Sure you can use one or even two agile weapons. It is just that in that case the bonus to AC is +1 instead of +2 (unless at least one of the two weapons wielded also has the parry trait, in which case the bonus is +2; I do not remember if there are any agile parry weapons though...). I am assuming because non-agile weapons are sturdier and not as flimsy as agile ones (fluffwise I mean)? Maybe a trade-off for the better multiple attack penalties you have with agile weapons? Not sure, but there you have it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Fighter's Open/Press options were oversold in the Hail the Gauntlet preview. It made it sound like Fighters could chain together open and press abilities that worked with their chosen combat style to form cool combos and make the character more dynamic and unique. Instead they're generic and just action-gated versions of combat feats, and if you're lucky you happen to pick a style where you can get both open AND press abilities you want that aren't forcing you to dip back down to lower levels for abilities.
I do not remember if there are any agile parry weapons though...
Main-gauche. It also has the disarm, finesse, and versatile S weapon traits.
EDIT: Also clan dagger (uncommon).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a few options on styles.
1. Sword and Bord
2. Bow
3. Two-weapon
4. Two-handed
5. Mobile
6. One Weapon
1. You can go all out on one style with a few feats left3
2. Do two of them alright.
3. Do one of them and multi-class
So 36 in class builds, plus 5 multi-class builds.
Some of the styles mix better than others. Mobile will work with most other styles. One weapon and Two-hand work with the right weapon. (Bastard Sword) One weapon and two-weapon styles work, just not much of a reason to do so, since they give most of the same kind of abilities.
The one weapon style mixes well with a multi-class caster.
I was going to ask why one-hand even exists when it practically ain't worth its salt when S&B exists...
Yeah, somatic components. The other bane of believable sorcerers...
|
Given the addition of level to attack, the fighter looks like, even when legendary proficiency with a weapon will only have a +2 bonus above a Wizard that takes either a weapon proficiency or Fighter Dedication (and is hanging out at expert proficiency)...
Curious how well the Wizard/Fighter Dedication would hold out versus a fighter, even in melee, withholding his magic. I think that'll be my first task, build both and throw them in an arena.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furious Focus is a feat designed around enhancing your ability to fail, for example. It only works on your secondary attack, and it allows you to make the third attack as if it was your second, but only if you fail to hit. It's a 3 round action without telling you it's a three round action.
It also works on your third attack if you get a haste attack (but agreed. It aint great).
Power Attack is so poorly designed that you are almost always better off just not using it and making two attacks. That's not situational, it's a trap option. It also has really bad math behind its justification.
Have you got anything to back that up? I've been highly skeptical of it myself, but would love to see the evidence that confirms my gut feel of it not being the best feat to take.
Swipe is cleave, can't be used in conjunction with Power Attack so you get to essentially trade two attacks for two attacks at full bonus if the enemies are adjacent to each other. That seems like a really solid waste of a feat, considering it's pretty much always going to be better to just swing twice and take a good feat instead, if there were good feats to take.
It gives you 2 attacks with your full BAB. It's this edition's version of PF1e Furious Focus (which while not a GREAT feat, was often taken by non-fighters). That actually seems like a pretty good feat to take.
Forcing players to treat their feats like spells, all taking separate actions to resolve and not being able to combine strategies is the worst possible thing they could have done to martial characters.
I agree that at first look it's a direct downgrade from PF1e fighters (and PF1e fighters were solid contributors, but by no means overpowered). I'm hoping in actual play it goes better than it reads. I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said.
I feel like the Fighter's Open/Press options were oversold in the Hail the Gauntlet preview. It made it sound like Fighters could chain together open and press abilities that worked with their chosen combat style to form cool combos and make the character more dynamic and unique. Instead they're generic and just action-gated versions of combat feats, and if you're lucky you happen to pick a style where you can get both open AND press abilities you want that aren't forcing you to dip back down to lower levels for abilities.
An easy to overlook area of talent is weapon effects. What use to be combat feats are now handed out for free just by using a particular weapon. So for example you could Sweep (2 attacks at full BAB) and then do a Shove with your tertiary action (no penalty to the attack roll) and step up and still be adjacent to them (good for combat control and keeping enemies away from injured allies or squishy allies).
Furious Focus is a feat designed around enhancing your ability to fail, for example. It only works on your secondary attack, and it allows you to make the third attack as if it was your second, but only if you fail to hit. It's a 3 round action without telling you it's a three round action.It also works on your third attack if you get a haste attack (but agreed. It aint great).
Power Attack is so poorly designed that you are almost always better off just not using it and making two attacks. That's not situational, it's a trap option. It also has really bad math behind its justification.Have you got anything to back that up? I've been highly skeptical of it myself, but would love to see the evidence that confirms my gut feel of it not being the best feat to take.
Swipe is cleave, can't be used in conjunction with Power Attack so you get to essentially trade two attacks for two attacks at full bonus if the enemies are adjacent to each other. That seems like a really solid waste of a feat, considering it's pretty much always going to be better to just swing twice and take a good feat instead, if there were good feats to take.It gives you 2 attacks with your full BAB. It's this edition's version of PF1e Furious Focus (which while not a GREAT feat, was often taken by non-fighters). That actually seems like a pretty good feat to take.
Forcing players to treat their feats like spells, all taking separate actions to resolve and not being able to combine strategies is the worst possible thing they could have done to martial characters.I agree that at first look it's a direct downgrade from PF1e fighters (and PF1e fighters were solid contributors, but by no means overpowered). I'm hoping in actual play it goes better than it reads. I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said.
I feel like the Fighter's Open/Press options were oversold...
Furious focus gives no benefit unless it's used on your secondary attacks because there's no further negative to take, you just make two bottom attacks at -10.
As to Power Attack, there's at least three threads I've repeated this in, but yes we've done the math, compared it to AC values, compared it to no feat use, and compared it to Double Slice. I also mapped the distribution spread for it at various levels to show my work. There's a thread I can't link to right now (mobile).
In fairness, I have years on Unchained RAE, and standard action attacks always lost out to just making multiple attacks. There's math for that too. (This is why Double Slice is so good by comparison.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to quote myself:
so many things that were basic actions that anyone could do or that anyone could build into (several skill feats come to mind for the former, and the latter is exemplified by the fighter having sucked all the combat-oriented feats into their class-specific barrier) are now walled off behind ridiculous restrictions or are completely inaccessible to some characters/builds altogether.
along with lowering the skill ceiling, it leaves those options remaining feeling very bland or arbitrarily limiting, especially with the wide selection of feats and class abilities being simple numerical increases, rather than giving unique or thought-provoking options for a character design (see: PF1e's rage powers for barbarians--many were strong in their own ways, were flavorful, meaningfully added to the class without being needlessly limited to X/day or a too-small pool of points, and were often a tough choice between for a character, all while remaining decently balanced).to harp on fighter just a teeeeny bit more, their design is particularly uninspired to me: with "bravery" being intensely hard to make use of for very little benefit (requiring a successful save on your weakest save, then giving you a bonus for a short duration against the same type of effect, when the freebie critical success if you DO pass is supposed to make you resist those same things entirely already for the same duration or longer) and "battlefield surveyor", a core class ability for fighters, being a WORSE version of the "incredible initiative" general feat).
with the devs apparently "solving" their lack of niche or options outside of combat by simply having them take most of the options away from others and keep them for themselves, rather than adding more interesting things that make a fighter stand out as a fun choice (unchained actually had a few fighter-specific feats that would have been great to see here instead of stealing existing general feats, like the "strike from the air" feat line)... and then giving them nothing outside of combat anyway.a world where everyone wants to be the fighter (cool!) because nobody else is allowed to use most combat feats without being one isn't much of a fun world at all.
If they had just left the fighter weapon ability from PF1 it would have solved the problem. In this new flat system a +5 to attack would be big. The fighter would hit on their first attack, have a 75% chance to hit on the second attack and a 50% on the third. As it is now you are pushing to get to 75% on that first attack. Most of the other martial class are at around 65%. With a buff and flaking that goes up to 90%.
They sold the fighter being better at hitting than the other classes. The Fighter is better by about 10%.
I guess when they talked about making the fighter be better at hitting I was thinking 95% on that first attack, Like a PF1 fighter can do.
Regarding two-weapon fighting fighter class feats, it would seem that not all are for every two-weapon wielder. Graceful Poise for example seems to favor those dual-wielders who have chosen to use agile weapons in either one hand or both. Twin Parry on the other hand works better with non-agile weapons (unless one uses a main-gauche, which is both an agile and a parry weapon) rather than with agile ones. And then you have Agile Grace, which basically makes Two-Weapon Flurry unable to work, at least if both weapons are agile anyway I think.
So, a fighter dual-wielding short swords could pick Graceful Poise and either Agile Grace or Two-Weapon Flurry if I understand it correctly. He could also pick Twin Parry, though probably not so much for the +1 AC bonus but for maybe the riposte potential down the road.
On the other hand, a fighter dual-wielding longswords or scimitars would have no reason to pick Agile Grace (obviously) or Graceful Poise, as they would do nothing for him. Two-Weapon Flurry works rather well though and Twin Parry would provide him a +2 AC bonus since neither weapon is agile (at least if I read it correctly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It bothers me that discussions about unlocking Fighter feats for others who want to have build options for various fighting styles always gets met with "Then what will the Fighter have that's unique?"
The 2e Fighter seems to be designed based on the premise of being the "combat feat guy", in a system where everyone is supposed to have tons of build flexibility through a variety of feats. It's like they made it to the party early and hid all the cool feats in their pockets.
I think the Fighter badly needs some baseline class features that don't eat up their feat choices and actions.
I also strongly believe Paizo should unlock prerequisiteless class feats for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a think that you could do with fighter is have them have auto-scaling feats. So like have the feat trees they have now, but then let them get a whole tree when they pick. Give them options for leveraging combat knowledge, like as a press action let them hit to open an enemy up to have resistance reduced, reduce by 3 for self and 1 for others or something that scales up.
If it feels like you have to be a fighter to DO the style then it feels bad. If the fighter gets the style easier, more styles, or some extra perks to the style then it feels the fighter is unique not because he's the only one that can do the style but how he does it.
Like in PF1, fighters, and paladins could all do basic TWF with their class features giving a buff to the style of accuracy and damage, making the style their own. It would feel bad to say that the fighter is only TWF class and the paladin just has to deal because a TWF paladin is not the TWF class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
exactly. the fighter should get an interesting cherry on top--a REASON to pick fighter over others, not being forced to play a fighter because they're the only ones allowed to do that approach in the first place.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Weapon specialization - why reprint that you gain critical specialization for the group you pick to be legendary, when you already have that in ALL weapons from the same ability in the 1st paragraph.
Weapon legend - there's no need to mention critical specialization for all groups, you already get that with weapon specialization.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Brutish Shove - Confusing just like combat grab with enhancement and failure both doing the same thing. In fact enhancement for this is actually WORSE than failure, since your opponent is given the choice to be moved instead of to be flat footed. If you fail, the opponent doesn’t get this choice and is automatically flat footed.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Double shot chain of feats shouldn't only apply to weapons with reload 0. Make them work with weapons without a reload of 1 or higher - that way it can apply to thrown weapons.
Also, need to account for firearms or repeating crossbows in the game later which have a reload, but only after their magazine is empty.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Revealing Stab - The word imperceptible is a) awkward and b) not a game term - it’s not used anywhere else in the core book. This should be changed to be something which is a game term to avoid clarity.
Also, the enhancement doesn’t fully make sense. Why would having a dagger stuck in you make you immobilized? Maybe a longspear, but not a non-reach weapon. Even then, it should at most hamper their movement.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Felling Strike - why would this prevent magical flight, especially if controlled by someone else? And why would it prevent someone else lifting them off the ground, flying them away, or even them climbing? Pretty powerful as it is, knocking them 120 feet down, and making them not able to fly on their own power for a round on a crit.
Is it supposed to be magical somehow?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Slippery Shooter - for triggering attacks of opportunity, what does it mean that it has a range of 5 feet? Does any triggering action within 5 feet trigger the AoO, or do you have a range increment of 5 feet? Seems odd to get that much less accurate for AoOs. It would be a lot mre clear if instead allowed you to make a ranged AoO for triggering actions withing X feet (30, 50, whatever).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Mirror Shield - this shouldn’t be a feat - but a magic item. A disintegrate or scorching ray shouldn’t ever be able to be reflected by metal or wood - and even a laser or actual bolt of light could be reflected by a reflective surface, but why would a wooden shield reflect it?
I really don't care for the lack of single action opening strikes. Other than that, I quite like the fighter this go around.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Brutal finish - so by 12th level you can have a Str of 20 with a +5 bonus - this means on a failure you do +5 damage, but on a success your average damage is 4.5 with a weapon that does 1d8, and while most two handed weapons do 1d10 or 1d12, this is still 5.5 or 6.5 damage on average. Should be for enhancement extra die plus strength bonus extra, to ensure a sufficient difference between success and failure.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Desperate finisher - since reactions are almost always triggered not on your turn, this will work almost all the time, even if you take a reaction. There's a lot of complicated conditions to worry about which are rare in the first place. Should be if you haven’t taken a reaction since your last turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I mentioned this in another thread, but thought I'd bring it up here.
What is up with Two-weapon Flurry?
To begin with, it doesn't stack with Agile Grace (which as mentioned above, doesn't stack well with twin-parry).
Also, what exactly does the feat do? From what I'm reading, you make two strikes, but the prerequisite is that your MAP must already be at -8 or worse. This implies you've already made 2 strikes... so you get to make a 3rd and 4th at the same time with one action?
And why the descriptor "These do not count toward the multiple attack penalty until the second Strike."? If this is my 3rd (and 4th) strike (again, assuming the -8 MAP), why mention another 2nd strike?
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly and am misunderstanding what the feat actually does. But if the purpose of 2E is to make rules more easy to comprehend, the language of this feat doesn't seem to accomplish that.
My thoughts as well - if it doesn't work with agile grace, what's the point?
Also, requirements are weird - how could you wield two weapons without them being in different hands? Is there a way to wield 2 weapons in the same hand? Or is this supposed to prevent use by creatures with tails or tentacles which can wield weapons?